News agency investigation Reuters revealed this week that Meta Platforms, the parent company of Facebook and Instagramprojects to generate billions of dollars in revenue from an “avalanche of fraudulent ads” on its platforms.
The report, based on internal documents seen by Reuters, indicates that prioritizing fraud management has had a direct impact on revenues. Meta’s internal forecast indicated that about 10% of its total revenue for 2024 would come from fraud and illicit goods ads, according to Reuters.
This portion of revenue, according to internal estimates cited by Meta Reuters, It will reach about 16 billion US dollars. The documents indicate that the problem continues, with the company’s systems showing its users a daily average of 15 billion “high-risk” ads that contain clear signs of being fraudulent.
Authoritarians don’t like this
The practice of professional and critical journalism is an essential pillar of democracy. This is why it bothers those who believe they are the bearers of the truth.
The report highlights the size of this number and the challenges the company faces in mitigating the volume of misleading ads that are published on its platforms, despite existing detection tools.
Will the AI bubble lead to a financial crisis?
Other internal data deepens the context. A presentation by Meta Security employees in May 2025 estimated that the company’s platforms were “involved” in a third of all successful scams in the United States. This result, although an internal estimate, It places Meta in a central role within the digital fraud ecosystem.
he Meta spokesman Andy Stone He questioned Reuters’ interpretation of the documents, saying they were “Provide selective vision that distorts meta-focus” On security issues.
Despite the public statement, the company’s own documents contain an internal admission of this “Its products have become a cornerstone of the global fraud economy.”According to Reuters.
Internal dissatisfaction is evident in a memo dated February 2022, in which a Meta director complained about a “lack of investment” in systems designed to combat fraud. These internal reports indicate that allocating resources to combat fraud has been a point of tension within the organization.
Zuckerberg wants to create ‘super artificial intelligence’: will it work for us or destroy us?
The system of “penalty offers” and the profitability of fraud
Details of the Reuters investigation Penalty offers system (“Penal bids“) implemented by Meta, Which directly affects monetization from suspicious ads. This system applies a higher ad rate to advertisers suspected of being fraudulent, but for whom fraud is not entirely certain. Officially, Meta justifies this mechanism as a way to discourage suspicious actors from placing ads on its platforms.
However, Reuters concluded that implementing this system “makes fraudulent ads more profitable for Meta than non-fraudulent ads.” By applying additional fees to illegal ads, the company generates more revenue from the activity of these advertisers.
Documents that have been previously checked Reuters They suggest that too Executives discussed the balance between the “disruptive revenue” generated and the expected costs For fines and regulatory penalties, in weighing financial risks.
An example of this cost analysis is shown in the estimate that Meta’s semiannual revenue from “high-risk” fraudulent advertising is $3.5 billion. This number is higher than the $1 billion the company expected in global fines and regulatory settlements.
Mark Zuckerberg has reached a deal to avoid prosecution over the Cambridge Analytica scandal
In addition, the report notes that the Meta Team is responsible for anti-fraud measures He was only allowed to take actions that reduced advertising revenue by no more than 0.15% of the totalThis constraint restricted their operational ability to stop fraud.
The threshold for complete account ban has also been revealed as a factor. Meta’s automated systems, according to the documents, require “95% certainty” that an account is committing fraud in order to be closed. If the account does not meet this certainty threshold, a penalty fee will be applied instead of a ban. Even the highest-spending advertisers are allowed to accumulate more than 500 “red flags” before Meta decides to shut them down, thus prolonging the business of those generating the most revenue.
The design of the Meta advertising system may intensify risks for users. Internal documents suggest that users who interact with fraudulent ads are more likely to see more of them, because the algorithm seeks to deliver ads based on previously displayed interests. Reports indicate this “Meta’s ad personalization system amplifies these users’ exposure to fraud.”
Concern about Meta’s role in fraud is not limited to the company. The UK Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) found that Meta platforms were involved in more than half of all payments fraud-related losses in 2023, doubling the total of all other social media companies combined. This data from an external entity underscores the scale of the challenge Meta faces as a digital commerce platform.
The amount of million dollars that justice can ask Mark Zuckerberg for the Facebook scandal with Cambridge Analytica
Consumer Reports responded to the investigation, calling on the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and U.S. prosecutors to take enforcement action against Meta for “It fails to mitigate harmful fraudulent advertising.”. Justin Brockman, director of technology policy at CR, said:Meta… consistently chooses to prioritize profits over protecting its users“.
Meta defended its actions, noting that what was revealed came from an internal self-evaluation aimed at justifying future investments in integrity. However, Reuters reported that the company only moved to close accounts listed in internal reports as the “most fraudulent” after the agency named them.
About The Author
