Is It Illegal to Buy Followers? The FTC Rule Explained

You've got a brand call on Thursday. Your account is real, your audience is real, but it's 2,000 followers and the creator they worked with last month had 40,000. A follower package costs less than the dinner you'll have after the call. Then someone in a group chat drops a screenshot: "buying followers is illegal now, the FTC banned it." Your thumb hovers over the checkout button and you genuinely don't know whether you're about to do something lazy or something unlawful.

That uncertainty is fair, because most of what gets posted about this is half right. The US Federal Trade Commission did adopt a rule in 2024 that covers fake followers. It also wrote that rule with specific limits, and those limits decide whether it applies to you.

This guide reads the actual text: what 16 CFR 465.8 says word for word, the four conditions that must line up, who it covers, the penalties, how platform rules differ from the law, and what other places say. Full disclosure: LitFame runs an SMM panel, so we have skin in this game, which is exactly why this guide sticks to the text. It isn't legal advice. If real money or a real contract depends on the answer, talk to a lawyer where you live.

The short answer

In the United States, since 21 October 2024, buying followers can break a federal rule if all of these are true:

• the followers are fake as the rule defines it, meaning bots, fake or hijacked accounts, or activity that doesn't reflect a real person,
• you knew or should have known they were fake,
• they materially misrepresent your influence or importance, and
• that misrepresentation is for a commercial purpose.

If you're using the numbers to win brand deals, clients, investors or sales, the rule is aimed squarely at you. If you bought a few hundred followers for your personal account with no commercial angle at all, the FTC said in its own rulemaking that people not acting for a commercial purpose are excluded. And separately from the law, every major platform bans fake engagement in its own terms, with its own penalties.

This is civil law. The rule gives the FTC a faster path to court and to civil penalties. It doesn't create a crime, and the FTC's own guidance confirms there's no private right of action, meaning an individual can't sue you under this rule.

Where the rule came from

The FTC announced its final Trade Regulation Rule on the Use of Consumer Reviews and Testimonials on 14 August 2024. It was published in the Federal Register on 22 August 2024 and took effect on 21 October 2024. It lives at 16 CFR Part 465. The FTC adopted it under Section 18 of the FTC Act, which lets the Commission write rules that define specific unfair or deceptive practices.

Most of Part 465 deals with reviews and testimonials: fake reviews, buying positive or negative sentiment, insider reviews, company-controlled review sites and review suppression. We cover those sections in our guide on whether buying Google reviews is legal. This article sticks to the one section about social media numbers, Section 465.8.

The idea wasn't new. In January 2019, the New York Attorney General announced a settlement with Devumi, a company that sold followers, likes and views from bot and sock-puppet accounts. The NY AG described it as the first finding by a law enforcement agency that selling fake social media engagement is illegal deception. In October 2019, the FTC settled what it called its first-ever complaint challenging the sale of fake indicators of social media influence, also against Devumi and its owner. The FTC alleged Devumi filled more than 58,000 orders for fake Twitter followers and sold fake YouTube subscribers and views, fake LinkedIn followers and more. The order banned the defendants from selling social media influence and imposed a $2.5 million judgment on the owner, suspended once he paid $250,000. Those cases were brought under the general ban on deception in Section 5 of the FTC Act. The 2024 rule writes that theory down as a specific prohibition.

The exact text of Section 465.8

Here is the section in full, as published in the eCFR:

"It is an unfair or deceptive act or practice and a violation of this part for anyone to: (a) Sell or distribute fake indicators of social media influence that they knew or should have known to be fake and that can be used by individuals or businesses to materially misrepresent their influence or importance for a commercial purpose; or (b) Purchase or procure fake indicators of social media influence that they knew or should have known to be fake and that materially misrepresent their influence or importance for a commercial purpose."

Three definitions in Section 465.1 do a lot of the work:

• Indicators of social media influence means "any metrics used by the public to make assessments of an individual's or entity's social media influence, such as followers, friends, connections, subscribers, views, plays, likes, saves, shares, reposts, and comments."
• Fake indicators of social media influence means indicators "generated by bots, purported individual accounts not associated with a real individual, accounts created with a real individual's personal information without their consent, or hijacked accounts, or that otherwise do not reflect a real individual's or entity's activities, opinions, findings, or experiences."
• Distribute fake indicators of social media influence means distributing them "to individuals or businesses who could use the indicators to misrepresent their influence."

Notice how wide the first list is. It goes well beyond followers. Views, plays, saves, shares and comments are all named, and the FTC said in the final rule that the list is a set of examples and deliberately non-exhaustive, so new metrics don't need a rule change. Spotify plays and TikTok views are covered the same way Instagram followers are.

The four conditions, one at a time

1. The indicators have to be fake

The definition targets bots, fake accounts, accounts made with stolen identities, hijacked accounts, and anything else that doesn't reflect a real person's or entity's activity. In the final rule, the FTC gave two examples that fall outside it. If an influencer recommends that their followers also follow another account, the resulting followers of that second account are not fake. And a company that awards a legitimate badge or indicator based on objective criteria isn't selling fake indicators even if bad actors fool it.

One commenter during the rulemaking asked the FTC to drop the word "fake" so the rule would cover any purchased engagement, including from real accounts. The FTC declined, saying that incentivized engagement is not necessarily deceptive in all cases and that it's beyond the scope of this rulemaking. That's an important limit, and also a gray area: the line between a real person who was paid to follow and engagement that "otherwise do[es] not reflect a real individual's or entity's activities" isn't spelled out for every scenario.

2. You knew or should have known

The proposed rule had no knowledge requirement. After comments, the FTC added "that they knew or should have known to be fake" to both halves of the section. Its reasoning, in the final rule: someone could pay for what they believe is a real promotional campaign while the vendor secretly delivers fake followers.

FTC staff repeat this in their Q&A: if your business paid a third party to grow followers and the company lied and supplied fake ones, "you wouldn't be liable unless there were some red flags that should have tipped you off that the followers were fake." The practical problem is that buying "5,000 followers for $20, delivered in 24 hours" is itself a pretty bright red flag. "Should have known" is judged by what a reasonable person would have concluded from the offer.

3. The misrepresentation has to be material

The FTC added materiality to both paragraphs in the final rule, to match the rest of Part 465. In FTC law, a material claim is one likely to affect someone's decision. A brand choosing which creator to sponsor based on follower count is the textbook example. A handful of fake likes on a meme post that nobody relies on for anything is much harder to describe as material.

4. It has to be for a commercial purpose

This is the condition most people skip. The rule doesn't define "commercial purpose", but the FTC explained its thinking when it rejected a request to narrow the seller provision. It said anyone who obtains fake indicators is misrepresenting their social media influence, and then: "While some individuals may not be doing so for a commercial purpose, those individuals are excluded from the rule's scope."

So the personal, non-commercial buyer sits outside the rule. The open question is where commercial starts. A creator in a partner program, an influencer selling sponsorships, a musician selling tickets and merch, a freelancer pitching clients and a small brand selling products all look commercial on any ordinary reading. If your account makes or seeks money, assume the commercial condition is met.

Who the rule applies to

Section 465.8 says "anyone", so it reaches individuals as well as companies. It splits that into sellers and buyers.

Sellers and distributors are covered by paragraph (a), which reaches fake indicators that "can be used" to misrepresent influence for a commercial purpose. Commenters asked the FTC to narrow it to indicators that "are used" that way. The FTC refused, saying it is unreasonable to posit that no buyers of fake indicators would use them for a commercial purpose. In other words, a seller can't defend itself by claiming all its customers were hobbyists.

Buyers are covered by paragraph (b), with the four conditions above. The FTC said "procure" carries its ordinary meaning of obtaining something, so trading for fake engagement or getting it free counts too.

Agencies and middlemen aren't immune. FTC staff guidance says advertising agencies, PR firms, review brokers and reputation management companies could be liable under Section 465.8 if they misuse fake indicators.

That table is our reading of the rule text and FTC guidance. Courts haven't applied 465.8 yet, so treat it as a guide to the logic of the rule.

What the rule does not cover

Knowing the edges keeps you from both panic and overconfidence.

• Non-commercial personal use. Excluded, per the FTC's own explanation, though the line is undefined.
• Real people. Followers who are real people choosing to follow you aren't fake under the definition. The FTC also declined to bring all incentivized real engagement into this rule.
• Hidden metrics. A commenter asked the FTC to cover engagement metrics that aren't publicly visible but help with the algorithm. The FTC said those were outside the scope of the rulemaking. The definition only covers metrics "used by the public."
• Creating a bot by itself. The FTC said the rule targets the use of a bot or fake account to follow another user, watch their videos or otherwise create fake influence. Setting up the account is a separate matter this section leaves alone.
• Brands that hire influencers with fake followers. Not liable under 465.8 for that alone, according to FTC staff.
• Lawsuits from individuals. No private right of action under the rule.

Two cautions. First, the rule sits on top of the existing FTC Act, which already banned deceptive practices before 2024, and that's the theory the FTC used against Devumi. Falling outside 465.8 doesn't make deceptive conduct lawful. Second, state laws exist too: the New York Devumi settlement relied on New York's own laws against fraud, false advertising and impersonation.

Penalties, and how enforcement actually works

The rule matters mainly because of money. Under Section 5(m)(1)(A) of the FTC Act, someone who violates a trade regulation rule with actual knowledge, or knowledge fairly implied from objective circumstances, that the conduct is unfair or deceptive and prohibited by the rule can be liable for civil penalties for each violation. That's a higher bar than the "knew or should have known" test that makes conduct a violation in the first place.

The maximum per violation is adjusted for inflation. The FTC's January 2025 adjustment raised it from $51,744 to $53,088, and when the FTC warned 10 companies about possible violations of the rule in December 2025, it cited civil penalties of up to $53,088 per violation. The Office of Management and Budget cancelled the 2026 inflation adjustments across federal agencies, so the 2025 figure still applies at the time of writing. When the rule was finalized, the FTC was careful to note that courts must weigh statutory factors, may impose much lower per-violation amounts, and decide how violations are counted.

Be wary of posts claiming "$50,000 per fake follower". The figure is a statutory maximum per violation, and the FTC itself has said courts decide how violations are counted and may impose much lower amounts.

On enforcement so far: in December 2025, FTC staff sent warning letters to 10 companies about possible violations of the Consumer Review Rule. The FTC's announcement described the rule's provisions, including the one on misusing indicators of social media influence like follower or view counts, but didn't name the companies or say which provisions each letter concerned. The letters aren't formal findings of a violation. At the time of writing, we couldn't find a reported court decision applying Section 465.8 specifically.

Realistically, both Devumi cases went after a seller operating at scale, and a solo creator looks like a far less attractive target than a vendor selling bot engagement by the thousand. A lower chance of FTC attention still leaves plenty of other risk. A creator who misleads a brand about reach can face a pulled contract or a demand for money back, with no regulator involved at all.

Platform rules are a separate system

Even where the law doesn't reach you, platform terms do. Terms of service are a contract between you and the platform, and platforms enforce them directly and sometimes in court.

• Instagram's Community Guidelines ask users to help keep the platform spam-free "by not artificially collecting likes, followers, or shares."
• YouTube's fake engagement policy bans anything that artificially increases views, likes, comments or other metrics through automated systems, and warns that artificial traffic won't be counted and can lead to strikes.
• Meta has sued sellers. In 2019, Facebook sued a New Zealand company, Social Media Series Ltd., alleging it used bots and Instagram accounts to sell fake likes, views and followers, and claimed violations of Instagram's terms, the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and California law.

For buyers, platform consequences are usually removals of fake accounts and, less often, restrictions on your own account. We go through the realistic odds in our honest breakdown of whether buying Instagram followers is safe, so we won't repeat it here. And if you're trying to judge whether an account you're about to pay is padded with bots, our guide to spotting real vs fake followers lays out the signals.

Outside the United States, briefly

We've kept this to rules we could source directly.

European Union. The Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, as amended by Directive (EU) 2019/2161, adds point 23c to its blacklist of practices banned in all circumstances: "Submitting or commissioning another legal or natural person to submit false consumer reviews or endorsements, or misrepresenting consumer reviews or social endorsements, in order to promote products." Recital 49 of the amending directive spells out that traders should be prohibited from submitting fake consumer reviews and endorsements, "such as 'likes' on social media," or commissioning others to do so. It applies to traders promoting products to consumers, and each member state sets its own penalties and enforcement.

United Kingdom. The Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 made submitting or commissioning fake reviews a banned practice, with the consumer provisions in force from 6 April 2025 and direct fining powers for the Competition and Markets Authority. The CMA's fake reviews guidance focuses on consumer reviews and review information. We couldn't find a passage in it that addresses bought followers directly, so we won't claim the UK has an equivalent of 465.8.

Everywhere else, check local consumer protection law, and treat confident claims online about your country with suspicion unless they cite the actual statute.

A practical checklist for creators and small brands

Here's our common-sense reading of the rule for people who earn money online. Treat it as general information and get advice for your own situation.

• Never put inflated numbers in a pitch. Media kits, rate cards, investor decks and client proposals are where a fake count becomes a material, commercial misrepresentation.
• Lead with first-party analytics. Expect a serious brand to ask for screenshots of insights such as reach, audience location and engagement. Real numbers you can prove beat a big follower count that collapses under scrutiny. Our guide on how to monetize a social media following covers what brands actually check.
• Vet any growth vendor. Ask where the engagement comes from. Offers that are impossibly cheap and instant are the red flags the "should have known" test cares about.
• Keep records. If you hire an agency, keep written instructions and their written answers about sourcing. It's your best evidence that you didn't know.
• If you bought followers in the past, stop citing those totals in commercial materials, consider cleaning out obvious bot accounts, and quote engagement and reach figures you can stand behind.
• When stakes are real, ask a lawyer. A brand contract with audience warranties or an investment round is the moment for professional advice.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is it illegal to buy followers in the US?

It can be. Since 21 October 2024, 16 CFR 465.8 makes it a violation to buy or procure fake followers that you knew or should have known were fake and that materially misrepresent your influence for a commercial purpose. The FTC said people not acting for a commercial purpose are excluded. It's a civil rule the FTC enforces in court, with penalties for knowing violations.

Can I be fined for buying followers on my personal account?

Under the FTC rule, unlikely. In the final rule, the FTC wrote that individuals who obtain fake indicators but aren't doing so for a commercial purpose are excluded from the rule's scope. Platform rules still apply to everyone, so a personal account can still lose fake followers or face restrictions under Instagram, TikTok or YouTube policies.

What is the maximum FTC penalty for buying fake followers?

Civil penalties for knowing violations of an FTC rule can reach $53,088 per violation, the figure the FTC cited in its December 2025 warning letters, after the 2026 inflation adjustment was cancelled. Penalties require actual or fairly implied knowledge, and courts weigh statutory factors and decide how violations are counted, often landing far below the maximum.

Does the FTC rule cover buying views and likes too?

Yes. The rule defines indicators of social media influence as any metrics the public uses to judge influence, and lists followers, friends, connections, subscribers, views, plays, likes, saves, shares, reposts and comments as examples. The same four conditions apply: fake, knowing, material and commercial.

Am I liable if an agency secretly bought fake followers for my brand?

FTC staff guidance says a business that paid for a promotional campaign and was lied to by the vendor wouldn't be liable unless there were red flags that should have tipped it off. Keep written records of what you asked for and what the agency told you about sourcing, since that shows what you knew.

Is buying followers illegal in the UK or EU?

In the EU, the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive bans traders from submitting or commissioning false consumer endorsements, and its recital names likes on social media as an example. The UK's DMCC Act bans fake reviews, but we couldn't find CMA guidance addressing bought followers directly. Check local law if you sell to consumers there.

Can someone sue me for having fake followers?

Not under the FTC rule, which the FTC confirms has no private right of action. Other routes can still exist, such as a brand suing over a contract where you warranted your audience was genuine, or state consumer protection laws. Platforms have also sued sellers of fake engagement directly.