Should Influencers be legally liable for misinformation?

Abstract

Social media influencers — individuals with large online followings who shape public opinion across health, finance, politics, and lifestyle domains — operate in a regulatory environment that lags significantly behind their societal impact. This article examines whether influencers should be held legally liable for spreading misinformation, drawing on peer-reviewed empirical studies, existing legal frameworks, and comparative international regulation. Evidence suggests that influencer-driven misinformation carries measurable public health and consumer harm: studies indicate that only 2.1% of TikTok nutrition content aligns with public health guidelines, and nearly one in five Americans trust health influencers over medical professionals. Current frameworks — including the U.S. Federal Trade Commission's Endorsement Guides, France's Law No. 2023-451, and the EU's Digital Services Act — address commercial deception but do not comprehensively regulate organic misinformation. Arguments favouring liability emphasise documented harm and the profit motive behind false content; counter-arguments invoke free speech protections, definitional ambiguity, and cross-jurisdictional enforcement challenges. This article concludes that a tiered, sector-specific liability framework — complemented by platform co-responsibility and international coordination — offers the most proportionate path to accountability without suppressing legitimate discourse.