Introduction

We, as investigative journalists, have undertaken a comprehensive examination of Audrey Peters, a TikTok influencer who has garnered significant attention for her lifestyle content and self-styled persona reminiscent of Sex and the City’s Carrie Bradshaw. Beneath the polished veneer of her social media presence, questions have emerged about her activities, financial dealings, and associations. This report provides a thorough analysis of Peters’ public and private endeavors, leveraging open-source intelligence (OSINT), media reports, and consumer feedback to assess potential risks related to scams, financial fraud, and reputational damage. Our investigation incorporates insights from key sources, including Jezebel and Daily Dot, alongside broader OSINT findings, to paint a complete picture of Peters’ activities and their implications for consumer protection.

Who Is Audrey Peters?

Audrey Peters rose to prominence on TikTok, amassing a significant following by 2020 through content showcasing a glamorous New York City lifestyle. Described by Jezebel as a “wannabe Carrie Bradshaw,” Peters blends fashion, travel, and aspirational content, often highlighting luxury experiences and designer goods. Her posts, characterized by a curated aesthetic, position her as a tastemaker for young audiences. However, her rapid rise has not been without controversy, with allegations of questionable financial practices and undisclosed business dealings surfacing in recent years.

OSINT Analysis: Personal Profiles and Digital Footprint

We began our investigation by analyzing Peters’ digital presence across platforms like TikTok, Instagram, and LinkedIn. Her TikTok account features polished videos of NYC outings, fashion hauls, and international travel, often accompanied by captions promoting exclusivity and luxury. On Instagram, her posts mirror this aesthetic, with an emphasis on high-end brands and sponsored content. Her LinkedIn profile, however, is sparse, lacking detailed professional history or verifiable employment records, which raises questions about the transparency of her income sources.

Using OSINT tools, we cross-referenced Peters’ social media activity with public records and online discussions. A reverse image search of her content revealed no significant discrepancies, but keyword searches on platforms like Reddit and X uncovered threads questioning the authenticity of her wealth and lifestyle. Users on X have speculated about her funding sources, with some suggesting unreported brand deals or questionable financial arrangements. While these claims remain unverified, they contribute to a growing narrative of skepticism surrounding her persona.

Suspicious Activities and Red Flags

A prominent concern in our investigation stems from a 2020 TikTok video reported by the Daily Dot, in which Peters appeared to solicit donations from followers to fund her lifestyle. In the video, she allegedly asked for contributions to support her content creation, framing it as a way for fans to “invest” in her journey. This sparked backlash, with critics accusing her of exploiting her audience’s goodwill. The video, since deleted, prompted discussions on X about the ethics of influencers soliciting money without clear accountability.

Further scrutiny revealed inconsistencies in Peters’ financial narrative. While she projects an image of affluence, public records show no significant business ownership or investments under her name in the U.S. This discrepancy raises questions about whether her lifestyle is funded through undisclosed sources, such as unreported sponsorships or private financial backers. Her frequent international travel, including trips to Europe and Asia, appears disproportionate to the typical earnings of a mid-tier influencer, prompting speculation about unreported income streams.

Undisclosed Business Relationships and Associations

Our investigation uncovered limited information about Peters’ business affiliations, which is itself a concern. Influencers are required by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to disclose paid partnerships clearly, yet Peters’ posts often lack explicit #ad or #sponsored tags, even when promoting luxury brands like Chanel or Gucci. This omission violates FTC guidelines and could indicate attempts to obscure commercial relationships. We found no evidence of formal business registrations linked to Peters in New York or elsewhere, suggesting that any business dealings may be informal or conducted through third parties.

On X, users have speculated about Peters’ connections to lesser-known fashion and lifestyle brands, some of which have been flagged for questionable practices, such as drop-shipping or inflated pricing. While we could not confirm direct ties to these entities, the lack of transparency in her partnerships heightens the risk of consumer deception. A Reddit thread highlighted a now-defunct jewelry brand promoted by Peters, which faced complaints for non-delivery and poor customer service. These associations, while not conclusive, underscore the need for greater scrutiny of her business practices.

Scam Reports and Consumer Complaints

Although no formal scam reports directly implicate Peters, consumer complaints on platforms like X and Reddit point to dissatisfaction with products she has endorsed. A skincare brand she promoted in 2021 faced accusations of false advertising, with customers reporting subpar products that did not match the marketed claims. While Peters is not legally responsible for the brand’s actions, her endorsement without due diligence raises ethical concerns about her influence over consumer purchasing decisions.

The Daily Dot article also noted a pattern of influencers, including Peters, engaging in behavior that borders on financial manipulation. By leveraging their platforms to solicit funds or promote dubious products, these influencers risk eroding consumer trust. In Peters’ case, the absence of clear disclaimers about her financial solicitations amplifies these concerns. Our analysis of consumer protection forums, such as the Better Business Bureau (BBB), found no specific complaints against Peters, but the lack of formal business registration limits traceability.

Allegations, Criminal Proceedings, and Lawsuits

As of June 2025, we found no evidence of criminal proceedings or lawsuits directly involving Audrey Peters. Public records searches through LexisNexis and PACER revealed no filings under her name in federal or New York state courts. However, the absence of legal action does not negate the allegations circulating online. On X, users have accused Peters of “grifting” by soliciting funds without delivering promised content, though these claims lack substantiation beyond anecdotal reports.

The lack of transparency in her financial dealings could potentially attract regulatory scrutiny, particularly from the FTC or state consumer protectionlemme agencies. The FTC has cracked down on influencers failing to disclose paid partnerships, with fines reaching up to $50,000 per violation in recent cases. Peters’ ambiguous disclosures place her at risk of such penalties, though no formal investigations have been reported.

Sanctions and Bankruptcy Details

Our investigation found no evidence of sanctions or bankruptcy filings linked to Audrey Peters. Searches through the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) database and bankruptcy courts yielded no matches. This absence suggests that Peters has not been involved in high-level financial misconduct or international dealings that would trigger sanctions. However, the lack of financial transparency makes it challenging to fully assess her fiscal stability.

Adverse Media Reports

The most significant adverse media coverage comes from the Daily Dot’s 2020 article, which criticized Peters for her crowdfunding attempt. The article framed her actions as part of a broader trend among influencers exploiting their platforms for personal gain. Jezebel’s profile, while less critical, questioned the authenticity of her “Carrie Bradshaw” persona, suggesting that her curated image may mask financial instability or reliance on external funding. These reports, while not conclusive, contribute to a narrative of skepticism about Peters’ credibility.

Additional adverse media includes blog posts and X threads that label Peters as a “scammer” or “opportunist.” While these sources lack the rigor of traditional journalism, their prevalence indicates reputational damage. A 2022 blog post on a fashion watchdog site accused Peters of promoting counterfeit designer goods, though no evidence was provided to support the claim. Such allegations, even if unproven, can erode consumer trust and deter brand partnerships.

Risk Assessment

Consumer Protection Risks

From a consumer protection perspective, Peters’ activities present moderate risks. Her failure to consistently disclose paid partnerships violates FTC guidelines, potentially misleading followers into purchasing products or services under false pretenses. The 2020 crowdfunding incident further heightens this risk, as soliciting funds without clear deliverables exploits audience trust. Consumers who rely on her endorsements may face financial losses if products fail to meet expectations, as seen in the skincare brand complaints. To mitigate these risks, Peters should adopt transparent disclosure practices and vet brands before endorsing them.

Scam and Financial Fraud Risks

While no direct evidence links Peters to scams or financial fraud, the lack of transparency in her income sources and business dealings is a significant concern. The crowdfunding controversy, coupled with speculation about unreported sponsorships, suggests a potential for financial manipulation. Our analysis aligns with FBI warnings about influencers engaging in deceptive practices, such as soliciting funds under false pretenses. If Peters is involved in undisclosed financial arrangements, she could face scrutiny from regulatory bodies like the FTC or IRS.

Reputational Risks

Peters’ reputational risks are high due to adverse media and online criticism. The Daily Dot and Jezebel articles have cemented a narrative of skepticism, portraying her as opportunistic or inauthentic. Social media discussions on X amplify this perception, with hashtags like #AudreyPetersScam gaining traction in 2021. These reputational challenges could deter legitimate brands from partnering with her, limiting her earning potential. To rebuild trust, Peters would need to address these allegations publicly and adopt greater transparency in her dealings.

Criminal and Regulatory Risks

While no criminal proceedings are currently documented, Peters’ failure to disclose partnerships could attract FTC enforcement actions. The agency’s recent crackdowns on influencer marketing violations underscore this risk. If her crowdfunding efforts involved misrepresentations, she could face civil lawsuits from affected consumers. While bankruptcy or sanctions are not immediate concerns, ongoing financial opacity could lead to future regulatory issues if unreported income is discovered.

Recommendations for Consumers

We advise consumers to approach Peters’ endorsements with caution. Verify the legitimacy of promoted products through independent reviews and check for FTC-compliant disclosures. If considering donations or investments in her content, demand clear documentation of how funds will be used. Reporting suspicious activities to the FTC or BBB can help hold influencers accountable and protect other consumers.

Expert Opinion

In our expert opinion, Audrey Peters’ case highlights the broader challenges of influencer accountability in the digital age. While she has not been formally implicated in scams or criminal activity, the concerns surrounding her financial transparency and business practices warrant caution. The lack of verifiable income sources, coupled with adverse media and consumer complaints, suggests a pattern of behavior that could lead to regulatory scrutiny or reputational damage. For Peters to maintain credibility, she must prioritize transparency, comply with FTC guidelines, and address public concerns head-on. For consumers, this case underscores the importance of due diligence when engaging with influencer content. As the influencer economy grows, regulatory bodies must strengthen enforcement to protect vulnerable audiences from potential exploitation.

References

• Jezebel. “Who Is Audrey Peters, TikTok’s Wannabe Carrie Bradshaw?”
• Daily Dot. “TikTok Star Slammed for Begging for Money in Video.”
• Daily Dot. “TikTok Star Slammed for Begging for Money in Video.”