Influencer pay, platform governance and the push for transparent regulation

Swaying people’s taste on social media isn’t a quirky side hustle anymore; for many, it’s a full-time job and a primary source of income. Brands spend significant amounts on influencer marketing, platforms make advertising money from creator-generated content and audiences are turning in large numbers to influencers for information, entertainment and advice.

Despite this economic importance, the mechanisms through which influencer income is accrued and safeguarded remain under-regulated and inextricably linked to non-transparent platform policies.

This issue has been recently foregrounded by Member of Parliament Raghav Chadha. While the arguments were directed at digital creators generally, they underlined a very valid policy concern: individuals whose livelihoods are derived from social media platforms are confronted with the prospect of sudden losses of earnings due to algorithmic changes, demonetisation of content, or takedowns with, on occasion, inadequate explanations and remedies.

The underlying tension is very much real and contentious: social media platforms are private actors, but they have the ability to affect the livelihood of millions of creators by taking action tantamount to regulatory power. A single tweak in an algorithm can result in an influencer losing access to their stream of income overnight, similar to a copyright claim or changes to platform policies, often complicated and labyrinthine in nature. These are usually automated, opaque and completely shielded from meaningful scrutiny.

Chadha’s argument brings out the concentration of power in platform governance. When platforms have sole control over visibility, monetisation possibilities or the continuation of connectivity, they are, in effect, creating rules that relate to income with no recourse to labour law, due process or constitutional protections. From a policy perspective, this creates an accountability gap: creators are economically dependent on platforms, yet without strong legal protections for them.

The Indian legal system does not recognise influencer income as falling under a specific category of economic engagement. Influencers are clearly not employees and are also not protected sufficiently as workers under labour law. At the same time, general contract law provides limited redress since terms of service of platforms are non-negotiable and tend to be platform-based.

As Chadha points out, this is so because laws like the Copyright Act, 1957 were drafted much before the digital ecosystem came into being. In that case, automatic copyright enforcement may end up punishing creators for minimal or even transformative use in the form of takedowns or demonetisation, which immediately impacts income dependent on views and engagement.

This legal gap allows platforms to implement internal rules constituting economic sanctions without providing statutory safeguards. Influencers face lost income without clear explanations, with no timelines set for reviewing decisions or meaningful avenues to appeal.

Chadha contends not that platforms should be free from any oversight of their ecosystems, but rather that a baseline legal minimum is required. Regulation of influencer income generation is not a matter of wage control, nor is it primarily about content governance; it is about fairness, transparency and predictability.

One promising direction is the imposition of due process on platforms to ensure that these platforms follow processes before taking any steps that might greatly impact creators’ income. Such could include notice, articulated reasoning for demonetisation and available routes of appeal. These can be elaborated within a rule-making framework familiar to administrative law, but one that can be adapted into the digital economy.

Another critical element is proportionality. Minor policy violations or disputed copyright claims should not result in a complete loss of monetisation. Indeed, Chadha’s call for due proportion in enforcement reflects a legal principle more generally: penalties should be proportional to the severity of harm caused.

Critical perspectives believe this would stifle innovation or place an unfair burden on platforms. On the other hand, a lack of regulation also has costs. Economic insecurity can dampen long-term investment in content creation and concentrates control with platforms rather than with creators. A well-designed regulatory framework would not interfere with the market; rather, it would establish minimum standards for fairness. Clear regulations favour platforms too, because it cuts down disputes and builds trust within the digital ecosystem. In that sense, regulation is actually a facilitator of sustainable growth rather than a fetter.

The intervention by Raghav Chadha highlights a very critical point: the generation of influencer income is no longer strictly a private matter decided by the platforms; it has become a public policy issue that involves livelihoods, economic rights and checks on corporate power. As social media continues to reshape work and income, so too must the legal framework shift to accommodate and protect those dependent on such platforms. Legal protections - through due process, proportionate enforcement and more transparency - would not harm platforms but engender a symmetrical system in which economic power does not shift one way. Regulating influencer income generation is ultimately a means to ensure that digital labour is taken as seriously and equitably as labour in other sectors.

Aayushee Jevish is a lawyer and founder of Ninety Degrees, a virtual legal clinic dedicated to pro bono legal services.