Signal Intelligence delivers independent creator due diligence, portfolio risk assessment and regulatory compliance intelligence for enterprise brands that cannot afford to find out the hard way.
Most brands activate creators with minimal due diligence. A follower count check. A quick scroll through recent posts. A gut feel. That is not a process. It is not defensible. And it is not enough.
The risk is rarely visible in a creator's feed. It lives in their personal history, their business relationships, their regulatory compliance record and the narratives forming around them in corners of the internet nobody thought to check.
When it goes wrong — and it goes wrong for 72% of brands every year — the question from legal, from the board, from the press is always the same: what did you do to prevent this?
Signal Intelligence gives you an answer to that question. A documented, sourced, auditable answer.
"The legal system is gradually aligning the responsibilities of digital content creators with the harms their influence can cause." — Antonis Glykis & Christina Avgousti, Elias Neocleous & Co LLC, Cyprus Mail
Every major European market now has active enforcement. Select a market to see the specific regulatory framework your brand faces.
Under §5a(4) UWG, brands are liable for their influencers’ disclosure failures — even when a creator posts independently without brand supervision. A competitor brand can bring a private UWG enforcement case against you. This is not theoretical: it happens regularly in the German market.
Health brands face dual exposure under the HWG. Any health claim made by an influencer in a sponsored post — even a mild one — must be clinically substantiated. An influencer saying your skincare “clears skin” without qualification is an HWG breach you own.
France is the first country in Europe to define influencers in law. Under Law n°2023-451, brands are jointly and severally liable with their creator partners and their agents for any harm resulting from promotional activity. This includes criminal liability for agents — potential imprisonment for prohibited promotions.
Prohibited categories include cosmetic surgery, highly speculative financial products, certain health treatments and gambling. Fines reach €300,000. AI-edited content must be labelled as “retouched” or “virtual” under a 2024 requirement.
Spain’s Royal Decree 444/2024 (May 2024) is one of the most ambitious influencer regulations in Europe. Creators with 1M+ followers or €300K+ annual income are legally classified as audiovisual communication service providers — subject to the same rules as television broadcasters.
These “High Profile Influencers” (HIPIs) must register with the State Registry, comply with broadcasting advertising rules and observe strict content prohibitions including alcohol, tobacco and certain financial products. Brands working with unregistered HIPIs inherit the compliance risk.
Italy has the highest maximum fines for influencer marketing violations in Europe — up to €600,000. The Chiara Ferragni Pandorogate scandal directly prompted the Ferragni Law, which now specifically regulates charitable marketing claims in influencer partnerships.
From July 2025, AGCOM's dedicated Code of Conduct applies to all influencers with 500,000+ followers or 1M monthly views. Italy’s AGCM issues “moral suasion letters” as a warning before imposing penalties — brands whose creators have received these letters are on notice.
Dutch influencers with 500,000+ followers must register with the Media Authority and comply with the Media Act’s advertising rules. In June 2024 the Dutch Media Authority imposed its first-ever influencer fine — ruling that #ad buried in hashtag clouds or descriptions does not constitute adequate disclosure. Brands are co-liable.
The Netherlands ACM consumer authority separately enforces against unfair commercial practices. Dutch enforcement is methodical and document-focused — brands without clear contractual disclosure requirements are exposed.
Belgium classifies commercial influencers as business operators under the Code of Economic Law — requiring them to publish business address details or face fines up to €80,000. Advertisers commissioning influencer content are explicitly responsible for monitoring compliance and can be held directly liable for breaches by their creator partners.
Belgium’s JEP (Jury of Ethical Practices in Advertising) self-regulation code adds an additional layer of compliance. Brands in regulated product categories face compound exposure under both frameworks.
Poland’s competition authority UOKiK has established a precedent that should concern every brand operating in the Polish market. A dietary supplements manufacturer was fined PLN 5 million ($1.25M USD) — not for their own disclosure failures but for providing influencer partners with vague disclosure guidelines that resulted in inadequate labelling.
The maximum fine for influencer marketing violations in Poland is 10% of annual company turnover — the same level applied to cartel violations. This is the highest relative penalty in Europe.
Norway’s Consumer Authority is widely regarded as one of the most proactive influencer marketing enforcement bodies in Europe. Financial penalties for disclosure failures have been issued. The Marketing Control Act requires all sponsored content to be clearly labelled — enforcement extends to brands who commission non-compliant content.
Norway is not an EU member but applies EU-equivalent consumer protection standards. Brands running Scandinavian campaigns often treat Norway as a proxy for regional compliance risk.
The UK operates three parallel enforcement regimes for influencer marketing. The ASA enforces disclosure compliance under the CAP Code. The FCA’s financial promotions rules apply strictly to any financial services content. From April 2025, the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 significantly strengthened CMA and Trading Standards enforcement powers.
FCA guidance specifically addresses “finfluencers” — any creator discussing investments, crypto or financial products. Co-liability for brands activating these creators in the UK is well-established.
Denmark, Sweden and Finland have each issued national financial penalties for influencer disclosure failures. The emerging risk for brands is cross-border co-enforcement — Nordic regulators increasingly share intelligence and coordinate action. A disclosure failure in one Scandinavian market is now visible to regulators in neighbouring countries.
Brands running pan-Nordic campaigns with a single influencer face multiplied regulatory exposure across three jurisdictions simultaneously. The Scandinavian influencer market is large and compliance enforcement is accelerating rapidly.
The EU operates an overarching framework that applies across all 27 member states — on top of which each country adds its own national rules. The Unfair Commercial Practices Directive treats influencers as traders in every EU market. The Digital Services Act requires platforms to take down illegal influencer content within 24 hours. The EU AI Act (2026) requires AI-generated content to be labelled.
The European Commission’s Influencer Legal Hub (2024) provides coordinated guidance and templates — but compliance with the hub does not guarantee compliance with national rules layered on top. The EU framework is the floor, not the ceiling.
Independent of any platform. Conflict-free. Human-led. Defensible.
We take any influencer roster — however messy, however large — and return a clean, risk-scored, auditable assessment of every creator in it. Handle verification, audience authenticity, preliminary risk classification and coverage gaps. The essential first step before any vetting programme.
Full independent vetting of individual creators across five intelligence dimensions — trajectory, reputation, alignment, content and exposure. We produce a written report with a human go/no-go recommendation you can file, share with legal and stand behind. Not a score. A verdict.
Weekly or daily monitoring of approved creator portfolios. We surface material changes — not noise. Every alert is pre-analysed by a human before it reaches you, with a specific question and a recommended action. You get signal, not volume.
Disclosure compliance review across ASA, FTC, AGCM and market-specific frameworks including Germany's UWG, France's Influencer Act and the EU AI Act. We identify compliance gaps in your creator programme before a regulator or competitor does.
Other services give you a score. We give you a verdict — go, proceed with conditions, hold for review, no-go or blacklist. A decision you can defend to your legal team, your board and your press team if it ever comes to that.
We are not a platform. We are not trying to replace your existing influencer marketing tools. We use best-in-class data sources to inform our analysis — then apply human judgement to reach a conclusion your tools cannot.
Every assessment is timestamped, sourced and auditable. When legal, compliance or the board asks how you made a partnership decision, you have a complete and defensible answer. Most brands cannot say that.
Anyone can flag an obvious red. The value is in the nuanced middle — the creator who looks clean but isn’t. Our analysts live in the amber zone. That is where brand safety decisions are actually made.
We understand the regulatory landscape across UK, US, EU, German, French and Italian markets. Our assessments reflect the specific compliance requirements of the markets your creators are activating in.
We do not run influencer campaigns. We do not represent talent. We have no financial interest in whether you activate a creator or not. Our only incentive is getting the call right. That independence is everything.
Influencer risk is poorly understood, inconsistently evaluated and almost never properly documented. Brands are activating creators based on follower counts and content aesthetic. Agencies are vetting against basic checklists. Platforms are surfacing scores without explaining what is behind them.
The result is a 72% brand safety incident rate and an industry where the documented, defensible, human-led intelligence that enterprise decisions require simply does not exist at scale. Brands find out about creator risk the worst possible way — mid-campaign, in the press, in a board meeting.
Signal Intelligence was built to change that. Bringing together senior experience in credit risk and portfolio management, social media intelligence and enterprise influencer marketing — three disciplines that understand risk, signals and commercial reality. We exist because the brands we work with cannot afford to find out too late.
Portfolio-level thinking, scoring methodology and documentation standards borrowed from financial services due diligence — applied to influencer relationships for the first time.
Platform-native understanding of where risk actually surfaces — in comment sections, private communities, fringe platforms and narrative threads forming before they become news.
Senior experience inside the platforms and agencies that power enterprise influencer programmes — we understand the commercial reality, not just the compliance requirement.
Our analysts surface what matters — not what’s easy to find. The signal that protects your brand is rarely the obvious one. That is what we are built to find.
Tell us what you have and what you need. We will come back within one business day with a clear proposal — no jargon, no platform sales pitch, no lengthy onboarding.