Finfluencers Beware: Canada’s Securities Regulators Bring Social Media Investment Advice Under the Spotlight 

On December 11, 2025, the Canadian Securities Administrators (CSA) and the Canadian Investment Regulatory Organization (CIRO) released Joint Staff Notice 31-369, their first comprehensive guidance on how Canadian securities laws apply to financial influencers— or “finfluencers.” Although framed as guidance rather than new law, the message is unmistakable: social media does not exist outside Canada’s securities regulatory framework. 

For years, financial influencers have flourished on platforms such as YouTube, TikTok, Instagram, X, Discord, and Telegram. Many have attracted hundreds of thousands of followers by explaining investment concepts in accessible language or sharing their own investing experiences. The regulators acknowledge that this phenomenon has had positive effects. Finfluencers have helped democratize financial education, particularly among younger Canadians who increasingly obtain financial information online rather than through traditional financial institutions.The regulators are equally concerned, however, about the risks. 

The Staff Notice identifies misleading information, undisclosed conflicts of interest, promotion of speculative investments, and “pump-and-dump” schemes as recurring concerns. Retail investors often cannot distinguish between unbiased commentary and paid promotion, particularly where influencers present themselves as ordinary investors simply sharing personal opinions.

Existing Law, Not New Law 

One of the most important aspects of the Notice is what it does not do. 

The CSA and CIRO are not creating a new regulatory regime for social media. Instead, they emphasize that existing securities legislation already governs these activities. The method of communication is irrelevant. Whether investment advice is delivered through a newspaper column, television interview, TikTok video, podcast, Discord server, or AI generated avatar, the same legal principles apply. This technology-neutral approach reflects a long-standing principle of securities regulation: investor protection depends on the substance of the activity, not the platform used to deliver it. 

When Does an Influencer Become an Adviser? 

The guidance draws an important distinction between education and advice. Explaining how stock markets work, discussing diversification, or describing general investing principles ordinarily does not require registration. The line begins to blur when a creator recommends purchasing specific securities, comments on whether a particular stock is a good investment, or encourages followers to buy or sell investments. 

Even seemingly casual statements, promotional language, or certain emojis may, depending on the context, amount to investment recommendations. Likewise, repeatedly responding to followers with personalized investment suggestions can transform an educational channel into a regulated advisory business. Importantly, the regulators reject the notion that disclaimers provide immunity. Simply stating “this is not financial advice” will not prevent securities laws from applying if the content is, in substance, investment advice. 

The General Advice Exception 

The guidance does not prohibit all investment commentary. Canadian securities legislation contains a “general advice” exemption permitting individuals to provide non-personalized investment commentary without becoming registered advisers. The exemption comes with an important condition: complete transparency. 

Anyone relying on the exemption must clearly disclose any financial interest in the securities being discussed or any compensation received for promoting them. Generic statements such as “I may own some of these securities” will not suffice. The disclosure must identify the nature of the financial interest, who is providing compensation, and the relationship between the parties. Moreover, the disclosure must be prominent. Burying sponsorship information at the end of a lengthy video or behind a “Show More” link is unlikely to satisfy regulatory expectations.

Artificial Intelligence Does Not Change the Rules 

One particularly timely aspect of the guidance is its treatment of artificial intelligence. The regulators expressly state that securities laws apply equally where investment content is generated by AI or digital avatars. Individuals or firms using AI to produce investment recommendations remain responsible for the content their systems generate. AI may be a new communication tool, but it does not create a legal shield from liability.

Responsibility Extends Beyond Influencers 

The Staff Notice is equally directed at investment dealers, advisers, and public companies that engage finfluencers. Registrants are expected to conduct due diligence before hiring influencers, establish written agreements, monitor published content, ensure promotional statements are balanced and accurate, and supervise ongoing compliance. 

Public companies face similar obligations. If an issuer engages an influencer to promote its securities, the issuer itself may bear responsibility for misleading or promotional statements made on its behalf. The practical implication is straightforward: outsourcing marketing to social media personalities does not outsource regulatory responsibility. 

Enforcement Is Coming 

The Notice concludes with an unmistakable warning. Canadian securities regulators state that they actively monitor online investment content in cooperation with domestic and international enforcement partners. Violations may result in investigations, administrative proceedings, substantial fines, disgorgement of profits, and prohibitions on participating in Canada’s capital markets.

While much public discussion surrounding finfluencers has focused on free speech or the democratization of investing, the CSA’s guidance reminds market participants that securities regulation has always been concerned with influence. Whether that influence is exercised from a brokerage office, a newspaper column, or a smartphone camera is legally beside the point. The platforms may have changed. The law has not.