According to a recent Reuters report, an internal assessment by Meta indicates that about 10 per cent of its total annual income (approximately $16 billion) may have originated from fraudulent advertising and/or the promotion of prohibited commodities. This data is derived from internal company documents obtained by Reuters journalists, which reveal the scale of fraudulent advertising on the Meta platform and its benefits for the company.
Reuters reports: “A December 2024 document states that, on average, Meta shows some 15 billion `high-risk’ fraud advertisements — those that show clear signs of fraud — to its platform users every day.” This may not be surprising for Facebook and Instagram users, many of whom have repeatedly complained about fraud advertisements and promotions on Meta platforms, but these complaints are often overwhelming and unresponsive. Of course, on the size of Meta, it cannot be expected to respond to every report received. However, according to its internal documentation, Meta is not only aware of the problems on the platform, but may be deliberately overlooked because of the huge revenues generated by the spread of these frauds.
If this were true, it would have provoked all of Meta advertisers. Because the existence of fraudulent advertising not only generates significant direct revenue for Meta, it also triggers competition for advertising, which pushes the cost of all advertisers, which means that Meta may have a higher overall benefit from this chain. It also states: “As the personalized recommendation system of Meta advertises on the basis of user interest, users who have clicked on a fraudulent advertisement are likely to see more of the same content. The document shows that Meta refused to take action unless the system could confirm that the advertisement was fraudulent with a “95 per cent accuracy”. As more and more people become victims of cyber-fraud, the issue is increasingly becoming the focus of law enforcement. According to data from the Global Coalition to Monitor Fraud, global victims lost at least $1 trillion in fraud in the past year alone. According to its Global Fraud Report 2025, approximately 23 per cent of the world ‘ s adult population had been misled, rising to 41 per cent in South America and Africa.
Given the widespread nature of fraud and the global impact of Meta, it is foreseen that multinational regulators are looking for more information on these reports. In response, Meta denied the allegations that the internal documents were not used for public purposes and did not necessarily reflect the full picture of the problem. Meta also noted that its continuously improved fraud advertising detection process had led to a 58 per cent reduction in the number of reports of fraud advertising by users worldwide in 2025. As a result, the status quo may have improved. However, this continues to have a negative impact on Meta ‘ s reputation and, if the allegations are true, the company may eventually face substantial fines for intentionally condoning such conduct. However, if the amount of the fine is less than its profit from these advertisements … In any case, the regulatory body will probably examine these documents and allegations carefully and will investigate the advertising operations of Meta in depth to find evidence. It can be assumed that any fine must be more effective than Meta’s profit from such advertising. This could be another major blow to the reputation of companies and could slow down their investment in the next generation of technologies. Of course, the re-establishment of Zuckerberg ‘ s link with Trump may help to mitigate regulatory review and the associated impacts.
