Crypto and Token Promotions by Influencers Under MiCA: What Changed From 1 July 2026

Short answer: the issuer's duty, not the influencer's — but it lands in the brief

The EU's Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation — MiCA, Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 — came into application in phases: the rules for asset-referenced tokens and e-money tokens (typically stablecoins) apply from 30 June 2024, and the rules for ordinary crypto-assets (utility tokens, most "altcoins") and crypto-asset service providers (CASPs) apply from 30 December 2024. A transitional period that let existing providers keep operating without MiCA authorisation ended EU-wide on 1 July 2026, with no extension mechanism.

The part that matters for influencer marketing: MiCA sets concrete requirements for marketing communications about a crypto-asset. That duty sits legally with the asset's issuer or offeror, not with an individual influencer. But because an issuer is liable for material promoting the asset on its behalf — regardless of who actually publishes it — a sponsored influencer post about a specific token needs, in practice, to meet the same requirements as the issuer's own advertisement, whenever the brand behind the collaboration is the issuer itself.

What MiCA's marketing-communication rules actually require

MiCA contains three parallel marketing-communications articles, one per asset type. In practice they impose the same four requirements, just on different tokens:

Across all three articles, marketing communications must:

• be clearly identifiable as marketing — not presented as independent information or editorial content
• contain information that is "fair, clear and not misleading"
• be consistent with the information in the asset's published white paper — no embellishment or omission that contradicts it
• clearly state that a white paper has been published, and give the offeror's website address, phone number and email
• not be disseminated before the white paper is published (market soundings remain permitted ahead of that)

None of the three articles requires prior approval from a regulator — but the competent authority can request the material at any time, and can require a non-compliant campaign to be amended or stopped.

Who's liable if an influencer overstates a token?

The short answer is that the issuer can't offload liability onto the influencer. Issuers, offerors and persons seeking admission to trading can be held liable to holders for losses caused by information that is incomplete, unfair, unclear or misleading — and they can't use a disclaimer to limit that liability. In practice, that means a brand hiring an influencer to promote a specific token should treat the influencer's script or talking points as part of the overall marketing communication that has to match the white paper — exactly as a paid advertisement would have to. That's also why the requirement belongs in the collaboration's written terms, not a verbal understanding — see what to put in an influencer contract for where a compliance requirement like this one sits alongside the other terms a contract needs to fix.

None of this changes the ordinary ad-disclosure duty under Markedsføringsloven — that still applies independently, and the influencer still has to mark the post as an ad regardless of whether MiCA also covers it.

MiCA vs. MAR Article 20: two different rulebooks that can hit the same post

It's easy to confuse MiCA's marketing rules with the existing "finfluencer" rules under Article 20 of the Market Abuse Regulation (MAR), which already covers investment recommendations about shares, cryptocurrency and other financial instruments — and which is itself only a disclosure duty, not a licensing requirement; see when does promoting an investment product cross into regulated financial advice for when a recommendation needs an actual Finanstilsynet licence instead. The two rulebooks address different situations, and both can be in play on the same post at once:

An influencer can trigger both rulebooks on the same post in practice: if the post is a paid promotion of a specific token on the issuer's behalf (MiCA), and the influencer also tells viewers to buy it (MAR Article 20), both rulebooks apply to that one post — each with its own disclosure requirement.

The transitional period ended 1 July 2026 — why that matters for a campaign

From 30 December 2024, crypto-asset service providers (CASPs — exchanges, custodians, trading platforms) needed MiCA authorisation to operate legally in the EU. A transitional arrangement let existing providers keep operating without authorisation for a period each member state set itself, up to 18 months — Denmark used the full period, on the condition that an existing provider had filed its application with Finanstilsynet by 30 December 2024 to use it. The period ended EU-wide on 1 July 2026, with no extension mechanism.

The practical point for a brand considering a crypto-related influencer collaboration: since 1 July 2026, a platform or exchange that hasn't obtained MiCA authorisation is no longer legally operating in the EU. Promoting a trade through an unauthorised platform adds a separate layer of risk on top of the marketing-communication rules themselves — a risk that didn't exist in the same way before the transitional period ended. Given how many crypto scandals have started with an unvetted project rather than an unvetted creator, treat checking the issuer and platform with the same rigour as vetting the influencer — see a brand safety checklist for influencer partnerships for the equivalent process on the creator side.

Decision framework

IF the influencer post is paid for or commissioned by the issuer of a specific crypto-asset → treat the post as marketing communication under MiCA: require the content to match the asset's white paper, and include the mandatory disclaimer if it's an ordinary crypto-asset.

IF the influencer gives a concrete buy or sell recommendation, regardless of whether the issuer paid for the post → MAR Article 20 also applies: method and conflicts of interest need to be disclosed.

IF the campaign involves an exchange or platform, not just a single token → confirm the platform has obtained MiCA authorisation as a CASP, especially after 1 July 2026.

IF you're unsure whether your campaign falls under MiCA at all → get it confirmed by a lawyer specialising in financial regulation before the campaign is planned. This is a new area, and misjudging it is expensive.

Make Influence's operational perspective

Make Influence doesn't run crypto campaigns, and this article isn't an encouragement to start. But to the extent a brand approaches us with a crypto-related product, our clear recommendation is that the compliance assessment happens before the influencer gets access to the brief, not as an afterthought if something goes wrong. In practice, that means: ask the brand to confirm a published MiCA white paper exists for the asset, and build the mandatory disclaimer and a white-paper-consistent set of talking points into the brief from the start — in the same way we recommend handling the other regulated industries. This is an area where the legal risk lands on the brand just as hard as on the influencer, and where two separate rulebooks (MiCA and MAR) can be in play at once — not a field to improvise through.

FAQ

Does MiCA's marketing-communication duty apply if an influencer just mentions a cryptocurrency without being paid by the issuer?

Not directly — MiCA's marketing duty targets the asset's issuer/offeror and material disseminated on its behalf. An influencer's independent, unpaid mention isn't itself "marketing communication" under MiCA. But if the mention turns into a concrete buy recommendation, MAR Article 20 can still apply, independently of payment.

Does the influencer have to write MiCA's disclaimer sentence into the post themselves?

It depends on whether the post is legally treated as part of the issuer's marketing communication. Since the issuer bears the legal liability and can't disclaim it away, the safe practice is to include the disclaimer whenever the campaign is commissioned by, or run on behalf of, an issuer of an ordinary crypto-asset.

Is this the same as the finfluencer rules already covered in the regulated-industries article?

No. MAR Article 20 (covered in influencer marketing in regulated industries) covers personal buy/sell recommendations, regardless of who makes them. MiCA's marketing rules cover an issuer's paid promotional campaign for a specific asset. Both can apply to the same post, but they're triggered by different things.

Has Finanstilsynet published specific guidance on influencer promotion of crypto?

None found at the time of writing. Finanstilsynet is Denmark's competent MiCA authority and has published general MiCA guidance, but no influencer-specific guidance was identified — this should be re-checked if you're planning an actual campaign.

Do these rules also apply to NFTs?

MiCA generally exempts unique, non-fungible crypto-assets (typical NFTs) from most of the regulation — but the exemption doesn't apply if the asset is actually issued in large or mass-produced series that function as fungible tokens in practice. The assessment has to be made for the specific product, not from the "NFT" label alone.

What if the platform an influencer is promoting never applied for MiCA authorisation?

Since the transitional period ended on 1 July 2026, such a platform is no longer legally allowed to serve EU customers. Promoting a trade through an unauthorised platform is its own risk factor for the brand, on top of the marketing-communication rules themselves — confirm the platform's status before the campaign is approved.

Could promoting a crypto-asset ever require an actual investment-adviser licence, not just MAR Article 20 disclosure?

Yes, if the promotion turns into a personal recommendation to one identified customer — for example, individualised buy/sell guidance tied to that person's own holdings. See finfluencers in Denmark: when does promoting an investment product cross into regulated financial advice for where that separate licensing line sits, on top of both MiCA and MAR.