Undisclosed paid influencers

How it works

An influencer’s whole value is that you trust them like a friend. A paid post with a label (“#ad”, “paid partnership”) spends a little of that trust openly. An undisclosed paid post spends it secretly: the creator reads a script, you hear a friend’s honest opinion, and whoever paid stays invisible.

The commercial version is old and mostly illegal. EU consumer law and most national advertising rules require sponsored content to be labelled, and regulators from the UK to Hungary have gone after creators and brands for skipping it. The political version is newer and uglier, because the “product” is a belief.

Two documented cases show the shape. In 2021 a marketing agency called Fazze offered European health and science YouTubers money to tell their audiences that the Pfizer vaccine was dangerous, with a briefing that supplied the talking points and asked them not to mention a sponsor. Several creators went public instead; Meta later removed the network and linked it to people in Russia. In 2024 the US Department of Justice indicted two employees of RT, the Russian state broadcaster, for secretly funnelling nearly ten million dollars through a Tennessee company, Tenet Media, that paid well-known American commentators for videos. The commentators said they had no idea where the money came from.

The tell in both cases is the same: unrelated creators with the same message, the same week, in suspiciously similar words, because they are reading the same brief. One person’s opinion is an opinion. Six people’s identical opinion on the same Tuesday is a campaign.

Example

A lifestyle creator, a fitness creator and a parenting creator, same afternoon:

@dani.lifts, 6h Honestly didn’t expect to say this but the ministry’s new youth housing programme is the first thing that actually helps people my age. Did my research. Not political, just facts.

@zsofi.home, 5h Not political, just facts: the new youth housing programme is the first thing in years that actually helps people our age. Did my research.

@runwithlili, 5h did my research and… the youth housing programme is actually the first thing that helps people my age? not political, just facts.

@kata_asks, 3h Three creators, one afternoon, the same four phrases. Is this a paid partnership? Who’s the client?

None of the three replied. By the evening the posts were gone. The programme might be good or bad; that is not what just happened on your feed.

Why it works on you

• Parasocial trust. You have watched this person cook dinner for three years. Your brain filed them under “friend”, and friends do not read scripts. See authority bias.
• It slips past the ad reflex. You skip ads automatically. “Just my opinion” goes straight through the filter.
• It fakes a consensus. Three independent voices feel like a trend (see astroturfing). They are not independent.

What to do

When a creator surprises you: ask whether this is their lane. A gaming streamer with sudden detailed views on a sanctions package is either having a strange week or reading a brief. Search the key phrase in quotes. If it shows up word for word elsewhere today, you have your answer.

When you catch yourself nodding along: separate the person from the claim. You can like the creator and still ask where this came from and who benefits.

In a comment section: ask about disclosure, politely and publicly. “Is this sponsored?” is a fair question with a legal answer. Honest creators say yes; the ones who delete the post have answered too.

Don’t confuse it with

• Labelled sponsorship. “#ad” or “paid partnership” is a creator paying the rent. That is the system working.
• Genuine opinions. Creators are allowed politics. The problem is hidden money and shared scripts, not having a view.
• Native ads are the same trick done by publishers instead of people. See native ads posing as articles.