Finfluencers in Denmark: When Does Promoting an Investment Product Cross Into Regulated Financial Advice?

Short answer: what matters is whether the recommendation is public or personal

It isn't illegal for a Danish finfluencer to share investment opinions, stock tips or crypto analysis with their followers. As the Academy's article on regulated industries covers, a concrete buy or sell recommendation made to the public triggers Article 20 of the Market Abuse Regulation (MAR) — a disclosure duty covering method and any conflicts of interest. What this article goes into in more depth is a separate, more serious question: when does the activity cross into investment advice in the legal sense — a regulated business activity that requires Finanstilsynet's licence, regardless of whether the person doing it calls themselves an influencer, an adviser, or neither.

Two rulebooks, two purposes: a disclosure duty vs. a licensing requirement

MAR Article 20 and the rules on investment advice solve two different problems, and it's easy to conflate them because both are enforced by Finanstilsynet and both concern investment recommendations.

The point isn't that one rulebook matters more than the other — it's that most "finfluencer rules" coverage only deals with the first. The second is discussed far less, but is far more serious to breach, because it concerns carrying on unauthorised financial-services activity, not simply omitting a disclosure.

What actually counts as a "personal recommendation" — and why the public video is usually exempt

Finanstilsynet defines investment advice as "personal recommendations to a customer, either at the customer's request or on the investment adviser's own initiative, regarding one or more transactions in financial instruments." The operative word is "personal": the recommendation has to be directed at an identified recipient, not an undefined audience.

Under the original MiFID framework, there was an explicit carve-out for recommendations distributed exclusively "through distribution channels" — channels through which information is, or is likely to become, publicly available (newspapers, television, a public website). A recommendation issued exclusively through channels like that didn't count as a "personal recommendation," and so fell outside the licensing requirement. MiFID II narrowed that carve-out: only recommendations made exclusively to the public at large still fall outside it — recommendations delivered via the internet, investment apps or social media, including through influencers, can in certain circumstances be treated as personal recommendations, if the communication is genuinely individualised rather than addressed to the public generally.

In practice, that means: a video, post or livestream that any follower can watch, and that isn't tailored to one recipient's specific situation, normally falls outside the definition of a personal recommendation — and therefore outside the investment-adviser licensing requirement. That kind of content instead falls under MAR Article 20's disclosure duty, covered above. The line moves the moment the communication becomes individual.

What actually triggers the licensing requirement?

Based on the core of the definition — a personal recommendation to a specific customer — the following kinds of activity are what genuinely bring a finfluencer within the licensing requirement, rather than just the disclosure duty:

• Paid one-to-one advice — a call, DM exchange or consultation where the finfluencer recommends concrete transactions based on the recipient's own portfolio or situation.
• "Tailored to you" products — a subscription that explicitly promises recommendations matched to an individual customer's risk profile or holdings, rather than the same signals sent to every subscriber.
• Advice given on request — when a recipient asks for a concrete recommendation for their own situation and the finfluencer responds with one, even unpaid — the definition explicitly covers recommendations given "at the customer's request."
• Repeated, systematic advisory activity — where personal advice isn't a one-off exception but the actual business model.

Conversely, the following normally does not by itself trigger the licensing requirement, though it can still trigger MAR Article 20's disclosure duty: public videos, posts and livestreams to an undefined following; general market commentary; and educational content that doesn't recommend concrete transactions to a named recipient.

The narrow exemption for "occasional" advice

Section 343a(2)(4) of the Danish Financial Business Act contains an exemption from the licensing requirement for investment advice given only occasionally as part of another regulated professional activity — in one concrete decision, Finanstilsynet found the exemption could cover, for example, an accountant who, as a minor part of preparing a client's accounts, advises on placing surplus liquidity. The exemption is deliberately narrow: it assumes the investment advice is incidental to another regulated profession, not the business itself. A finfluencer whose primary income comes from investment content or advice normally can't rely on this exemption.

What happens if you advise without a licence?

Carrying on investment advice as a business without Finanstilsynet's licence is unlawful activity under the Danish Act on financial advisers, investment advisers and mortgage credit intermediaries. The Act allows fines to be set for breaches, and companies and other legal entities can be held criminally liable under the general corporate-liability rules of the Danish Criminal Code. The limitation period for breaches of the Act is generally 5 years. Be aware: this research could not find a specific, published fine level for unauthorised investment advice given by a finfluencer specifically — if a concrete assessment is needed, get it from a lawyer specialising in financial regulation rather than inferring it from this article.

ESMA's finfluencer factsheet (January 2026)

The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) published a factsheet on 9 January 2026, in cooperation with national supervisory authorities, giving finfluencers tips on the responsible promotion of financial products and services. The factsheet has been translated into every EU language, and highlights, among other things, that a finfluencer bears full responsibility for their content — even without formal financial qualifications — that advertising must be clearly marked, particularly where payment, gifts or other benefits are involved, that statements about financial products must be true, clear and not misleading, and that protecting young recipients of finfluencer content is explicitly flagged. The factsheet is guidance, not new legislation — it doesn't change when MAR Article 20 or the investment-advice licensing requirement is triggered, but it shows both ESMA and Finanstilsynet are actively watching the space. See the regulated-industries article for Finans Danmark's separate March 2026 proposal for a certification scheme for finfluencers — an industry proposal, not yet enacted law.

Decision framework

IF the content is a video, post or livestream that any follower can watch, with no individual tailoring → MAR Article 20's disclosure duty likely applies; the investment-adviser licensing requirement normally doesn't apply to that content alone.

IF the finfluencer gives a recommendation tailored to one specific recipient's portfolio or situation — via DM, call or a paid one-to-one arrangement → this can constitute investment advice requiring Finanstilsynet's licence.

IF the advice is only a minor, occasional part of another regulated professional activity (such as accounting or legal practice) → check whether the narrow exemption in Section 343a(2)(4) could apply — but don't assume it does by default.

IF you're unsure whether a planned business model (such as a paid subscription with individualised recommendations) requires a licence → get it confirmed by a lawyer specialising in financial regulation before the product launches, not after.

Worked example: two hypothetical finfluencers (illustrative, not a real case)

To make the line concrete — two invented examples, not a Make Influence customer or a real case:

Influencer A posts twice a week to her 50,000 TikTok followers about which stocks she personally bought that week, and why. The video is public, identical for every viewer, and contains no recommendation directed at a specific person. She's covered by MAR Article 20 — she has to disclose her method and any conflicts of interest (such as whether she owns the stock herself) — but not by the investment-advice licensing requirement.

Influencer B runs the same public channel, but also offers a paid "VIP" subscription where subscribers submit their portfolios and B replies with individual buy/sell recommendations tailored to each holding. The public part of B's content is still covered only by MAR Article 20 — but the VIP service is, based on the definition above, a personal recommendation to a specific customer, and so raises the question of whether B is carrying on investment advice without the required licence.

Make Influence's operational perspective

In our experience, brands and finfluencers are far more likely to know about the disclosure duty under MAR Article 20 than about the licensing requirement for investment advice — probably because the first is relatively easy to comply with (write down the method and the conflict of interest), while the second raises a question few want the answer to. Our clear recommendation to a brand considering a collaboration with a finfluencer on a product that involves individualised advice rather than general content — a portfolio-review service, say, or a personally tailored subscription — is to get the business model assessed by a lawyer specialising in financial regulation before the collaboration is agreed, and to write the requirement into the contract as a precondition, not an afterthought.

FAQ

Does a finfluencer need a licence just to share stock opinions on social media?

Normally not. Public, non-individualised content is typically covered by MAR Article 20's disclosure duty, not the investment-adviser licensing requirement — but concrete buy/sell recommendations still need to disclose method and any conflicts of interest.

What's the main difference between MAR Article 20 and investment advice?

MAR Article 20 is a disclosure duty that applies to anyone disseminating an investment recommendation, including publicly. Investment advice is a regulated business activity, defined by the recommendation being personal and directed at a specific customer — it requires Finanstilsynet's licence.

Can a finfluencer legally run a paid subscription with trading signals?

It depends on whether the signals are the same for every subscriber (still closer to public communication, even if paid) or genuinely tailored to each subscriber's situation (closer to a personal recommendation). The line isn't sharp in practice — get the business model assessed legally before launching it.

What's the penalty for giving investment advice without a licence?

The Act allows for fines, and companies can be held criminally liable under the Criminal Code's general corporate-liability rules. This article could not find a published, specific fine level for this particular breach — get a concrete assessment from a lawyer if the question is live.

Does ESMA's January 2026 factsheet change when the licensing requirement is triggered?

No. The factsheet is guidance on responsible promotion, not new legislation — it doesn't change the definition of investment advice or MAR Article 20's scope.

Is there a Danish exemption for occasional investment advice?

Yes, in Section 343a(2)(4) of the Danish Financial Business Act — but it's narrow and assumes the advice is only a minor sideline to another regulated professional activity. It normally doesn't fit a finfluencer whose business is investment content.

Do these rules also apply to crypto recommendations?

Yes — the definition of financial instruments under MAR Article 20 and investment advice isn't limited to stocks. See crypto and token promotions by influencers under MiCA for the separate rulebook that applies specifically to an issuer's marketing of a crypto-asset, on top of the rules covered here.

Who supervises whether a finfluencer is genuinely giving investment advice without a licence?

Finanstilsynet — the same authority that issues licences to investment advisers and enforces MAR Article 20. See a brand safety checklist for influencer partnerships for how a brand can build a check like this into its own due diligence before a collaboration is agreed.