.jpg)
In influencer marketing, scams are often discussed from the creators’ perspective, but brands are equally vulnerable. Experts advise that influencer collaborations be managed like procurement processes, with strict checks at every stage. A recent study by influencer marketing agency Fame Keeda shows that scams targeting brands occur in nearly one out of every three cases, compared to those involving influencer-side fraud. According to Krisneil Peres, Co-Founder of Fame Keeda, brands face three main categories of fraud: impersonation, engagement manipulation, and content delivery failures. “Fraudsters create fake influencer profiles or clone agency identities to pocket fees. Some use bots to inflate metrics, while others take advance payments or products and then disappear. Simple paperwork, trial runs, and vetting past collaborations prevent such cases,” Peres told e4m. He added that impersonation scams are often carried out by affiliate marketers posing as well-known labels to trick creators into buying products. Similarly, fake influencer managers or impersonated accounts have become common, particularly in non-face channels. “We typically see one brand-impersonation scam for every 3–5 creator-side fraud attempts. A proper operations stack reduces both numbers,” Peres noted. Sources close to Dot Media shared, “Dot Media has filed a defamation case against the designer for deliberately leaking the personal contact details of two female employees. In a reckless attempt to malign the agency’s reputation, the designer has put the safety and privacy of these women at serious risk. The agency had already taken strict internal action against the individual responsible for the initial issue and was actively working to resolve the matter responsibly when this incident occurred.”
Small Businesses Losing Out
For smaller brands and designers, such scams are more damaging. Designer Smita Shrinivas, founder of Smita Shrinivas Fashion, alleged that Bigg Boss 18 contestant Kashish Kapoor scammed her of Rs 85,000. “This isn’t just about one green couture gown. It’s about how small designers get exploited in the name of collaboration and exposure,” she said. Smita explained that Dot Media Agency, which manages Kashish, took her gown despite specific size instructions. The outfit was returned in a ruined state—wet, dusty, and crumpled. When asked for compensation, the agency agreed on Rs 40,000 but failed to pay, and later suggested a “social media shoutout” as settlement. Dot Media Agency declined to comment. Similarly, August by Dakshita reported being ghosted by influencer Mayuri Madhav after a custom outfit was delivered. “We customized the design to her specifications, but she disappeared after receiving it. With no legal recourse, we sought public support to report her account,” the label said.
PR Packages and Ghosting
The issue is not limited to couture. Anoushka M. Kabre, Founder of Glosious, a premium beauty store, said her brand was ghosted after sending PR packages. “In July, we sent our new lip gloss shades to influencers. One of them stopped replying after receiving it but was actively posting other content. We never heard back,” she said. Weaving Homes, a home décor brand with over 60,000 customers, also alleged being exploited by a television actress. “She approached us for a collaboration. We sent her 9–10 products in exchange for a reel. She posted one story but never delivered the promised reel,” the brand told e4m. Instances of influencer-on-influencer fraud are also emerging. YouTuber and Bigg Boss OTT 2 winner Elvish Yadav recently shared that his team paid an influencer for a promotion that never materialised. “We asked her to complete the work or return the money, but she blocked us. Later we discovered others had similar complaints,” he said.
Why Brands Remain Silent
Unlike influencers, who often call out delayed payments publicly, brands tend to remain quiet when scammed. “Small-ticket scams are written off as losses of Rs 25,000–50,000. Many brands fear reputational harm or don’t have the resources for legal action. This silence allows scammers to continue unchecked,” Peres explained. He further shared how agencies play a key role in mitigating risk. “We set ground rules, use contracts that bind both parties, and create escrow-style payment systems where money is cleared only after content goes live. If a creator has ghosted before, they don’t enter our network,” Peres added. The imbalance is evident. Influencers can mobilise their audience against brands over late payments, but brands have limited options when creators default. For now, contracts, verified contacts, and agency oversight remain the most effective safeguards.
Experts suggest that managing influencer partnerships carefully is essential, with thorough checks at every step to ensure authenticity and minimise risks. This starts with verifying the individual—whether brand or creator—through KYC and bank verification, matching handles to IDs, and working only via official emails. Audience checks are equally critical, using bot audits, follower-spike alerts, and relevance tests to ensure genuine reach. A clear brief covering SKUs, claims guardrails, disclosures, creative boundaries, and revision limits helps reduce disputes. Payments should follow milestone-based releases through escrow, from draft approval to live posting. Independent tracking via UTM links, unique codes, and post-purchase surveys ensures performance is tied to sales rather than likes. Quality control measures, such as reviewing files before posting and archiving unlisted links from official handles, safeguard content integrity. Finally, robust contracts with e-signatures, usage rights, takedown clauses, and legal provisions provide a formal safety net against fraud.
.jpg)
.jpg)
