Which Celebrity Has the Most Fake Followers in 2025? Data, Methods, and Red Flags

You came for a simple answer: which celebrity has the most fake followers? The short truth: there isn’t a single, permanent “winner.” The title shifts by platform (Instagram vs. X vs. TikTok), by method (how “fake” is defined), and by time. What we can do is show you who has topped credible audits, explain how those audits work, and give you a quick DIY method to check any account yourself.

TL;DR: Quick answer and what the data actually says

- There’s no fixed champion. Different audits, different years, different platforms = different results.

- In credible reports since 2019, the same mega-names tend to pop up because scale attracts junk: Cristiano Ronaldo, Kylie Jenner, Justin Bieber, Ellen DeGeneres (notably in a 2019 study), among others.

- Percentage vs. absolute numbers matters. A star with 600M followers can have a lower percentage but a higher absolute number of suspicious followers.

- Expect ranges, not absolutes. Third-party tools estimate “suspicious” or “inauthentic” audiences, which include bots, inactive accounts, mass-followers, and engagement pods.

- If you need a name right now: historical standouts often include the largest Instagram accounts (e.g., Cristiano Ronaldo) in absolute numbers and specific celebrity accounts like Ellen DeGeneres (2019 ICMP analysis) by percentage on Instagram. Treat these as snapshots, not eternal labels.

What “fake followers” really means (and why the number keeps changing)

“Fake” isn’t one tidy bucket. Most audits lump together a few types of suspect accounts:

• Bots: automated accounts that post, like, or follow without a human behind them.
• Inactive/abandoned: real people who no longer log in or engage.
• Mass-followers: accounts following thousands of profiles to look active but rarely engage.
• Giveaway-only followers: real people who follow for prizes, not genuine interest.
• Purchased/boosted followers: usually low-quality, spun up in bulk.

Auditors use signals like sudden follower spikes, language-location mismatches, follower-to-like ratios, comment authenticity (too generic, repeated), engagement distribution (all likes, no comments), and network overlap (clusters of identical behavior). No tool sees the full private data platforms keep, so scores are estimates. That’s why one tool says 32% “suspicious,” another says 45% for the same account.

Platforms fight this constantly. During the Twitter era, the company’s CEO at the time publicly emphasized their daily anti-spam work:

“We suspend over half a million spam accounts every day.” - Parag Agrawal, May 2022

Instagram and TikTok also remove fake accounts at scale. Each purge reshuffles the numbers. That’s why last year’s “most fake followers” headline may not hold this year.

One more nuance: absolute vs. percentage. If a star with 600M followers has 25% inauthentic, that’s 150M suspect accounts. Another star with 50M followers at 40% inauthentic has 20M suspect accounts. So who “has the most”? In absolute terms, the largest accounts often do-even if their percentage looks better.

Who has been reported to have the most fake followers (by source and year)

Below is a distilled view of public, widely cited audits. Numbers are estimates, and methodologies differ. Treat this as a historical snapshot rather than a verdict carved in stone.

Two takeaways:

• Absolute numbers: The biggest accounts (Ronaldo, Selena Gomez, Taylor Swift, Kylie Jenner) can carry the largest number of questionable followers just by scale.
• Percentages: Specific accounts have spiked in certain years (Ellen DeGeneres in 2019 on Instagram) due to giveaways, mass follow-backs, or old follower bases that went inactive.

From my vantage point in Dubai, I’ve watched major launches freeze six-figure influencer deals until the agency verifies audience quality. When the stakes are high, everyone double-checks the numbers-and the numbers are rarely identical from one tool to the next.

How to check a celebrity’s follower quality yourself (DIY in 10 minutes)

If you want your own answer now, run a quick, layered check. You don’t need paid software to catch the biggest red flags.

1. Baseline sweep (2 minutes): Compare follower count to average likes and comments per post. Heuristic: a healthy Instagram account often sits around 1-5% like rate on recent posts; celebrities can dip lower, but sub‑0.5% across many posts is a warning sign. Comments should feel human, not repetitive or emoji-only.
2. Growth pattern check (2 minutes): Use public analytics trackers (e.g., Social Blade-style charts). Look for unnatural spikes-tens or hundreds of thousands in a day with no media event, viral moment, or collaboration to justify it.
3. Comment quality scan (2 minutes): Open 10-15 recent posts. Skim the first 100-200 comments. Red flags: repetitive phrases, irrelevant promos, gibberish, same emoji strings, or comments in languages wildly misaligned with the creator’s known audience.
4. Audience location/language sanity check (2 minutes): Spot-check commenters’ profiles. If a US-based celebrity has a majority of visible commenters from unrelated regions, that mismatch might indicate an acquisition campaign or low-quality growth.
5. Third-party audit (2 minutes): Run the handle through well-known auditing tools. Popular names include HypeAuditor, Modash, Upfluence, or niche X/Twitter tools like SparkToro and Followerwonk. You’ll get an “audience quality” or “inauthentic” estimate. Focus on trends, not a single number.

Quick heuristics I use with brands here in the UAE:

• Engagement that’s “too even” across posts is suspect. Real audiences ebb and flow.
• Giveaway-heavy accounts temporarily inflate follower counts and comments, then engagement drops. That’s not always malicious-just noisy.
• Legacy stars with a decade on the platform can carry more inactive followers. Percentage looks worse, but it’s partly age.
• Cross-check with Google Trends. If the star’s search interest is flat or falling, yet followers keep jumping, ask why.
• On X, look for replies more than likes. Low reply depth relative to massive follower counts hints at hollow reach.

Risk traps to avoid:

• Don’t judge from one viral week or one dead week. Sample 30-60 days.
• Don’t treat “suspicious” as “fake bot” every time. Many “suspicious” followers are real people who just don’t engage.
• Don’t compare creators in different niches 1:1. A football legend, a beauty mogul, and a K‑pop group have very different engagement physics.

Basic checklist you can copy into Notes:

• Follower-to-like ratio across 10 recent posts looks healthy?
• Comments read like humans talking, not copy‑paste?
• No unexplained growth spikes?
• Audience location/language fits the creator’s known market?
• Two or more third-party tools agree within ~10-15 points?

If you’re a brand vetting a big spend, stack methods: free checks + one paid audit + spot-check real followers manually. When I help local teams here-especially around major launches in Dubai-we use at least two tools and a human review of 200-300 comments. That blend catches 90% of the weirdness.

FAQ and next steps

Who has the most “fake followers” right now?
There’s no single, stable answer. In recent years, audits often highlight the largest Instagram accounts (e.g., Cristiano Ronaldo) for the biggest absolute number of questionable followers, and specific celebrity accounts like Ellen DeGeneres (2019 ICMP) for high percentages at the time. Treat any current headline as a snapshot.

Why do tools disagree?
They weigh signals differently-language mismatches, engagement ratios, growth anomalies, comment quality, and private indicators they infer. One tool may be stricter about “mass following,” another about inactivity. Expect a range, not a single truth.

Are “fake followers” illegal?
Buying bots violates most platforms’ terms, and agencies can terminate or shadow-restrict accounts. But possessing inactive or low-interest followers isn’t illegal. The issue is transparency and value-brands expect real reach.

Does buying followers still work?
It backfires. You inflate vanity metrics, algorithms sense weak engagement and throttle reach, and future partners will audit you. If you need more reach, collaborate, run targeted ads, or create content that actually earns attention.

What’s a pass/fail number for a deal?
It depends on niche, geography, and age of the account. I’ve seen brands green‑light creators with 25-30% “suspicious” if engagement quality is strong and sales history exists. Others cut at 20%. Decide your own line, then apply it consistently.

Why do celebrities have so many suspicious followers?
Scale plus time. Viral spikes, press cycles, giveaways, and third-party scraping all attract low-quality followers. Add a decade online and you inherit a lot of inactive accounts.

How often should I audit?
For brands: before any big spend and quarterly for ongoing partners. For creators: monthly spot checks to catch weird growth or comment spam early.

Best quick method if I only have five minutes?
Check engagement rate on the last 12 posts, scan 150-200 comments for authenticity, and run one fast audit tool. If two signals look off, dig deeper.

Next steps based on who you are:

• Marketer/PR: Standardize a three-layer vetting flow: quick manual scan, two tool audits, five-post comment read. Document ranges, not just a single number.
• Creator: Clean up. Remove obvious bot comments, avoid low-quality giveaways, and focus on content that triggers saves and shares. Pitch brands with audience-quality screenshots to build trust.
• Fan/Reader: Curious who’s real? Use the DIY steps above. It’s quick, it’s free, and it’s eye‑opening.

So, which celebrity has the most fake followers? On any given day, the “most” likely belongs to one of the world’s biggest accounts in absolute numbers, while certain names spike in percentage depending on the year and the audit. If you need a defensible answer for work, cite the study, the year, the platform, and the method-and run your own cross-check before you hit send.