Big Tech feels the heat as finfluencers run riot

LONDON — Rolex-clad men sit in front of pools and private jets imparting financial wisdom, guaranteeing millions to those who invest little more than their spare change.

Glitzy restaurant-goers promise insider information that the shadowy elite wants to keep secret.

Welcome to the world of “finfluencers” — social media stars with vast followings on TikTok, Instagram, Facebook and YouTube who offer investment advice and promises of untold wealth to those in the know.

Britain’s politicians are increasingly concerned about the trend, worried that unreliable financial influencers will tempt members of the public — bedazzled by the promise of a glamorous life — to squander their savings.

And they’ve got reason to be fearful. According to Barclays, four in 10 young people now get their investment advice from finfluencers, with TikTok the most popular platform among Gen-Z.

Finfluencers offer questionable results. A 2025 paper by the Swiss Finance Institute found most finfluencers are not only unskilled in promoting investment opportunities that make money, they’re “anti-skilled,” with largely negative returns from their recommendations. The researchers found 56 percent of the sample of finfluencers they assessed could be defined as “anti-skilled,” and only 28 percent “skilled,” or leading to positive returns.

Despite this, the paper found anti-skilled and unskilled finfluencers have more followers, more activity and more influence than their skilled counterparts.

“There’s a risk for consumers in terms of understanding the quality of the advice, because if you’re getting financial advice from a bank or a financial adviser, you will have some confidence that they’ve been regulated. But if it’s from an influencer, it’s harder to tell,” said Rachel Blake, the Labour MP for the City of London and Westminster, who sits on the House of Commons Treasury Committee.

Many online accounts are sharing insights and advice with followers legitimately, and are not breaking any laws. But those promoting products or services are likely to be doing so illegally and without authorization, as providing financial advice in the U.K. is heavily regulated. Communicating unauthorized financial promotions can land someone in jail for up to two years — although the City watchdog wants to increase this to five years — and an unlimited fine.

Given the online nature of such content, it’s an international problem, but the U.K.’s City watchdog, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), is attempting to take the lead in cracking down on the wannabe advisers. Last month it held an international “week of action” with policymakers from five other countries with the goal “to protect social media users from illegal financial promotions by rogue finfluencers.”

Unable to police what ends up online, the FCA is wholly reliant on Big Tech firms for help in removing the content. But a request to take down a post or video can take as long as six weeks, the FCA told MPs on the Treasury Committee in an April hearing — by which point a video can rack up millions of views and an erroneous investment may have already been made.

“It’s very, very, very disappointing. We would really like tech companies to do more,” said Beth Harris, head of financial crime at the FCA, in an interview. She said all tech companies could improve but “Meta is the worst.”

“If we can see this content, they can see it too. They should be policing this,” she said. Harris said that the watchdog wants Big Tech firms to do more proactive work to take down content, rather than just responding to requests by the FCA. 

“It’s really wrong and worrying that it takes so long,” said Blake. “We know that it can take up to six weeks. So just imagine how much harm that could cause to the consumer.”

MPs on the Treasury Committee have opened an inquiry into finfluencers and grilled FCA officials. They’ve written to Rebecca Stimson, Meta’s U.K. director of public policy, asking her to set out why it has taken the company so long to respond to takedown requests from the FCA, and to set out the number of days that posts remain online after the regulator has requested they be removed.  

Stimson was told to reply to the committee by June 20. That deadline has been and gone, and when asked by POLITICO whether a response had been sent, neither party would confirm.

Kim Kardashian meets finreg

Authorities have had some limited success in cracking down on unregulated financial advice. Rarely have financial regulators received so much press than when celebrity Kim Kardashian was handed a $1.26 million fine by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in 2022, after telling her 250 million Instagram followers to invest in a risky cryptocurrency without disclosing she was paid $250,000 to do so.

This side of the pond, the FCA has already charged seven reality TV stars, including some from shows The Only Way is Essex and Love Island, for illegally promoting financial products. In October, it interviewed 20 finfluencers under caution. In June the watchdog announced it had made three arrests and authorized criminal proceedings against three individuals, and issued 50 warning alerts and seven cease and desist letters.

But amid an endless stream of financial content, the regulator acknowledges it will struggle unless Big Tech starts to take a firmer stance. 

“We only have voluntary powers, we don’t have the power to make [Big Tech take down content],” Harris says. “We do really rely on the Big Tech firms working well with us.”

Part of what makes the problem so tricky for regulators to solve is that many finfluencers are based around the world and difficult to trace. “The first problem you’ve always got, in a world where so much of this is enabled by the internet, is jurisdiction,” said Jonathan Frost, a director at BioWatch, and formerly of the City of London Police, who specializes in fraud. 

“The platforms themselves should be policing this issue. Arguably, they’re in the privileged position of having the data to do so. And really, enforcement should be a last resort,” he added. 

But even when Big Tech responds to takedown requests, the content can simply appear again if social media firms are not actively policing what goes on their platforms. Harris said the FCA found that 55 percent of the adverts Meta had taken down after a request by the watchdog popped up again, with either identical or almost identical content.

A Meta spokesperson said: “There was an isolated incident in late 2024 which resulted in a delay in actioning a small number of reports from the FCA. This was rectified and all other relevant reports made by the FCA have been promptly processed.”

Internationally, the global securities watchdog IOSCO has recommended regulators take actions including: Fines, revoking licenses, issuing cease-and-desist orders, and publicizing enforcement actions to deter non-compliance. But the standard-setter has no direct legal powers and relies on national policymakers to put in place relevant laws and coordinate.

Some public bodies appear to be taking the “if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em” mentality. Bank of England Governor Andrew Bailey now gives interviews to TikTok finance personalities in an effort to reach Gen-Z individuals, most recently speaking to a group of social media influencers after the central bank’s interest rate decision on May 8.

For those in the traditional financial services space, it highlights a wider problem of a financial advice gap. If people don’t know where to turn to for financial advice, they’re more likely to sit up when it appears directly in front of them on their screens.

The FCA published new rules in June which redefine the “advice guidance boundary,” and are designed to allow financial services firms to offer more advice to groups of savers. This is welcome news for customers “desperate for advice,” Jayne Opperman, CEO consumer relationships at Lloyds Banking Group, told a UK Finance conference in London on June 24.

“Customers do want advice. They do want guidance. We know that a lot of our customers turn to social media and influencers who are motivated to get them to invest in dubious products and services, and then we have to deal with the consequences of that and try and help them get out of it,” she said.