ASIC warns finfluencers of dodgy investment advice spruiked on social media

Australia’s corporate watchdog is cracking down on dodgy finfluencers on social media, joining forces with 16 overseas regulators in a global blitz as more young Australians turn online for investing advice.

While no individual accounts were named, ASIC has issued warning notices to four finfluencers — short for financial influencers — suspected of providing unlicensed financial advice or making misleading claims.

The regulator has also launched reviews into several Australian Financial Services licensees over how they supervise 15 finfluencers operating under their licences.

ASIC commissioner Alan Kirkland said his biggest concern was influencers using social media to encourage people to invest in products such as cryptocurrencies, leveraged derivatives, shares and exchange-traded funds.

“That’s where there’s the greatest risk of harm,” he told The Nightly. “We see finfluencers spruiking investment products, promising higher-than-average or even guaranteed returns, which is an immediate red flag.”

In some cases, he said, finfluencers claim sophisticated technology is behind their success.

“They’ll point to things like artificial intelligence, saying it can trade faster than humans to deliver unusually high returns,” he said.

According to ASIC, other red flags include:

• Promises of fast, easy money, framed as shortcuts rather than realistic investing.
• Personality over substance, using confidence and visuals to build instant trust.
• Hyperbolic claims of success, with little detail, avoiding risks or downside.
• No clear licensing or credentials, making advice hard to verify.
• Urgency and pressure tactics, encouraging quick, impulsive decisions.
• Free content that funnels followers into paid groups or “signals”.

Mr Kirkland said the most problematic behaviour was occurring on video-based platforms such as TikTok and Instagram, though finfluencers could “really pop up anywhere”.

“They target a broad swathe of Australians — both men and women — but many tailor their content specifically to appeal to younger audiences,” he said.

That concern is backed by ASIC’s Moneysmart research, which shows 63 per cent of Gen Z Australians aged 18 to 28 rely on social media for financial information.

More than half say they somewhat or completely trust financial information found on social media (56 per cent) and from finfluencers (52 per cent).

Mr Kirkland said finfluencing itself was not illegal, as long as it doesn’t cross into financial advice.

Influencers must legally hold an AFS licence, or be authorised to operate under one, if they want to give personal financial advice or promote specific financial products. That’s because licensed advisers must take a person’s individual circumstances into account.

By contrast, general financial advice, such as broad recommendations that don’t consider personal circumstances, and factual financial information do not require a licence and can be legally shared online.

“We’re seeing young people, and indeed all consumers, look for information from a growing range of sources. And there’s nothing wrong with that,” Mr Kirkland said.

“But if you’re making major financial decisions such as how to invest your money or manage your superannuation, you should be cautious about who you rely on.”

Providing financial advice without a licence can attract penalties of up to five years’ jail or fines up to $1 million. But penalties for licence holders can go even higher.

ASIC said it expects licensees that authorise finfluencers to have adequate, documented arrangements in place to actively supervise their conduct, and to maintain records of that supervision.

“Licensees remain responsible and liable for what their representatives say and do online,” Mr Kirkland said.

“We expect active supervision, not a set-and-forget approach.”

Mr Kirkland warned consumers that following advice from unlicensed influencers also means giving up important legal protections.

“If you receive bad advice from someone who is licensed or authorised, it’s your right to complain to the Australian Financial Complaints Authority and potentially access compensation,” he said.

“That’s not the case when you take advice from someone who isn’t authorised.”

Mr Kirkland said ASIC’s most recent action focused on finfluencers operating in Australia, where the regulator has the strongest enforcement powers.

The crackdown forms part of the second global week of action against unlawful finfluencers.

“Each of us has taken action based on what we found in our own jurisdiction and the legal powers we have. But the key is that it’s coordinated internationally.”

He said finfluencing was a global problem, with content often crossing national borders.

“We want to send a strong message to influencers, wherever they may be, that they must comply with the laws in the countries they’re operating in,” he said.

ASIC said it continued to monitor overseas-based influencers targeting Australians and would issue warnings or refer matters to foreign regulators where appropriate.

“Sometimes it’s not entirely clear where a finfluencer is operating from,” Mr Kirkland said. “But that doesn’t stop us from warning them, and where we believe someone may be breaking the law offshore, we have strong relationships with regulators globally to refer those matters.”

ASIC says previous action has already forced changes. Following action against 18 suspected unlawful finfluencers in 2025, the watchdog said several became authorised representatives, others changed their content or stopped targeting Australian consumers, while offshore operators remain under scrutiny.

“We are seeing an impact from our action, but we are also very clear that if we see serious breaches of the law, we’re happy to take really serious action, like we’ve done in the past.”