The rule.
The MiCA text does not single out influencers by name. Instead, ESMA’s 2024 Guidelines on marketing communications under MiCA confirm that a paid KOL post is a marketing communication and inherits every obligation that applies to a brand-published one — identifiability, fairness, clarity, non-misleading, risk-prominence parity, and whitepaper consistency.
“Any communication made by a third party that is paid for, instructed, or otherwise controlled by the offeror, person seeking admission to trading, or crypto-asset service provider, and that is addressed to clients or potential clients with the purpose of promoting the crypto-asset, the public offer, the admission to trading, or the crypto-asset service, constitutes a marketing communication for the purposes of Article 7, 29, 53 and 88 of Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 and is subject to the requirements thereof.”
The HTX enforcement action in February 2026 confirmed the practical reach: KOL contracts with quantified yield claims and no risk-parity treatment are non-compliant, and the CASP — not just the KOL — is on the hook.
What it requires.
Four operational obligations.
Identification as paid. Every KOL post produced under a commercial arrangement must disclose the commercial relationship in a way the audience cannot miss. “#ad,” “Paid partnership with [brand],” or the native platform label for sponsored content. Burying the disclosure in a thread or comment fails.
Substantiation of claims. Quantified claims made by the KOL must be backed by the same evidence base as brand-published claims. A KOL saying “up to 24% APY” doesn’t insulate the brand from the same Article 88 obligation.
Risk parity in the post itself. If a 60-second video promises a yield, the same video has to contain the proportionate risk treatment. Linking to a separate disclosure page does not satisfy parity.
Brand liability. The CASP or issuer that funded the campaign is responsible for the content. “The KOL said it, not us” is not a defense.
Common violations.
Tweet 1/8: “Just moved my portfolio to [exchange]. 18% APY on USDT. Game-changer.”
Tweet 8/8: “#ad”
The disclosure is at the end of an eight-post thread. Many readers will see tweet 1 in isolation. Fails identification.
Video: “3 reasons [exchange] is the best place to earn on stablecoins.”
Description: “Risks at [link].”
The risk treatment is offloaded to a click-through. Not present in the visual frame where the benefit claim is made. Fails risk parity. Also fails identification if “Paid partnership” label is missing.
Contract: “Talent will mention ‘up to 24% yield’ in three of five required posts. Payment $X per post.”
The contract itself bakes in a non-compliant claim. Brand-side procurement signed an arrangement that fails Article 88 by design. Standard finding in KOL-program audits.
How to comply.
Require KOLs to use the native paid-partnership label on every platform that has one (Instagram, TikTok, YouTube, X). “#ad” in caption is the fallback, not the primary.
Every yield, APY, return, or benefit claim in the post must be accompanied by the matching risk statement in the same frame. For video, this means on-screen text or spoken disclosure in the same segment as the benefit claim.
KOL contracts should specify approved claim language drawn from the whitepaper, not target metrics like “mention up to X% yield.” Pre-approved talking points beat post-hoc takedown requests.
Every KOL deliverable goes through brand compliance review before going live. Build the review window into the contract timeline. If the platform allows scheduled posts, use them; live-streamed KOL content is the highest-risk category.
Related rules.
-
The headline rule. KOL content inherits every Article 88 obligation.
-
The risk-parity rule applies to KOL content frame-by-frame.
-
KOL claims must match the underlying whitepaper, not the brand’s preferred marketing framing.