Instagram launched in 2010. Since then, it has evolved from a simple photo-sharing app into one of the world’s most dynamic platforms for communication, influence, and commerce. Today, it functions as a vast socio-digital place where billions of users engage in personal expression. It is also undoubtedly profound in political discourse, lifestyle curation, and brand marketing. For individuals and corporations alike, Instagram is where visibility equates to power and increasingly, not solely by humans alone.

AI influencers are artificial intelligence-generated characters that mimic the behaviors and styles of human social media personalities. They are rapidly claiming their place in this ecosystem. These entities share curated content, collaborate with global brands, and even take stances on pressing social issues, often blurring the line between fiction and reality. Some of them hold followings rivaling or even surpassing those of traditional (human) celebrities. For instance, Lu do Magalu has gained over 7 million followers, while Miquela, a virtual persona created by LA-based startup Brud, has an audience of more than 2.5 million followers. These are not niche experiments; they are central players in shaping digital culture, commercial preferences, and public conversations.

This article explores the constitutional implications of this phenomenon within the European Union framework. Specifically, it ponders two related issues: AI-generated Instagram influencers have or deserve protection under freedom of expression as understood under the EU law, and whether either granting or denying such protection carries constitutional risks.

Defining AI-Generated Instagram Influencers

AI-generated Instagram influencers are also often referred to as virtual or synthetic influencers. They are non-human digital personas crafted through a combination of computer-generated imagery (CGI), generative AI models, and algorithmic behavior scripting. These virtual characters are operated by individual humans and often by teams or companies that design and publish their content and manage brand partnerships and follower interaction on their behalf. Despite their artificiality, these influencers often blur the line between fiction and reality. Therefore, they are engaging in storytelling and emotional expression that closely mimics human behavior.

Unlike traditional chatbots or digital mascots, e.g., Duolingo, AI influencers are designed to perform in social and cultural arenas typically reserved for humans. They post stylized photos, share “personal thoughts”, endorse products, and even comment on political and social issues. They are part of the interactive architecture of Instagram as they respond to direct messages, like and comment, and sometimes engage in live chats. In this way, they are participating in the same algorithmic system that elevates humans (influencers) to celebrity status.

These virtual influencers range in realism and style. For instance, Miquela describes herself as a 21-year-old robot living in Los Angeles. Her posts promote high-end fashion brands like Prada and Calvin Klein and comment on issues such as the Black Lives Matter movement. Noonoouri, a hyper-stylized character with over 450,000 followers, is positioned as a fashion-forward activist and has collaborated with global luxury labels like Louis Vuitton and Warner Music. Aitana, Barcelona-based virtual model with over 350,000 followers, uses her platform to promote companies such as Big, a sports supplement company, however she also uploads her photos to her subscribers on Fanvue.

One of the most important aspects is that these characters are not static avatars. They express personalities, engage in multi-platform approach and respond to audience interactions. As research has shown, many users find it difficult to distinguish between AI- and human-generated content. An empirical study found that participants rated AI influencer content as highly as human influencer content in terms of attractiveness, originality, and quality. These virtual personas are, therefore, not only capable of influencing consumption but also of contributing to cultural and political discourse.

This phenomenon is not confined to global figures. In the European context, examples like Noonoouri, developed by a German creative agency, demonstrate the regional relevance of AI influencers. These European-based characters engage with local fashion, sustainability topics, and social causes, integrating seamlessly into both global and EU-specific public spheres.

At their core, AI influencers simulate personhood. They appear human, express opinions, and engage audiences through the same techniques of emotional appeal and interactive engagement that human influencers rely on. As such, their presence on Instagram challenges foundational assumptions in law.

Legal Boundaries

The increasing appearance and popularity of AI-generated Instagram influencers force a re-evaluation of core constitutional rights within the European Union. These virtual personas, while not natural people, often mimic human behavior so closely that they interact with audiences in ways indistinguishable from real influencers. As such, they test the boundaries of legal and moral protections afforded under EU law and under European national jurisdictions as well. Key areas of concern include freedom of expression, human dignity, personhood and identity rights as well as the potential risk of manipulation in a democratic society.

Freedom of Expression and Article 11 of the Charter

Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union guarantees everyone the right to freedom of expression, including the “freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority.” Traditionally, this has applied to natural and legal persons, however, virtual influencers raise complex questions about the scope of this right. If a virtual character publishes statements about political issues or societal values, does this qualify as protected expression? And if so, who holds the right—the AI character itself, the company operating it, or both?

EU constitutional doctrine generally ties freedom of expression to the autonomy and moral capacity of a person to make ethical judgments and be held responsible for their actions. As AI influencers are not autonomous beings in the legal sense, their “speech” is typically the product of a human team or corporation. Nonetheless, denying freedom of expression protections could allow for arbitrary removal or censorship of AI-generated content, potentially suppressing diverse cultural or commercial narratives. It could also incentivize states or platforms to impose disproportionate restrictions on the digital public sphere.

Human Dignity and the Fiction of Personhood

Article 1 of the Charter states the principle that “Human dignity is inviolable. It must be respected and protected.” This foundational right is the basis for all others and presumes a distinction between human and non-human actors. AI-generated influencers are not sentient, even while outwardly simulating emotion, vulnerability, and consciousness. Yet, their design often purposefully invokes empathy, relatability, and trust. When AI personas like Lil Miquela express experiences of “pain” or “social injustice,” they blur the ontological boundaries that legal systems use to distinguish between real and artificial beings.

The concern here is set in two ways. First, over-personifying AI characters risks diluting the special status of human dignity by extending emotional and expressive value to entities that are ultimately “tools”. Second, consumers, especially younger users, may struggle to discern between virtual and real identities, creating ethical issues around emotional manipulation and informed engagement, which transfer the debate into the realm of online child protection. EU constitutional principles rooted in respect for human identity and dignity may therefore justify regulatory limitations on the depth of personification AI characters are allowed to portray.

Privacy, Data Protection and Article 8

Under Article 8 of the Charter, “Everyone has the right to the protection of personal data.” The GDPR reinforces this protection, particularly in contexts involving profiling and automated decision-making. AI influencers routinely collect user data to optimize engagement, content personalization, and commercial targeting. While the influencers themselves are synthetic, the data they interact with belongs to real users. This makes their operations subject to strict data governance standards.

Moreover, the AI Act (Regulation (EU) 2024/1689) introduces transparency obligations for AI systems. Especially those classified as “high-risk.” While most virtual influencers may not yet fall into the high-risk category, the potential for large-scale manipulation through microtargeting and emotional profiling brings them closer to that threshold. Transparency regarding the artificial nature of the influencer and content generation processes is becoming a constitutional necessity, including data usage. It is no longer just a technical requirement.

Manipulation, Democratic Integrity, and the Digital Services Act

The Digital Services Act (DSA) provides new obligations for platforms and influencers regarding content transparency as well as algorithmic recommendations and advertising disclosures. In the case of virtual influencers, these obligations are crucial to mitigating democratic risks. AI personas that disseminate politically charged content, intentionally or not, can influence public discourse without accountability. They may engage in political speech without clear authorship or traceable intent. That is contrary to democratic values grounded in open debate and identifiable participation.

The risk here is not theoretical. Virtual influencers have already been employed in public health messaging and could be deployed for electoral campaigning or state-sponsored narratives. Without safeguards, such applications could undermine fairness and foster disinformation– a scenario the DSA and the AI Act aim to prevent through transparency mandates and accountability mechanisms for digital actors.

Conclusion

AI-generated Instagram influencers represent a new blend of technology, commerce, and culture. One that EU law is not yet fully equipped to regulate – and neither are national jurisdictions. These virtual entities are artificial in nature; however, they are increasingly influential in shaping commercial behavior and even (political) attitudes. Their participation in the digital sphere is neither trivial nor marginal, it raises profound constitutional questions that touch at the core of rights traditionally reserved for human beings.

As has been shown, the legal uncertainties surrounding AI influencers demand careful balancing. On one hand, granting them freedom of expression protections may safeguard the openness of digital communication spaces and prevent arbitrary censorship. On the other, such protections risk distorting the values found in the Charter of Fundamental Rights – in particular, those concerning human dignity, data protection, and democratic accountability.

The EU’s regulatory responses, notably the Digital Services Act and the AI Act, are valuable first steps. They emphasize transparency and accountability, reinforcing the idea that influence must come with responsibility. Whether it is human or synthetic. Yet more work is needed. Legal frameworks must evolve to distinguish between the rights of creators and the nature of algorithmically driven expression, and the connected rights of individuals exposed to persuasive digital content.

Ultimately, the EU must grapple with a central normative dilemma: Should constitutional protections extend to tools that convincingly simulate personhood, but lack consciousness, moral agency, and accountability? The answer to this question will shape not only the future of digital rights, but also the boundaries of democratic participation in the algorithmic age.

---

Denisa Drappanová is a law student at the Faculty of Law, Masaryk University in Brno, with a focus on the intersection of law and emerging technologies. Her academic interests include legal implications of AI, digital rights, and cyber security law.