AI influencers

The research was done by AI agents that open web pages. Some sites refuse them; where that happened we say so. The small numbers point to the source list at the end. Where a figure is our own sum or guess, it is marked “our estimate” and the basis is given.

The claim

These are examples of the claim, copied from our collection of 47 tweets on this scheme¹. View counts are as collected on 6 October 2026. Dates are worked out from each tweet’s ID number. The page judges the scheme, not the people who tweeted.

“The AI influencer I made 30 days ago from scratch in 2 minutes is now making me $3,000 a month.”

@JafarNajafov, 29 October 2024, 1,687,574 views¹

“HIGGSFIELD PAYS YOUR AI INFLUENCERS. Up to $100,000 a week.”

@higgsfield_ai, 21 January 2026, 2,244,049 views¹. This is the account of a company that makes an AI video tool.

“My AI Instagram girl is bringing in 25k a month Just reached 74K, most of her reels go viral Nobody notices she is AI Brands contact me for sponsorships all day long”

@AlessandroLavis, 6 June 2025, 66,250 views¹

“47-year-old man from Japan made $13,450 in a month. He created an AI girl and made a profile for her on OnlyFans and Fanvue”

@Bober_smart, 23 May 2026, 5,194,501 views¹

The last tweet is the most viewed in the collection, and it describes a different method: selling subscriptions on adult platforms. We include it because the tweets mix the two methods all the time, and so does most of the evidence. This page is about brand deals and platform payouts, and it says each time a figure comes from the subscription side.

Three tweets hold 84% of the views in the collection (9.13 million of 10.92 million, our sum)¹. All four quotes are the opening of a longer tweet or thread. We did not view the images, videos or threads attached to them.

What the scheme is

An “AI influencer” is a social media account whose face and body are made by software. Nobody is filmed. The operator uses an image or video generator to make a consistent character, posts it on Instagram, TikTok or X, and tries to build a following.

The tweets name several ways to turn the following into money¹:

• Platform payouts. The social network pays the account a share of ad money, by views.
• Paid campaigns. A company pays creators to post videos about its product, usually per 1,000 views. Most of the recent tweets point to campaigns that promote Higgsfield, a maker of AI video tools.
• Brand deals. A company pays the account for a sponsored post.
• Pay-per-install offers (also called CPI, cost per install). An advertiser pays a few dollars each time a viewer installs its app through the account’s link.
• Subscriptions. Fans pay monthly on a platform such as Fanvue or OnlyFans, often for adult content. This is the related but separate method.

Many of the how-to tweets teach one recipe: download a clip that has already gone viral and use software to replace the person in it with your character. At least eight of the 47 tweets describe it¹. That recipe matters in the rules section below.

Each of these routes exists and somebody is paid through each. The question is how much volume each one needs, and who gets it.

The arithmetic

Step 1: platform payouts have an entry bar

TikTok. Its Creator Rewards Program needs 10,000 followers and 100,000 views in the last 30 days¹². Videos must be over one minute long and original, and the account holder must be 18 or older¹²¹³. The holder must also live in one of eight countries: “you must be based in one of these countries and have an account registered there” (the US, UK, Germany, Japan, South Korea, France, Mexico and Brazil)¹². TikTok’s help page says: “Post original and high-quality content that is filmed, designed, and produced entirely by yourself.”¹³ It lists “Content reproduced from others with only slight modifications” as not original, and sponsored videos earn nothing from the programme¹³. A video starts earning only after 1,000 qualified views, meaning views that pass TikTok’s checks¹³.

The most-viewed tweet reports 1.2 million TikTok views and 4,678 followers after seven days¹. If true, that clears the views bar and is about halfway to the follower bar. The harder conditions for this scheme are the one-minute length, the originality rule and the country list.

TikTok does not publish a rate. A calculator site estimates “$0.50 - $2.00 per 1,000 qualified views”, and $0.30 to $3.00 depending on the subject, from what creators report¹⁴.

X. The programme many guides still describe, Creator Revenue Sharing, has ended. X’s help page says it “will be retired on September 7, 2026” and points to a new Original Content Rewards programme¹⁵. The new one needs a paid Premium subscription, 500 verified followers, and “at least 500,000 Home Timeline impressions from verified users in the last 90 days”⁷⁰. (An impression is one time a post is shown.) Accounts must apply, and meeting the bar “does not guarantee admission”⁷⁰. Pay is based on impressions from Premium subscribers only, and no rate is published⁷⁰. The live help pages refused our tools, so both are read from Internet Archive copies¹⁵⁷⁰. No tweet in our collection gives a figure for X payouts¹.

YouTube. Shorts earn a share of advert money once a channel has “1,000 subscribers with 10 million qualified Shorts views in the last 90 days”⁷¹. We did not find a published rate per view.

Facebook. Meta announced in October 2024 a single programme that pays for Reels, longer videos, photos and text posts, and said entry at that stage was by invitation⁷². We did not read its current entry rules.

Instagram. Its creator site lists six money tools in its menu: subscriptions, partnership ads, a creator marketplace, gifts, badges and bonuses¹⁷. The page body did not load for us¹⁷. None of the six is a standing payment per view open to everyone; that is our reading of the menu, not a statement by Instagram. So for most accounts, Instagram views pay nothing by themselves. The money has to come from a brand, a campaign, a link or a subscription page.

Step 2: paid campaigns, the route most recent tweets push

Twelve of the 47 tweets name Higgsfield¹. Its programme, Higgsfield Earn, is free to join and requires connecting an Instagram account². Creators post videos made to a campaign’s brief and are paid for each approved video, plus bonuses after 24 hours and after seven days²³. Money can be withdrawn only after day seven².

The public page gives no rate per view. It does give a cap: “There is an earning cap of $1,000 on the first day, with a maximum lifetime payout of $2,500 per video.”²

Campaigns promoting Higgsfield are also listed on an outside marketplace, Content Rewards, by an agency called Clip Farm⁵⁶⁷. The pages do not say who funds them. They are not the Earn programme and they are not AI persona campaigns. Two pay existing meme pages (accounts that post jokes and viral clips) to repost clips from an approved bank, and one pays for clips of a podcast⁵⁶⁷. We use them only because they show a rate per 1,000 views in public.

“Budget used” is the page’s own label, and it does not always equal rate times views: in the third row, 7.6 million views at $2.00 is $15,200 (our sum)⁷. The first campaign’s page states $2.00 in the rate box and “$1.00 per 1,000 qualified views” in its text⁵.

The tweets also name Launchpoint, a company whose software brands use to run and pay creator campaigns. Higgsfield is one of its customers⁸⁷⁴. A how-to guide republished from X, which urges readers to join, says a campaign there has “a $1 million rewards pool paying creators $1 for every 1,000 views on AI character content” and that there is “No audience required to start”¹¹. We found no page on Launchpoint’s site that names the campaign, its funder or its terms⁷⁴.

So the rates we could read run from about $0.50 to $2 per 1,000 views. Views needed each month = income wanted ÷ rate x 1,000. These are our sums.

These views are needed every month, and only views that meet the campaign’s rules count. The same guide says $10,000 a month means running three or four characters and “300-400 pieces of content a month”¹¹.

How many views do creators in such a programme get? Launchpoint’s case study of its work for Higgsfield reports “700+ creators and 2,000+ social accounts”, 60,000 tracked posts and 350 million views, with 55 posts passing 1 million views⁸. From those figures (all our estimates):

• About 500,000 views per creator and 175,000 per account in total. At an assumed $1 per 1,000 views that is roughly $500 per creator. The period and the real rate are not stated.
• About 5,800 views per post, and one post in about 1,100 passing a million.

An average hides the split between a few large accounts and the rest, and no split is published. The programme covers user-made videos in general, not only AI personas, and the case study says “Creator ratings let Higgsfield pick top performers”⁸.

Step 3: testing two headline figures

“Up to $100,000 a week” would take 40 videos that each reach the $2,500 lifetime cap (our sum)¹². We did not find Higgsfield’s own definition of the figure. The same tweet says “guaranteed payouts”¹. The programme’s terms say: “Higgsfield makes no guarantees regarding campaign availability, payout amounts, platform uptime, or the outcome of any submission or appeal.”⁴ The terms we read were last updated on 21 March 2026, two months after the tweet⁴.

A tweet by @maubaron says a creator “made $180,000 in the past week”¹. It names a Launchpoint campaign whose terms we could not find, so this claim is untested. At $1 per 1,000 views it would be 180 million views in a week (our sum)¹¹.

Step 4: brand deals

A rate card from Influencer Marketing Hub, an industry publisher, gives these ranges for one sponsored Instagram post: about $10 to $100 for an account under 10,000 followers, $100 to $500 for 10,000 to 100,000, and $500 to $5,000 for 100,000 to 500,000¹⁸. These are ranges for human creators, not measured deals. No source we found gives rates for AI personas.

The example tweet claims $25,000 a month at 74,000 followers¹. At the top of that tier, $500 a post, that is 50 sponsored posts a month (our sum)¹⁸. The most-cited agency-run persona, Aitana, was reported at a little over $1,100 a deal³². At that price $25,000 is about 23 deals a month (our sum).

Step 5: pay-per-install offers

Reported rates are roughly $3 to $8 an install²⁸. At that range $1,000 a month needs 125 to 333 installs and $10,000 needs 1,250 to 3,333 (our sums). The rate page refused our tools and we read the figures in a search summary²⁸. We found no measured figure for how many viewers of an AI persona video go on to install anything, so the views needed cannot be worked out.

Step 6: subscriptions, the separate method

Fanvue keeps 20% of what fans pay and the creator gets 80%¹⁹. Forbes reports that plans average $12.50 a month²³.

• To take home $1,000 a month takes $1,250 from fans: 100 subscribers at $12.50 (our sum).
• To take home $10,000 takes $12,500: 1,000 subscribers at $12.50 (our sum).

The most-viewed tweet gives $13,450 in a month beside 4,678 TikTok followers¹. If $13,450 is what fans paid, that is about 450 subscribers at $30 a month or about 1,350 at $10 (our estimate; Fanvue says most successful creators charge $5 to $30¹⁹). That would be 10% to 29% of the stated following, unless most of the money came from tips, paid messages or the other traffic the tweet mentions. The tweet text does not say.

Step 7: costs

The most-viewed tweet gives the cost as “$20 for Claude/month”¹. Claude Pro is $20 a month²⁴. The video tool is extra. A price tracker lists Higgsfield at $19 a month for about 15 short videos, $59 for about 53 and $129 for about 133²⁴. Posting one video a day therefore needs one of the two larger plans, before failed attempts. Our estimate is $80 to $150 a month in tools ($20 plus $59 or $129). Higgsfield’s own price page did not load for our tools. A second tracker showed $19, $47 and $99 a month on yearly billing in late March 2026 and records a price rise in June 2026, so treat all of these as approximate²⁴. X payouts also need a paid Premium subscription⁷⁰.

For a US participant, income from any of these routes is self-employment income, taxed at 15.3% from $400 of net earnings, on top of income tax⁶³. We did not check other countries.

What the tweet text does not say

Of the 30 most-viewed tweets, about 16 give an income in dollars, four give a follower count and one gives a cost¹. None gives a rate per view, the price or number of brand deals, a subscriber count, the platform’s fee, the hours worked, or whether the figure is before or after costs¹. That is our count from the collected text, much of which is cut off at a link. We did not view the attached images, videos or threads, which may contain more.

What people who tried it report

No one has measured outcomes across people who tried. We found no study or platform figure for the share of AI persona accounts that earn anything, the median, or how long accounts last. What exists is a few small sets of numbers and a handful of individual cases.

Payouts from the tool maker. A news agency reported in February 2026 that Higgsfield’s chief executive said “more than $800,000 had been distributed to over 10,000 creators within three weeks”⁹. That is about $80 each over those three weeks (our division of the company’s own two figures). A later article, which reads as promotional and gives no source, says over $1 million to more than 10,000 creators¹⁰. Both are secondary and both are averages. The programme’s terms bar creators from disclosing “your specific payout rates, amounts, or payment terms”⁴, which may be why we found no independent payout reports.

The same news report says some participants “reported delayed payments, missing submissions, or account suspensions”⁹. The company’s reply, in the same article, was that the programme had received videos made outside its platform and artificially inflated engagement figures, and that compliance checks could lead to rejected payments⁹. These are individual reports relayed by a news agency. We did not verify them.

Money in two reposting campaigns went mostly to the same two pages. In the two Content Rewards reposting campaigns above, the top three accounts took about 80% and 78% of the budget used (our sums: $13,700 of $17,094 and $12,700 of $16,291)⁵⁷. The same two accounts were first and second in both⁵⁷. In the first, the other 75 people shared about $3,400, about $45 each (our estimate)⁵. This measures existing meme pages reposting clips, which was the entry condition. No such split is published for AI character campaigns.

Brand deals fell on one marketplace. Business Insider reported that “Brand partnerships with AI social accounts dropped by around 30% in the first eight months of 2025 compared to the same period in 2024”, from transaction data on hundreds of campaigns at the marketplace Collabstr³⁹. Collabstr’s cofounder said AI content does not yet draw “the same amount of engagement and audience that a real human is able to”³⁹. We found no 2026 update. TIME cites a poll of more than 200 large-company marketers in which 89% “were not planning to work with influencers, AI avatars, or digital clones in 2026”⁴⁰.

A viral case that lost TikTok’s payouts. TIME followed the makers of “Granny Spills”, an AI character that reached 1 million Instagram followers “in her first few weeks”⁴⁰. One of its makers already made street-interview videos for TikTok⁴⁰. TIME reports: “monetization is a greater challenge. Suerez says that their videos are getting flagged by TikTok as ‘unoriginal,’ and are de-monetized from the Creator Rewards Program.”⁴⁰ It adds that he “instead hopes to earn money from Facebook, YouTube, and Cameo, and to ink deals with brands”⁴⁰. No income figure was given. The report is from November 2025 and we found no later income data.

A crowded field by late 2024. Wired and 404 Media reviewed more than 1,000 AI-generated Instagram accounts and described the field as “full of people who are trying to get rich in part by following guides and instructional courses being sold by people who have run successful AI influencers”³⁵. They published no earnings data. About 100 of those accounts included video taken from real people with the face replaced, and Instagram “deleted two of the four accounts” the reporters sent it as examples³⁵.

Reports of the hours vary. Four contest nominees told the New York Post that managing their characters “is a full time job”³⁷. The maker of one top subscription persona told the Daily Mail of 14 to 16 hour days at the start and eight hours a day with fans later; Fortune relays this³⁴. Fortune also describes a student who spends “a few hours a day” on a persona with 150 subscribers³⁴. One operator said “maybe 30 to 50 minutes of my day”; his accounts were later removed (see the upside section)³⁸.

What one tool seller expects. A company that sells AI influencer tools writes that “most active accounts” on subscription platforms land “between $300 and $2,000” a month, and its lowest tier, where it says most new creators start, is under $500⁴⁶. This is an estimate with no stated data, from an interested party.

One vendor’s total on the subscription side. Fanwake sells chat automation for AI personas on Fanvue. Its tweet in our collection says $300k in creator revenue and 1,051 creators¹. That is about $285 per creator in total, not per month (our estimate from the vendor’s own claim); the period is not stated. Its home page says “600+ creators already using FanWake” and has animated counters that gave different numbers on different readings, so we do not use them⁴⁴.

General creator incomes, for scale. One 2026 industry blog puts half of creators under $5,000 a year and 4% over $100,000²⁹. $10,000 a month is $120,000 a year. The source is weak: a vendor’s blog covering human creators who already earn something²⁹.

What the rules allow now

An openly artificial character is allowed. No platform we read bans AI personas as such. The US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) says there is “no blanket prohibition on the use of AI-generated avatars in marketing”⁵⁹. Fanvue treats AI creators as a recognised category²⁰. YouTube’s rules allow AI used to show “a unique character and narrative you invented”⁵⁷.

Hiding that the character is AI is not.

• Instagram now asks accounts that feature an AI-generated person to carry an “AI-generated profile” label. Its announcement says: “We will also limit the reach of profiles that feature an AI-generated person and do not add this label.”⁵⁰ Accounts that add the label “will not see a change to their profile’s reach”⁵⁰. Two secondary write-ups date the announcement to 31 August 2026⁵⁰.
• Meta has required since 2024 that posters label photorealistic AI video, and says “we may apply penalties if they fail to do so”⁵¹.
• TikTok: “we require creators to label AI-generated or significantly edited content that shows realistic-looking scenes or people. Unlabeled content may be removed, restricted, or labeled by our team”⁵⁵.
• Fanvue: “you must disclose that it is not real and was generated using AI. This disclosure must be clear and prominent”²⁰. The operator must also pass an identity check with a real ID²⁰.
• In the EU, people who deploy deepfakes (realistic made-up or altered images, audio or video of people) must disclose that the material is artificial, under rules “applicable from 2 August 2026”⁶⁰. Whether a wholly invented person counts as a deepfake under that law is a question we did not settle.
• New York requires adverts that use a “synthetic performer” to say so, with penalties of $1,000 for a first violation and $5,000 for later ones⁶¹.

The example tweet says “Nobody notices she is AI”¹, and other tweets in the collection sell the method on viewers not noticing. That version now runs against the rules of the platforms it depends on.

The clip-swap recipe is at risk. Meta’s rules say: “Content that is unoriginal or reproduced without making meaningful enhancements (commentary, parody, creative editing, etc.) cannot be monetized.”⁵³ TikTok keeps reused material out of its main feed if it adds nothing new, and its rewards programme requires content made entirely by the poster¹³⁵⁵. X’s new programme excludes content “downloaded from X or other platforms and then reuploaded” and “Content reproduced from others with only slight changes”⁷⁰. YouTube excludes “AI-generated content made with generic or unoriginal templates giving the impression of mass production”⁵⁷. None of the four has said, in anything we found, whether swapping a character into someone else’s clip counts as enough change. So this is a real risk, not a settled ban. The source clip is also someone else’s work and sometimes their recognisable body or voice³⁵³⁶.

Meta publishes enforcement figures only for Facebook in general: about 500,000 accounts acted against for spam-like behaviour and about 10 million impersonating profiles removed in the first half of 2025⁵⁴. No platform has published how many AI persona accounts it has limited or removed.

Brand deals must be marked. Instagram: “Branded content may only be posted with the use of the branded content tool”⁵². TikTok: “you must enable the commercial content disclosure toggle”⁵⁶. Both exclude adult products from branded content⁵²⁵⁶. Under FTC guides, an endorser includes a party that “could be or appear to be an individual”⁵⁸. Law-firm commentary reads that as covering virtual influencers; the FTC’s own question-and-answer page does not mention them⁵⁸. The FTC says it usually looks to advertisers and agencies first, and that action against an individual “might be appropriate” where disclosures are not made despite warnings⁵⁸.

Passing a made-up person off as a real customer is a violation. The FTC’s rule on reviews and testimonials bars a business from creating a testimonial that misrepresents “That the reviewer or testimonialist exists” or that they used the product, and it counts an individual who sells products or services as a business⁵⁹. The FTC’s guidance adds that a celebrity’s avatar used without permission to praise a product would break the rule⁵⁹. Two tweets in the collection describe set-ups that could meet this rule: one proposes making AI avatars and voice clones of a famous person, and one describes an AI character advert for an app-install offer as “indistinguishable from real UGC”¹. (UGC means user-generated content: videos made by ordinary accounts.) Whether either was shown to viewers as a real customer is not stated. The same rule “prohibits anyone from selling or buying fake indicators of social media influence, such as followers or views generated by a bot or hijacked account”⁵⁹. We found no FTC case against an individual AI influencer operator.

Income can be withdrawn. Instagram “reserves the right to modify, suspend or terminate access to” its monetisation features “at any time”⁵³. X says accounts that break its rules can be suspended from its rewards programme⁷⁰. Fanvue’s rules list removal, suspension or a permanent ban as penalties, and OnlyFans may “withhold any part of your Creator Earnings”²⁰⁶². Higgsfield’s terms say it may “withhold, delay, or reclaim payments in cases where fraud, policy violations, or errors are suspected or detected — including after initial payout”, and that eligibility “is based on the expected reach of your social media accounts”⁴.

Who makes money from it

In our 47 tweets. By the collector’s labels, 30 tweets come from accounts recorded as promoting or linking to a tool, guide, course, referral or a “comment and I’ll message you” offer, and 17 show nothing on offer¹. Each group holds about half the views¹. The labels record what was seen on the tweet or profile. We found one wrong (see below), so treat the counts as approximate. One of the 47 is from a Fanvue creator’s account that does not say whether it is an AI persona¹.

The tool maker. Twelve tweets name Higgsfield, and they hold about 32% of the views (our sum)¹. The second most-viewed tweet is the company’s own¹. Higgsfield does pay people, and joining is free². What it pays for is videos about Higgsfield made to its briefs. Its head of growth is quoted in Launchpoint’s case study: “UGC is the greatest way to get new eyes to your brand at a nicer, more effective rate than paid ads could ever provide.”⁸ So this “platform payout” is a company’s marketing budget, not income from an audience. The company earns from subscriptions and credits (units a customer buys and spends on each image or video): its page says creating or editing a character “costs 1.12 credits” and that “Plans add more credits”²⁵. The “FREE” in its tweet is a free trial of credits²⁵.

Referral payments. An affiliate programme pays a person a share of what the customers they refer spend. Higgsfield’s affiliate page says: “Share Higgsfield and earn up to 25% commission for up to 12 months”, paid in cash²⁶. On a $59 plan that is up to $14.75 a month for each person referred, so $1,000 a month takes about 68 paying referrals (our estimate)²⁴²⁶. We did not check whether any account in the collection is an affiliate.

Two tweets in the collection link to another tool, Apob AI: one with a “$5,000+ per month” opening, from @sabir_huss50540, and one with a “$20K per month” opening¹²⁷. Both links are personal addresses on mega.apob.ai that forward to the Apob app with a tag reading “creator_marketing”²⁷. Our collection had labelled the second as a Higgsfield referral; that label was wrong¹²⁷. A third tweet shares the “$5,000+” wording but its text carries no outside link¹. An affiliate directory lists Apob’s programme at 30% of a referred customer’s payments for three months; Apob’s own page refused us²⁷. We do not know how, or whether, either account was paid.

The subscription platform. Fanvue keeps 20% of every sale¹⁹. It also pays a creator who recruits another “5% of the Referred Creator’s Qualifying Revenue” for 12 months, capped at $50,000 per recruit²¹. One tweet in the collection invites creators curious about switching to Fanvue to send a message and mentions the sender’s referral¹.

Courses. Four listings on the marketplace Whop that teach AI influencers ran from $29.99 a month to $2,000 one-off when we read them⁶⁴. Two showed member counts: 6 and 25⁶⁴. One $997 listing promises “Create Your First Profitable AI Influencer in 30 Days!”⁶⁴. One $169 course says: “Results vary; no income is guaranteed”, with a 30-day refund⁶⁴. A community on Skool is listed by a directory at $47 a month with 342 members; Skool charges the owner $9 a month plus 10% of sales, or $99 plus 2.9%⁶⁵. Only two of the 47 tweets visibly point to a course¹. Six use “comment and I’ll message you”; we could not see where those lead¹.

People who had a success and now teach it. The two largest solo income claims we found come from people who sell a course or coaching on the method (see the next section)³⁵⁴¹. Several press cases were supplied through Fanvue³⁴³⁷.

Regulators. We found no court or regulator action about AI influencer courses or tools, in a limited search of US and UK sources. The nearest are FTC cases about a different and far more expensive product: AI-branded online store packages⁶⁶. In one, the FTC’s complaint alleged that “more than one-fifth of the company’s stores on the platform earn no money at all” against a fee of at least $45,000⁶⁷. As of that March 2025 release the case was pending; we did not check its later outcome⁶⁷. Another ended in March 2026 with an $18 million judgment, mostly suspended⁶⁸. A UK law-firm note reports that the advertising regulator found five course advertisers’ income claims misleading in October 2025; those were general business courses⁶⁹. These cases concern only the companies named in them. They are not about AI influencers, and we do not suggest any connection to any account quoted or named here.

The upside

Some AI personas do earn real money. This section sets out the best cases we found. Each is marked by who checked it and by whether the money came from brand deals or from subscriptions.

Brand deals and campaigns

• Aitana, run by a Barcelona agency. Fortune reported in November 2023, relaying Euronews, that “Aitana brings in an average of €3,000 ($3,300) a month, but on one occasion took in €10,000 ($10,900)”³⁰. Euronews gives “just over” EUR 1,000 an advert³¹. At that date the persona was a few months old: “In just a few months, she has managed to gain more than 121,000 followers”⁷³. The widely repeated “$11,000 a month” is the single best month³⁰⁴⁷. All figures are the agency’s own statement, and the income includes a Fanvue page³². The founders are trained designers who had run a creative studio since 2019³³. They launched two characters; Aitana passed 10,000 followers and the other did not pass 500³³. Fortune quotes them: “It took us a few months of experimenting”³⁰. We found no later income figure.
• Three contest nominees. Three persona makers told the New York Post in May 2026 that their characters bring in $1,500, $2,100 and $4,500 a month³⁷. The $2,100 and $4,500 are described as coming from brand partnerships; the $1,500 persona is a music artist and the source of that money is not stated³⁷. The $1,500 persona has 130,000 followers and the $2,100 one has 71,000, so more followers did not mean more money here³⁷. All described it as full-time work³⁷. They were nominees in a contest hosted by Fanvue and an AI image company, OpenArt, and the article’s photos are credited to Fanvue, so this is a hand-picked group³⁷. These are their own statements with no proof shown.
• A fourth nominee, through her own company. A filmmaker’s AI “digital twin” of herself, with 11,700 Instagram followers, “brings in between $6,000 and $9,000 monthly via the film production company she created”³⁷. She calls it “a strong lead generator”, meaning it brings in clients³⁷. This is client income for a business, not persona income.
• Company-run characters. A Korean studio’s chief executive said in September 2021 that its virtual model Rozy had signed eight advertising contracts “in only two months” and could bring in “more than 1 billion KRW” by the end of that year⁴⁸. That was a projection by a production company. Lil Miquela, launched in 2016, has 2 million Instagram followers; we found no sourced income figure for it⁴⁰. A statistics roundup credits Lu do Magalu with about $2.5 million in 2024 across 74 sponsored posts⁴⁷. That is an industry estimate we did not trace to its origin.
• Reposting pages, not AI personas. The two Content Rewards campaigns show the same two existing pages taking about $12,900 and $10,400 across both (our sums)⁵⁷. The first campaign’s chart runs from 6 September to 6 October 2026⁵. The figures are the marketplace’s own record.

Subscriptions and own products (the separate method)

• Platform-confirmed. “Fanvue says Pellegrini, one of the most popular AI models on its site, generated $23,000 in revenue in January, up from $6,000 in October.”³⁴ Fanvue also confirmed the operator’s claim of $100,000 earned on its platform³⁵. A person who says they operate the account went on to sell a $220 course and “claims to have made more than a million dollars in six months”³⁵. Fanvue said it has no affiliation with the course and that usage of the account is now “extremely low”³⁵. The million-dollar figure is the course seller’s own claim.
• A persona listed for sale. An AI influencer brand is listed on the marketplace Flippa with the seller’s statement that it “reached $104,000 in total earnings, with $51,000 accumulated just in May”, over a nine-month life, from “fan subscription platforms”⁴³. Flippa’s profit field shows $26,125 a month at a 100% margin⁴³. $104,000 over nine months is about $11,600 a month (our sum). The asking price is $121,320, about 1.2 times everything earned so far, and it is unsold⁴³. The listing gives about 922,000 followers across Instagram, TikTok and Facebook (our sum of its three figures)⁴³. Flippa marks the listing as vetted; the financials are the seller’s⁴³. The seller built custom software to handle messages from more than 10,000 fans⁴³.
• An AI monk. The maker of “Yang Mun”, with 2.5 million Instagram followers, “claimed that he has made more than $300,000 since he launched Yang Mun last October”⁴¹. The account points viewers to a $49.99 programme, ebooks and subscriptions⁴¹. The income is his own claim. He sells a package on building AI characters at $799 an hour⁴¹. An undated directory entry lists the persona as inactive⁴².
• Smaller self-reported cases. An anonymous student told Fortune of $2,500 to $4,000 a month from 150 subscribers³⁴. A forum account, read in a summary, reports about $25,000 in five months⁴⁵. A press summary reports a newcomer earning “thousands of dollars a month” from Fanvue subscriptions and T-shirts³⁸. That persona was presented as a real person; Instagram removed its profile and the last remaining account came down after the report³⁸. It is an example of income that did not last, not a model.

Sacra, a research firm, estimates Fanvue at a $200 million yearly run rate (the latest month’s pace multiplied up to a year) in May 2026, with 325,000 creators, AI creators at about 15% of revenue, and top AI accounts at $20,000 or more a month²². Spread evenly: $200 million ÷ 12 ÷ 325,000 is about $51 per creator a month. If the $200 million is Fanvue’s 20% cut and not fan spending, fan spending is five times that, about $256 (our estimates)¹⁹²². Fortune reported the same 15% share for November 2023³⁴.

Reach can also come fast: Granny Spills, 1 million Instagram followers in weeks⁴⁰; and “Jean Phil”, named in two tweets, reported at over 228,000 followers within days in September 2026¹⁴⁹. The Jean Phil account’s Instagram bio links to a meme coin (a novelty cryptocurrency)⁴⁹. We found no report of brand deals, and we do not know who runs it or what they earned.

What the top tenth and top hundredth earn

No source gives this for AI personas. The nearest measures are one post in about 1,100 passing a million views in Higgsfield’s creator programme⁸, the three-account share of about 80% in two reposting campaigns for meme pages⁵⁷, and Sacra’s $20,000 or more a month for top AI accounts on Fanvue²².

A realistic good result in the first year or two (our estimate)

This judgement rests on the sums above and on the lack of any checked solo case. It does not rest on a measured failure rate, because nobody has published one.

The common outcome from view-based campaigns is probably nothing to a few hundred dollars in total over the first months. Basis: the company’s own figures give about $80 per creator over the Earn programme’s first three weeks⁹; Launchpoint’s totals give roughly $500 per creator over an unstated period at an assumed $1 per 1,000 views⁸¹¹; and TikTok’s bar is 10,000 followers and a one-minute original video¹².

A good result for a skilled maker is about $1,000 a brand post and $1,500 to $4,500 a month for full-time work. Basis: the Aitana average, reported within months of launch by a design agency³⁰⁷³, and the three contest nominees³⁷. How long it takes is unknown. The share of accounts that reach it is unknown.

Higher figures in the evidence come almost entirely from subscriptions, paid messages and adult content, or from selling a course to a large following. We found no checked case of a solo newcomer earning a steady income from brand deals and platform payouts alone.

What it takes to compete

What the cases that worked have in common

1. Existing skill, often a team. Aitana’s makers are a design agency³³. One of Granny Spills’ makers already made videos for TikTok, and the pair work from “extensive prompt templates”⁴⁰. Rozy has a studio⁴⁸. A strategist who builds AI influencers for client brands told TIME they are “profitable from the beginning because you need nothing”; she works for paying clients⁴⁰.
2. An original character that says it is artificial. Aitana, Rozy and Granny Spills are written characters and openly AI³¹⁴⁰⁴⁸. That is also the version the rules protect⁵⁰⁵⁷.
3. Income beyond views. The money came from brand deals, subscriptions, their own products or client fees^35374143. Granny Spills lost TikTok’s payouts even with a million followers⁴⁰.
4. Very large reach. At $1 to $2 per 1,000 views, $1,000 a month needs 500,000 to 1 million qualifying views⁵⁶. Higgsfield’s terms tie eligibility to expected reach⁴.
5. More than one attempt. The Aitana agency launched two characters and one worked³³. Fanvue lets an AI creator run up to 15 linked accounts, against 2 for a human creator²⁰. The how-to guide assumes three or four characters¹¹.
6. Daily work. Full-time for the contest nominees; hours a day of fan chat on the subscription side³⁴³⁷. Aitana’s agency holds a weekly meeting “to create Aitana’s life”³¹.

A different service may have better demand than a persona with its own audience. A survey of about 1,000 senior marketers found 79% raising spending on AI-generated creator content³⁹. That is paid production work for brands. One tweet in the collection suggests pitching brands $1,500 to $10,000 a month for it, and a second makes the same pitch without a visible figure¹. We found no checked fee for such work.

What it costs

• Tools: about $80 to $150 a month by our estimate, more with several characters²⁴.
• Time: unknown. The documented cases that worked got reach within weeks to months⁴⁰⁷³. We found no data on how long accounts that did not work kept trying, and no source for hours per week at the start.
• Optional: a course at $29.99 a month to $2,000⁶⁴. None is required by any platform.

How to tell early which side you are on

These checks are our judgement, built from the figures above.

• Views a month after 60 to 90 days. Under 500,000 qualifying views means under $1,000 at the best rate we saw⁵. Granny Spills and Aitana had large followings within weeks to months⁴⁰⁷³.
• Would your videos pass an originality test? If the method is swapping a character into someone else’s clip, expect platform payouts to be refused, as TIME reports for one large account¹³⁴⁰⁷⁰.
• Will you label it as AI? If the plan depends on nobody noticing, it depends on breaking the platforms’ rules⁵⁰⁵⁵.
• Where are you, and where are your viewers? TikTok pays only account holders based in eight countries¹². Two campaigns we read asked for 40% or more of the audience in the US or other “Tier-1” countries, which one of them lists as the US, UK, Canada and Australia⁵⁶.
• Has any brand paid you, with the deal marked as paid? One deal near $1,000 is the Aitana level³¹.
• Does the plan start with buying something? The sums on this page are free to check.

What we did not verify

• How many people who try this earn anything. No study or platform figure exists that we could find. We found no first-hand account of failure with numbers. That is a gap, not evidence of success.
• Every income claim in the tweets. None was checked, including $3,000 a month after 30 days, $25k a month, $13,450 in a month and $180,000 in a week. We read the tweets from our collected copy, not on X, and did not view their images, videos or threads. The story of the man in Japan was not traced to a source. Tweet dates are worked out from ID numbers.
• Launchpoint. We found no page on launchpointhq.com that names the “AI Invasion” campaign or its “$1M pool”. Its rate comes from a how-to guide. The period of the case study’s figures is not stated.
• Higgsfield Earn’s real rates and totals. The amounts per stage and the view thresholds are behind a login. What “$100,000 a week” means is not defined on any Higgsfield page we read. An earlier draft cited blogs that call it a weekly pool shared by all creators; we could not produce a checkable address for that, so it was removed. The $800,000 and $1 million totals are the company’s own figures, read second-hand. The reports of unpaid creators were not verified. The terms in force when the January 2026 tweet was posted were not read.
• Who funds the Content Rewards campaigns. The pages name the agency, not the funder. One page shows the line “Clippers in this campaign earn $0.03 on average”, which we could not explain.
• Higgsfield’s prices. Its price page did not load, and a reader service was blocked for its site. Prices are from two third-party trackers that do not agree.
• Whether any account is paid for its posts. The affiliate programmes exist. We followed only the links in the three tweets described above.
• TikTok and fully AI videos. Third-party guides disagree on whether such videos can join Creator Rewards. The help page we read does not mention AI. TikTok’s page on AI labels would not open. Its rate is an outside estimate.
• Instagram. The earn page and the help pages on bonuses and AI labels showed no body text. Guides that call the bonuses invite-only were seen only in a search summary. The date of the AI profile label announcement is second-hand.
• X. Both programme pages are archive copies. X’s Premium price was not read. X’s Creator Monetization Standards page¹⁶ refused us in the final check.
• YouTube and Facebook. No per-view rate was found for Shorts. Facebook’s current entry rules were not read; the source is a 2024 announcement.
• OnlyFans. A common claim that AI content there must resemble the verified account holder was not found in the terms text we read, which may have been incomplete.
• Brand-deal rates for AI personas. None found. The rate card is for human creators. Collabstr’s fall covers January to August 2025 on one marketplace. The 89% poll figure is from TIME, not the pollster’s report.
• Conversion rates. No measured figure for followers who subscribe, or viewers who click or install. The install rate is from a search summary; the page refused us.
• Fanvue. The number of AI creators and their median earnings are not published. Sacra does not say whether its run rate is fan spending or Fanvue’s cut. Some third parties, including the tool seller cited above, say Fanvue takes 15%; the Fanvue pages we read state 20%¹⁹⁴⁶.
• Fanwake. Its home-page counters could not be read reliably. Its creator counts (600+ on its page, 1,051 in its tweet) are its own.
• The success cases. Only the Pellegrini figures are confirmed by a platform, and that platform earns from sign-ups. We did not see the documents behind the Flippa listing, its date, or whether its content is adult. Aitana’s figures are from 2023. The Yang Mun figures are the maker’s own. Reports of later brand deals for Granny Spills come only from a vendor blog. The original forum thread and the Wired article behind two smaller cases could not be opened. Figures for Lu do Magalu are industry estimates.
• Law. Whether the FTC meant its endorser wording to cover virtual influencers rests on law-firm commentary. EU fine levels, and whether an individual operator or an invented person falls under the EU rule, were not checked. The New York bill page⁶¹ refused us in the final check, so its penalty figures stand as first read. The later outcome of the Click Profit case was not checked. Tax and law outside the US, EU and New York were not checked. The FTC and UK cases were read in press releases and a law-firm note, not the case documents.
• Courses. An earlier draft counted eight Whop listings; only four addresses were kept, and the page now relies on those four. Member counts may miss buyers who left. The Skool community’s figures are from a directory.
• Exact quotes. In the final check, quotes from Higgsfield’s terms, Content Rewards, Launchpoint, the X archive copies, TikTok’s Creator Academy page, YouTube’s eligibility page, TIME, Fortune, Wired, the New York Post, Flippa, Columbia News Service, Asia Economy, the FTC’s Click Profit release and the how-to guide were checked against page text. Quotes from Influencer Marketing Hub, Sacra, the FTC rule and guidance pages, the EU pages, the New York bill, the IRS, Meta’s 2024 labelling announcement and TikTok’s branded content policy came through a tool that summarises pages and were not checked word for word.
• Reddit. Our tools could not open it, so forum threads from people who tried are missing.
• Whether the people named have seen this page. The people and companies named here were not contacted.

Sources

“Read at source” means we opened the page itself. The pages were read on 8 October 2026. “Secondary” means we read an article or summary about the source, not the source itself. “Estimate” means a sum or guess, ours or the publisher’s. “Through a reader service” means a service fetched the page for us because the site refused our tools directly.

1. Does It Pay collection of 47 tweets on this scheme, collected 2026-10-06; individual tweets linked above. Read from our collected copy, not from the live tweets. Counts by label are estimates.
2. Higgsfield, “Earn” page. https://higgsfield.ai/earn . Undated page. Read at source on 2026-10-08.
3. Higgsfield blog, on Higgsfield Earn. https://higgsfield.ai/blog/Higgsfield-Earn-Talent-And-Collaboration-Monetization . 2026-01-18. Read at source on 2026-10-08.
4. Higgsfield Earn terms. https://creators.higgsfield.ai/terms . Last updated 2026-03-21. Read at source on 2026-10-08, through a reader service.
5. Content Rewards, “HiggsField UGC Reposting (Existing Page)” campaign by Clip Farm. https://contentrewards.com/discover/b9f52da2-1572-4d44-a175-4b2aab5b9d1a . Live page; chart runs 2026-09-06 to 2026-10-06. Read at source on 2026-10-08. Shares and averages are our estimate.
6. Content Rewards, “Higgsfield 20VC Clipping” podcast-clip campaign by Clip Farm. https://contentrewards.com/discover/1ccf8238-ca36-4ff3-a6d1-76956d865ada . Live page; chart runs 2026-09-08 to 2026-10-08. Read at source on 2026-10-08.
7. Content Rewards, “Higgsfield x ClipFarm Existing Page (Private)” campaign by Clip Farm. https://contentrewards.com/discover/d7fd5480-45eb-43cf-99e7-05a9fc3de4bd . Live page; chart runs 2026-09-08 to 2026-10-08. Read at source on 2026-10-08. Shares are our estimate.
8. Launchpoint, Higgsfield case study. https://www.launchpointhq.com/case-studies/higgsfield . Undated page. Read at source on 2026-10-08. Ratios and per-creator figures are our estimate.
9. Qazinform, on complaints about Higgsfield Earn. https://qazinform.com/news/scam-claims-and-backlash-hit-kazakhstans-ai-unicorn-higgsfield-b311a7 . 2026-02-13. Secondary (news report of the company’s figure and of individual complaints). The average is our estimate.
10. Business ABC, on Higgsfield. https://businessabc.net/how-higgsfield-ai-is-revolutionising-the-creator-economy . 2026-05-26. Secondary; no source given for its figure. The average is our estimate.
11. YouMind, how-to guide to the Launchpoint campaign, republished from X. https://youmind.com/landing/x-viral-articles/ai-influencer-monetization-guide . 2026-10-03. Secondary (the guide is not Launchpoint’s own page), read on 2026-10-08 through a reader service.
12. TikTok Creator Academy, Creator Rewards Program. https://www.tiktok.com/creator-academy/en/article/creator-rewards-program . Undated page. Read at source on 2026-10-08, through a reader service.
13. TikTok Support, Creator Rewards Program. https://www.tiktok.com/support/faq_detail?id=7581821550694013452 . Undated page. Read at source on 2026-10-08, through a reader service.
14. TT Calculator, on Creator Rewards rates. https://ttcalculator.net/blog/how-tiktok-creator-rewards-work-2026/ . 2026-02-17, updated July 2026. Read at source on 2026-10-08. Estimate (the publisher’s, from creator reports; not a TikTok rate).
15. X Help, Creator Revenue Sharing, Internet Archive copy showing the retirement notice. https://web.archive.org/web/20260921205352/https://help.x.com/en/using-x/creator-revenue-sharing . Snapshot of 2026-09-21. Read at source on 2026-10-08 in the archive copy; the live page refused us.
16. X Help, Creator Monetization Standards. https://help.x.com/en/rules-and-policies/content-monetization-standards . Undated page. Read through a reader service in the first pass; it refused us in the final check on 2026-10-08, so nothing on this page now relies on it.
17. Instagram for Creators, “Earn money”. https://creators.instagram.com/earn-money . Undated page. Read on 2026-10-08 through a reader service: only the site menu loaded, not the page body. The invite-only detail is secondary: https://www.pathsocial.com/resources/bonuses-are-back-how-to-earn-the-coveted-instagram-bonus/ , seen in a search summary.
18. Influencer Marketing Hub, Instagram influencer rates. https://influencermarketinghub.com/influencer-rates/instagram-influencer-rates . Updated 2026-10-07. Read at source on 2026-10-08, through a summarising tool. Post counts are our estimate.
19. Fanvue, earning rate and pricing. https://help.fanvue.com/en/articles/7860515-earning-rate-changes-for-creators-on-fanvue ; https://legal.fanvue.com/creator-earnings-payouts.md (updated 2026-04-22); https://help.fanvue.com/en/articles/9527004-3-steps-to-make-your-first-10k-on-fanvue . Read at source on 2026-10-08. Subscriber counts are our estimate.
20. Fanvue, rules for AI creators. https://help.fanvue.com/en/articles/9538738-is-ai-content-allowed-on-fanvue ; https://help.fanvue.com/en/articles/9539091-passing-kyc-and-creating-multiple-accounts-as-an-ai-creator ; https://help.fanvue.com/en/articles/14290142-how-do-i-know-if-a-creator-is-ai (2026-08-03); https://legal.fanvue.com/community-guidelines . Read at source on 2026-10-08.
21. Fanvue, creator referral policy. https://legal.fanvue.com/creator-referral-affiliate.md . Updated 2026-09-19. Read at source on 2026-10-08.
22. Sacra, Fanvue company page. https://sacra.com/c/fanvue/ . Undated; figures to May 2026. Secondary (a research firm’s estimates), read on 2026-10-08. Per-creator figures are our estimate.
23. Forbes Australia, on Fanvue’s funding. https://www.forbes.com.au/news/entrepreneurs/fanvue-raises-22-million-to-fuel-the-future-of-ai-influencers/ . 2026-01-18. Read at source on 2026-10-08, through a reader service.
24. Prices: CostBench on Higgsfield, https://costbench.com/software/ai-video-generators/higgsfield/ (last checked August 2026), secondary; PricingSaaS, https://pricingsaas.com/companies/higgsfield/diffs/2026W14 (plans verified 2026-03-31; later rise recorded for week 24 of 2026), secondary, read on 2026-10-08; Claude pricing, https://claude.com/pricing , read at source on 2026-10-08. The combined cost is our estimate.
25. Higgsfield, AI Influencer page. https://higgsfield.ai/ai-influencer . Undated page. Read at source on 2026-10-08.
26. Higgsfield, affiliate page. https://higgsfield.ai/affiliate . Undated page. Read at source on 2026-10-08. Referral sums are our estimate.
27. Apob AI tracked links, https://mega.apob.ai/sabirhussain and https://mega.apob.ai/SumitHasan , followed on 2026-10-08 (read at source). Commission terms: https://www.affililist.com/affiliate/apob , secondary.
28. Business of Apps, pay-per-install networks. https://www.businessofapps.com/affiliate/cpi . 2026. Secondary: search summary; the page refused us. Install counts are our estimate.
29. Behind the Scenes, creator income statistics. https://behindthescenes.com/blogs/creator-income-statistics-2026-trends-stats-what-s-next . 2026-01-28. Secondary.
30. Fortune, on Aitana. https://fortune.com/europe/2023/11/23/spanish-influencer-agency-earned-11000-ai-model-posers/ . 2023-11-23. Read at source on 2026-10-08, through a reader service. The income figures are relayed from Euronews.
31. Euronews, on Aitana. https://www.euronews.com/next/2023/11/22/meet-the-first-spanish-ai-model-earning-up-to-10000-per-month . 2023-11-22, updated 2024-12-27. Read at source on 2026-10-08, through a summarising tool.
32. Futurism, on Aitana’s income. https://futurism.com/fake-ai-influencer-revenue . 2023-11-27. Read at source on 2026-10-08, through a reader service.
33. FashionUnited, interview with The Clueless. https://fashionunited.es/noticias/moda/the-clueless-agencia-de-modelos-ia-a-principios-de-ano-presentaremos-una-modelo-curvy/2023120542114 . 2023-12-05. Read at source on 2026-10-08, through a summarising tool.
34. Fortune, on AI persona creators. https://fortune.com/europe/2024/02/21/ai-influencers-secretive-creators-thousands-dollars . 2024-02-21. Read at source on 2026-10-08, through a reader service. The working-hours figure is relayed from the Daily Mail.
35. Wired, co-published with 404 Media, review of AI-generated Instagram accounts. https://www.wired.com/story/ai-pimping-industry-deepfakes-instagram/ . 2024-11-20. Read at source on 2026-10-08, through a reader service.
36. 404 Media, on AI accounts using real creators’ videos. https://www.404media.co/ai-influencers-are-deepfaking-their-faces-onto-real-womens-bodies/ . 2024-04-09. Secondary (read through a summarising tool).
37. New York Post, on AI persona incomes. https://nypost.com/2026/05/16/tech/ai-influencer-salaries-revealed-with-one-making-9k-a-month-but-which-has-he-most-personality/ . 2026-05-16. Read at source on 2026-10-08, through a reader service. Creators’ own statements.
38. New York Post, summary of a Wired report. https://nypost.com/2026/04/21/us-news/top-maga-influencer-emily-hart-revealed-to-be-ai-created-by-a-guy-in-india/ . 2026-04-21. Secondary; the Wired article is behind a paywall.
39. Business Insider, on brands and AI influencers. https://www.businessinsider.com/brands-torn-on-whether-to-embrace-ai-influencers-or-run-2025-10 . 2025-10-08. Read at source on 2026-10-08, through a reader service.
40. TIME, on Granny Spills. https://time.com/7329699/ai-influencers-tiktok-granny-spills/ . 2025-11-18. Read at source on 2026-10-08, through a reader service.
41. Columbia News Service, on Yang Mun. https://columbianewsservice.com/2026/03/24/millions-found-comfort-in-a-buddhist-monk-but-he-was-never-real/ . 2026-03-24. Read at source on 2026-10-08. The income is the maker’s own claim.
42. VirtualHumans, Yang Mun entry. https://www.virtualhumans.org/human/yang-mun . Undated page. Secondary.
43. Flippa listing 12669148, AI influencer brand. https://flippa.com/12669148 . Active listing, undated. Read at source on 2026-10-08, through a reader service. The price ratio is our estimate.
44. Fanwake home page. https://fanwake.app/ . Undated page. Read at source on 2026-10-08, through a reader service; its animated counters were not readable. The per-creator figure is our estimate.
45. Partnerkin, summary of an anonymous forum account. https://partnerkin.com/en/blog/case_study/ai_influencer . 2024-06-08. Secondary; the forum thread refused us.
46. Sozee, vendor estimates of AI persona subscription income. https://www.sozee.ai/resources/ai-influencers-subscriptions-2026/ . 2026-07-16. Read at source on 2026-10-08. Estimate (the publisher’s own, no data stated). A second blog cited in an earlier draft was removed because no address was kept.
47. SQ Magazine, AI influencer statistics. https://sqmagazine.co.uk/ai-influencer-statistics/ . 2026-05-17. Secondary (roundup; originals not opened).
48. Asia Economy, interview on Rozy. https://view.asiae.co.kr/en/article/2021091117304788021 . 2021-09-11. Read at source on 2026-10-08, through a summarising tool. A projection, not a result.
49. EarlyGame, on Jean Phil. https://earlygame.com/news/entertainment/this-influencer-doesnt-exist-jean-phil-leaves-the-internet-fooled . Late September 2026. Secondary.
50. Instagram for Creators blog, AI-generated profile label. https://creators.instagram.com/blog/ai-generated-profile-label . Dated 2026-08-31 by secondary write-ups. Read at source on 2026-10-08, through a reader service.
51. Meta, labelling AI-generated content. https://about.fb.com/news/2024/02/labeling-ai-generated-images-on-facebook-instagram-and-threads/ . 2024-02-06. Read at source on 2026-10-08, through a summarising tool.
52. Meta, branded content policies. https://www.facebook.com/business/help/221149188908254 . Undated page. Read at source on 2026-10-08, through a reader service.
53. Meta and Instagram, monetisation policies. https://www.facebook.com/business/help/169845596919485 ; https://help.instagram.com/512371932629820 . Undated pages. Read at source on 2026-10-08, through a reader service.
54. Facebook for Creators blog, on unoriginal content. https://creators.facebook.com/blog/combating-unoriginal-content . Refers to the first half of 2025. Read at source on 2026-10-08, through a reader service.
55. TikTok Community Guidelines, integrity and authenticity. https://www.tiktok.com/community-guidelines/en/integrity-authenticity . Undated page. Read at source on 2026-10-08, through a reader service.
56. TikTok, branded content policy. https://www.tiktok.com/legal/page/global/bc-policy/en . Updated 2026-08-04. Read at source on 2026-10-08, through a summarising tool.
57. YouTube Help, channel monetisation policies. https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/1311392?hl=en . Update note dated 2025-07-15. Read at source on 2026-10-08, through a reader service.
58. FTC Endorsement Guides, 16 CFR 255.0, https://www.ecfr.gov/api/versioner/v1/full/2026-09-01/title-16.xml?part=255&section=255.0 (in force 2026-09-01); FTC questions and answers, https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/resources/ftcs-endorsement-guides-what-people-are-asking . Read at source on 2026-10-08. Law-firm commentary (infolawgroup.com, 2023-08-11) is secondary.
59. FTC, Consumer Reviews and Testimonials Rule. https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/resources/consumer-reviews-testimonials-rule-questions-answers (November 2024); https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/08/federal-trade-commission-announces-final-rule-banning-fake-reviews-testimonials (2024-08-14). Read at source on 2026-10-08.
60. European Commission, code of practice on AI-generated content. https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/code-practice-ai-generated-content . Undated page. Read at source on 2026-10-08. Article 50 text: https://artificialintelligenceact.eu/article/50/ .
61. New York State Senate, bill S8420-A. https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2025/S8420/amendment/A . Signed 2025-12-11. Read at source on 2026-10-08, through a summarising tool.
62. OnlyFans, Terms of Service. https://onlyfans.com/terms . Last updated August 2024. Read at source on 2026-10-08, through a reader service.
63. US Internal Revenue Service, self-employment tax. https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/self-employment-tax-social-security-and-medicare-taxes . Reviewed 2026-06-27. Read at source on 2026-10-08, through a summarising tool.
64. Whop course listings. https://whop.com/trading-education-ou/ai-influencers-laboratory/ ; https://whop.com/iimagined/ai-influencers-reimagined/ ; https://whop.com/joined/wepreneurs/products/faceless-profits-mentorship/ ; https://whop.com/joined/ai-creators-club-0495/products/ai-creators-course/ . Undated listings. Read at source on 2026-10-08.
65. Skool pricing, https://www.skool.com/pricing , undated, read at source on 2026-10-08. Community figures: https://www.desirely.co/en/ofm-courses/ai-creator-system , checked 2026-09-02, secondary.
66. FTC, announcement on AI-related cases. https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/09/ftc-announces-crackdown-deceptive-ai-claims-schemes . 2024-09-25. Read at source on 2026-10-08, through a reader service.
67. FTC, press release on Click Profit. https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2025/03/ftc-acts-stop-click-profit-online-business-opportunity-has-cost-consumers-least-14-million . March 2025. Read at source on 2026-10-08, through a reader service. Allegations in a complaint; pending at that date.
68. FTC, press release on Air AI. https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2026/03/air-ai-its-owners-will-be-banned-marketing-business-opportunities-settle-ftc-charges-company-misled . 2026-03-24. Read at source on 2026-10-08. A settlement.
69. Osborne Clarke, on UK advertising rulings about income claims. https://marketinglaw.osborneclarke.com/advertising-regulation/earnings-promises-meet-the-cap-code-reality-check-asa-bans-typical-income-claims/ . 2025-12-19. Secondary.
70. X Help, Original Content Rewards, Internet Archive copy. https://web.archive.org/web/20261005131543/https://help.x.com/en/using-x/original-content-rewards . Snapshot of 2026-10-05. Read at source on 2026-10-08 in the archive copy; the live page refused us.
71. YouTube Help, YouTube Partner Program overview and eligibility. https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/72851?hl=en . Undated page. Read at source on 2026-10-08, through a reader service.
72. Meta, announcement of Facebook Content Monetization. https://about.fb.com/news/2024/10/monetize-content-facebooks-new-streamlined-program/ . October 2024. Read at source on 2026-10-08, through a reader service. Describes the 2024 beta, not current rules.
73. Euronews, on Aitana, Internet Archive copy of the original article. https://web.archive.org/web/20231125013748/https://www.euronews.com/next/2023/11/22/meet-the-first-spanish-ai-model-earning-up-to-10000-per-month . Snapshot of 2023-11-25. Read at source on 2026-10-08 in the archive copy.
74. Launchpoint, company site. https://www.launchpointhq.com/ . Undated page. Read at source on 2026-10-08.

Corrections

If you are quoted or named on this page and think something is wrong, want your reply shown beside it, or want to be removed, write to [email protected]. We aim to reply within 14 days, and always within one month. Factual errors are corrected with a dated note here. A sentence that is seriously disputed comes down while we check it.

Change log: (empty)