Indonesia Puts Finfluencers Inside a Licensing Perimeter, and Keeps the Power to Block Them
Every few months another regulator discovers that the most influential financial adviser in its market is a person with a ring light and no license. Indonesia is the latest to act on that discovery. On 24 June 2026 the Otoritas Jasa Keuangan (OJK), the country’s financial services authority, issued POJK No. 6 of 2026 on the conduct of financial-sector information providers, the legal term of art for what everyone else calls finfluencers.
The rule matters less for the fact that it exists, because dozens of regulators now have finfluencer guidance of some kind, than for how far it reaches and how hard it can be enforced. Indonesia has not written a code of etiquette. It has drawn a licensing perimeter around a whole category of online speech about money, attached disclosure and content obligations to anyone inside it, and reserved the power to have violating accounts taken offline.
What the rule actually does
Start with the perimeter. POJK 6 defines an information provider as any party other than a licensed financial firm, a PUJK in the local acronym, that disseminates financial-sector information, online or offline, in a way that promotes financial literacy or influences how consumers use financial products. That is deliberately broad. It captures the educator, the affiliate marketer and the paid promoter alike, and it does not care whether the content runs on a stock, a loan or a crypto token.
Inside that perimeter sit four obligations, and they are what give the rule its bite.
The first is a competency gate. Sharing general education is one thing; recommending a specific product to the public is another. Recommending capital-market products requires the appropriate license, such as an investment-adviser license, and recommending digital assets requires a formal competency certification in the financial-services sector. The regulation draws the line the industry has long blurred, between telling people how markets work and telling them what to buy.
The second is disclosure of economic interest. Anyone inside the perimeter must disclose the benefits they receive, whether those come from a licensed firm or directly from consumers. The undisclosed paid promotion, the affiliate link presented as a personal conviction, becomes a compliance breach rather than a grey area.
The third is a content standard. Information must be clear, accurate, honest, easily accessible and not potentially misleading. On its own that reads like boilerplate. Paired with enforcement, it becomes the hook OJK can use against hype.
The fourth is the enforcement itself, and this is where Indonesia’s rule separates from softer regimes.
The teeth
Two features do most of the work.
First, liability runs up the chain. OJK has been explicit that banks, securities firms and other PUJK are responsible for the content their influencer partners put out. A firm that hires a finfluencer cannot treat the relationship as arm’s length marketing and disown whatever the creator says. Sanctions escalate from written warnings to restrictions on the product or service, suspension of business activity, revocation of a product license, and administrative fines of up to 15 billion rupiah, under one million US dollars, under Article 7 of the regulation. The number is large enough to change how a compliance team prices a sponsorship deal.
Second, OJK can reach the distribution layer. Where a violation persists, the authority can ask the Ministry of Communication and Digital Affairs, now Komdigi, to block or suspend the offending account. Most finfluencer regimes can fine or warn a creator; fewer can take the megaphone away. Indonesia has written that power into the text.
Crypto sits inside this frame rather than defining it. The regulation allows crypto-asset products to be marketed to the public only through official PUJK channels, and requires clear risk warnings on high-risk products. That is a meaningful constraint in a market where token promotion has been rampant, but it is one clause among many. Reading POJK 6 as a crypto rule misses the point: it is a conduct rule that happens to cover crypto, the same way it covers unit trusts and peer-to-peer loans.
Where this sits in the global crackdown
Indonesia is joining a wave, not starting one. The clearest comparison is the United Kingdom, where the Financial Conduct Authority has spent two years turning finfluencer enforcement into a visible campaign. In June 2025 the FCA coordinated a week of action with regulators in Australia, Canada, Hong Kong, Italy and the United Arab Emirates that produced three arrests in the UK, 11 cease-and-desist letters, 50 warning alerts and 650 requests to take down social-media posts. A year earlier it had charged nine people, several of them reality-television personalities, over an unauthorised foreign-exchange scheme promoted on social media.
The contrast is instructive. The FCA’s approach is prosecutorial: it works existing rules on financial promotions and market abuse, and reaches for the courts. Indonesia’s POJK 6 is architectural. Rather than prosecuting bad promotion after the fact, it defines who may speak, on what terms, and makes the licensed firms upstream carry the risk. The two models are converging on the same goal from different directions, one through enforcement muscle, the other through a licensing perimeter.
Neither is obviously complete. Prosecutions are slow and pick off the worst actors. A licensing perimeter is only as good as OJK’s capacity to police a firehose of content, and the definition is broad enough that ordinary commentary could, in theory, be swept in. The regulation as issued leads with principles more than a single headline compliance deadline, which puts the weight on how OJK chooses to apply it.
What changes
For creators, the safe zone narrows. General financial education stays open, but the moment content tips into recommending a named product, a license or certification is required and the paid relationship behind it has to be visible. The casual “not financial advice” disclaimer, long used as a shield, does not survive contact with a rule that regulates the recommendation itself.
For financial firms, the calculus on influencer marketing changes more than it does for the influencers. The chain of liability means a bank’s brand and its balance sheet are exposed to what a contracted creator posts, with a fine ceiling measured in billions of rupiah. Expect vetting, scripting and contractual indemnities to tighten, and expect some firms to pull influencer budgets rather than own the risk.
For everyone watching the global picture, Indonesia’s move is a data point in a clear trend. The era in which financial advice could be dispensed to millions by anyone with a following, and no accountability, is closing market by market. Southeast Asia’s largest economy has now built one of the more structurally aggressive versions of that closure, and handed its regulator a switch that reaches all the way to the account.
Discussion
Sign in to join the discussion.
No comments yet. Be the first to share your thoughts.