Undisclosed Influence

Munam, M., Nazir, J., Moon, M. A., Ahad, A., Rehmani, M. A., & Akbar, A. (2025). Influencer authenticity and its impact on Generation Z’s purchase intentions: Evidence from micro-influencer marketing.

Journal of Social Sciences Research & Policy, 3(04), 547–558.

This article examines how perceived influencer authenticity affects Generation Z’s purchase intentions in micro-influencer marketing. The study is useful for a literature review because it connects three important themes in influencer research: authenticity, credibility, and consumer behavior. According to the article abstract, the authors focus on Gen Z because this consumer group is often skeptical of traditional advertising and celebrity endorsements, making authenticity especially important in digital persuasion. The study’s emphasis on micro-influencers is valuable because smaller creators are often perceived as more relatable and trustworthy than celebrity influencers, even when their reach is more limited.

The article contributes to the literature by treating authenticity as a key determinant of marketing effectiveness rather than as a secondary personality trait. For research on influencer disclosures, the article can help explain why undisclosed sponsorships are potentially harmful: if consumers value authenticity, hidden commercial relationships may distort the basis on which they evaluate influencer recommendations. This makes the article relevant not only to marketing strategy but also to consumer protection debates.

A strength of the article is its focus on current Gen Z behavior in social media environments where micro-influencers play a growing role. Its likely limitation is contextual specificity, since consumer responses to influencers may vary by platform, product category, culture, and disclosure norm. Overall, this source supports the argument that influencer marketing works because followers perceive influencers as authentic, credible, and personally relevant. It is especially helpful for framing why transparency matters in influencer advertising.

Yi, J. (2023). Influencer marketing and parasocial relationships.

UC Santa Barbara Undergraduate Research and Creative Activities Journal, 4.

Yi’s article is a systematic literature review on the relationship between influencer marketing and parasocial relationships. The article explains how one-sided emotional bonds between followers and influencers can affect consumer trust, attitudes, and purchasing decisions. Its central value is that it synthesizes existing scholarship rather than reporting a single experiment or survey. This makes it helpful for establishing theoretical background in a literature review, especially when discussing why influencer endorsements can feel more personal and persuasive than traditional advertisements.

The article is particularly relevant because parasocial relationships help explain the psychological power of influencer marketing. Followers may feel that they “know” an influencer, even though the relationship is mediated, one-directional, and commercially shaped. This perceived closeness can make product recommendations seem like advice from a trusted friend rather than paid advertising. For a project focused on disclosure, this matters because sponsorship transparency may interrupt the illusion of intimacy or remind consumers that the recommendation has a commercial purpose.

A major strength of Yi’s review is its attention to the connection between influencer-follower relationships and marketing outcomes such as trust and purchase decisions. The source can be used to support arguments about how influencers build persuasive authority through familiarity, relatability, and repeated interaction. However, as an undergraduate literature review, it may not carry the same empirical weight as a peer-reviewed meta-analysis or experimental study. Even so, it is useful for summarizing the concept of parasocial interaction and showing how it applies to influencer marketing.

Federal Trade Commission. (n.d.-a). Disclosures 101 for social media influencers.

Retrieved April 27, 2026.

The FTC’s Disclosures 101 for Social Media Influencers is a practical guidance document explaining when and how influencers should disclose relationships with brands. The document states that influencers must disclose financial, employment, personal, family, or other material connections when endorsing products. It also emphasizes that free or discounted products, not just direct payment, can create a relationship that must be disclosed.

This source is essential for a literature review that includes legal or ethical issues in influencer marketing. Unlike academic studies that examine consumer psychology, this FTC guidance establishes the compliance expectations that influencers and brands are expected to follow in the United States. The document explains that disclosures should be hard to miss, placed with the endorsement itself, and written in clear language such as “ad,” “sponsored,” or a simple explanation of the brand relationship. It warns against vague labels, hidden disclosures, and reliance only on platform tools.

The document’s importance lies in its direct connection to deception and consumer protection. It frames disclosure not as a technical requirement but as a way to help consumers evaluate the weight and credibility of endorsements. For research on influencer authenticity, this guidance supports the argument that transparency is part of maintaining consumer trust. A limitation is that the document is guidance rather than a scholarly study, so it does not measure consumer responses empirically. However, it is highly authoritative for explaining the regulatory standard governing influencer advertising.

Federal Trade Commission. (n.d.-b). FTC’s Endorsement Guides: What people are asking.

Retrieved April 27, 2026.

The FTC’s Endorsement Guides: What People Are Asking provides detailed answers to common questions about endorsements, social media advertising, affiliate marketing, and disclosure practices. This source expands on the FTC’s shorter influencer brochure by offering platform-specific and scenario-specific examples. For example, the FTC explains that disclosures must be clear and conspicuous, that consumers should not have to click “more” to find them, and that platform disclosure tools may not be sufficient by themselves.

This guidance is highly relevant for a literature review on undisclosed influencer marketing because it clarifies how the FTC evaluates disclosure adequacy. The document explains that the responsibility for disclosure rests with both influencers and brands, not merely with social media platforms. It also notes that disclosure effectiveness depends on placement, readability, clarity, and whether ordinary consumers are likely to notice and understand the information.

The source is especially useful when analyzing Instagram, TikTok, YouTube, live streaming, affiliate links, and other digital formats. It shows that disclosure is not only about using the right word but also about whether the disclosure appears at the right time and place. Its limitation is that it does not provide original empirical data about consumer behavior. Still, it is a primary regulatory source and should be treated as central evidence for any discussion of influencer compliance, deceptive advertising, and material connection disclosure.

Federal Trade Commission. (n.d.-c). Section 5 of the FTC Act.

Retrieved April 27, 2026.

The FTC’s page on the Federal Trade Commission Act explains the statutory foundation for the agency’s consumer protection authority. The FTC describes the Act as the Commission’s primary statute and states that it empowers the agency to prevent unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce. It also explains that the FTC may seek monetary redress and other relief, prescribe rules, conduct investigations, and report to Congress and the public.

This source is important because influencer disclosure rules are not isolated recommendations; they are connected to the FTC’s broader legal authority over deceptive advertising. In a literature review, this source can be used to explain why hidden sponsorships matter legally. When an influencer’s endorsement appears independent but is actually connected to payment, free products, commissions, or other benefits, the omission may affect how consumers evaluate the message. That concern fits within the FTC’s authority to address unfair or deceptive practices.

The source is also useful for connecting academic research with enforcement policy. Studies on trust, authenticity, credibility, and parasocial relationships show why influencer recommendations persuade consumers, while Section 5 explains why misleading commercial persuasion can become a regulatory issue. A limitation is that this FTC page is broad and does not focus specifically on influencers. Therefore, it should be paired with the FTC’s endorsement and disclosure guidance. Together, these sources establish the legal basis for requiring influencers and brands to disclose material connections clearly and conspicuously.

Taylor, H. (2025, April 18). Another one: Revolve hit with $50M class action over undisclosed influencer ads.

Advertising Law Updates. Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz PC.

Taylor’s article analyzes the 2025 class action filed against Revolve and several influencers over allegedly undisclosed influencer advertising. The article reports that the complaint was filed in the Central District of California and seeks more than $50 million in damages. It explains that the plaintiff alleged Revolve compensated influencers with payments and perks while influencer posts promoted Revolve products without adequate material connection disclosures.

This source is useful for showing how influencer disclosure concerns have moved beyond FTC guidance into private litigation. Taylor highlights a “price premium” theory: consumers allegedly paid more for products because they believed influencer endorsements were organic rather than sponsored. This theory is significant because it links disclosure failures to economic injury, not just abstract deception.

The article is valuable for a literature review because it translates regulatory principles into practical litigation risk for brands and creators. It recommends audits of influencer content, stronger contracts, monitoring programs, partner training, and awareness of evolving guidelines. These recommendations align with FTC guidance that advertisers and influencers share responsibility for clear and conspicuous disclosures.

A limitation is that the article is a legal commentary rather than a neutral academic study, and it summarizes allegations that had not yet been proven when the article was written. Still, it is useful as a current practitioner source showing how undisclosed influencer marketing can create exposure under federal and state consumer protection theories. It is especially relevant for discussing the relationship between influencer authenticity, consumer trust, and legal accountability.

Lou, C., & Yuan, S. (2021). Influencer marketing: How message value and credibility affect consumer trust of branded content on social media.

Journal of Interactive Advertising, 19(1), 58–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/15252019.2018.1533501

Lou and Yuan’s article is a foundational empirical study on how influencer marketing affects consumer trust in branded content. The authors propose an integrated model that combines advertising value and source credibility to explain consumer responses to influencer content. Their research uses an online survey of social media users who followed at least one influencer, making the study directly relevant to social media marketing contexts.

The article is highly useful for a literature review because it connects message characteristics, influencer credibility, trust, and purchase-related outcomes. Rather than treating influencer effectiveness as simply a matter of audience size, Lou and Yuan emphasize the quality of the message and the perceived credibility of the influencer. This supports the broader argument that influencer marketing works because followers assign trust and value to influencer content.

For research on disclosure and authenticity, the article helps explain why undisclosed sponsorships can be problematic. If credibility and trust are central mechanisms of influencer persuasion, then a hidden brand relationship may distort the consumer’s evaluation of the message. The article also complements studies on parasocial relationships because both lines of research show that influencer persuasion depends on perceived closeness, reliability, and authenticity.

A strength of the article is its model-building contribution to influencer marketing scholarship. A limitation is that survey-based research can identify associations but may not fully establish causal effects. Nevertheless, this source is one of the most relevant academic studies for explaining why credibility and message value are central to consumer trust in branded influencer content.

Meyer, T. (2025, April 17). Influencers and retailer sued for alleged disclosure violations.

Performance Marketing Association.

Meyer’s article discusses the class action filed by Ligia Negreanu against Revolve Group and three influencers, Cindy Mello, Tika Camaj, and Nienke Jansz. The article reports that the plaintiff alleged Revolve used “thousands of social media influencers” to market products while failing to disclose that posts were sponsored or advertising. It also explains the plaintiff’s claim that consumers would not have paid the same price if they had known influencers were compensated rather than offering independent opinions.

This source is useful because it places the Revolve litigation in the broader context of performance marketing and affiliate compliance. Meyer emphasizes that the case was brought by a consumer rather than the FTC, showing that influencer disclosure issues may create private litigation risk even when regulators are not actively announcing enforcement actions. The article also notes that the complaint alleged violations under the FTC Act as incorporated into other claims, along with state consumer protection statutes.

A strength of this source is its practical explanation of why all parties in an influencer relationship may face legal exposure. It identifies three compliance lessons: consumers can sue, all partnership participants can be named, and state laws may vary from federal guidance. A limitation is that the article is based on allegations in a complaint and explicitly notes that the facts had not yet been proven. For a literature review, this source is best used as practitioner commentary illustrating current legal risk in influencer marketing.

Pierce Atwood. (2025). Revolve faces $50M class action alleging undisclosed influencer relationships.

Pierce Atwood’s legal alert summarizes the Revolve class action and explains its significance for companies using influencer marketing. The alert states that social media influencing is an estimated $30 billion global industry and that the Revolve lawsuit serves as a reminder of the importance of disclosing material connections in advertising. It reports that the plaintiff claimed Revolve allowed influencer endorsements to appear on social media without adequate disclosure, allegedly misleading consumers into purchases they would not otherwise have made.

This source is useful because it clearly connects the lawsuit to FTC disclosure standards. The alert explains that material connections, including payments or free products, must be clearly and conspicuously disclosed when making endorsements. It also notes that disclosures such as “#ad” or “#sponsored” should appear before users have to click additional links or expand captions.

The article’s value for a literature review lies in its concise explanation of the compliance issue and its link to consumer deception. It supports the argument that influencer marketing is not merely a branding strategy but also a regulated advertising practice. The alert also identifies that both Revolve entities and individual influencers were named, making it relevant for discussing shared responsibility between brands and creators.

A limitation is that the source is a law firm alert, so it is designed for client education rather than academic theory-building. However, it is current, practical, and directly relevant to a discussion of undisclosed influencer relationships, material connections, and consumer protection litigation.

The Fashion Law. (2025). Revolve nabs win as court sends undisclosed influencer ad case to arbitration.

This article reports a later procedural development in the Revolve influencer advertising lawsuit. According to The Fashion Law, a California federal judge ordered Ligia Negreanu’s proposed class action against Revolve into private arbitration based on the retailer’s terms of service. The article states that the court enforced Revolve’s arbitration clause and struck the class claims, while claims against some individual influencers remained unresolved due to service issues.

This source is important because it shows that legal outcomes in influencer disclosure cases may turn not only on advertising law but also on contract terms, arbitration clauses, and class action waivers. The article summarizes the plaintiff’s underlying allegations: Revolve allegedly paid influencers with cash and free merchandise to promote products without disclosing their ties to the brand, misleading consumers and inflating prices.

For a literature review, this article can be used to distinguish between the merits of a deception claim and the procedural path through which the claim is resolved. Even if a lawsuit raises significant questions about influencer transparency, consumers may face obstacles to class-wide litigation if arbitration agreements apply. This adds an important legal dimension to research on influencer marketing: compliance failures may generate risk, but private enforcement may be shaped by platform or retailer contract terms.

A limitation is that this article focuses on litigation procedure rather than consumer psychology or marketing effects. Still, it is useful for showing the evolution of the Revolve case and for explaining why arbitration clauses matter in consumer protection disputes involving e-commerce and influencer advertising.

Negreanu v. Revolve Group, Inc. (2025, April 11). Class action complaint (No. 2:25-cv-03186).

U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

The class action complaint in Negreanu v. Revolve Group, Inc. is a primary legal document alleging that Revolve and several influencers engaged in deceptive influencer marketing. The complaint names Revolve-related entities and influencers Cindy Mello, Tika Camaj, and Nienke Jansz as defendants. It alleges that Revolve used payments and free merchandise to encourage influencer endorsements while failing to disclose material relationships with the brand.

This document is central for a literature review that discusses legal claims arising from undisclosed influencer marketing. The complaint alleges that influencers misrepresented their material connection with Revolve by endorsing products without disclosing compensation, and that consumers relied on those undisclosed endorsements when purchasing Revolve products. It further claims that consumers paid a premium and that the difference in price was attributable to the undisclosed endorsements.

The complaint’s value is that it provides the original allegations rather than a secondary summary. It shows how plaintiffs may frame hidden influencer sponsorships as deceptive, unfair, and misleading conduct under consumer protection theories. It also demonstrates how academic concepts such as authenticity, trust, and persuasion can become legally relevant when commercial relationships are concealed.

A limitation is that a complaint contains allegations, not proven facts. It represents the plaintiff’s side at the filing stage and should not be treated as a judicial finding. Nevertheless, it is highly useful as primary evidence of how influencer disclosure disputes are being litigated and how consumer injury is being framed in relation to authenticity and price premium theories.

Liu, X., & Zhao, H. (2025). A meta-analysis of the effects of sponsorship disclosure in influencer marketing.

Marketing Letters, 36, 519–532. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-024-09757-z

Liu and Zhao’s article provides a meta-analysis of sponsorship disclosure effects in influencer marketing. The study integrates 288 effect sizes from 37 studies involving 12,721 participants, making it one of the strongest sources for evaluating general patterns across prior research. The authors find that sponsorship disclosure increases persuasion knowledge and brand recall but reduces credibility; however, the overall effects on attitudes and conative responses are insignificant.

This article is especially valuable for a literature review because it complicates simple assumptions about disclosure. Marketers may fear that disclosure automatically harms persuasion, while regulators may assume disclosure straightforwardly protects consumers. Liu and Zhao’s findings suggest a more nuanced picture: disclosure helps consumers recognize advertising intent, but it does not necessarily produce large negative effects on attitudes or behavioral intentions overall.

The article is highly relevant to influencer authenticity because it shows that transparency can affect perceived credibility. If followers interpret disclosure as evidence that a recommendation is commercially motivated, they may judge the influencer as less credible. At the same time, increased persuasion knowledge may support consumer autonomy by helping audiences understand the nature of the message.

A major strength of this source is its meta-analytic design, which provides broader evidence than a single experiment. A limitation is that meta-analyses depend on the quality and comparability of the included studies. Still, this article should be treated as a key empirical source for any review of sponsorship disclosure, influencer credibility, and consumer response.