For months, criticism of scam ads on social media has simmered. On November 24, 2025, it reached a boiling point when two US senators called for formal regulatory action against Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram.
Senators Josh Hawley and Richard Blumenthal sent a letter to the Federal Trade Commission and the Securities and Exchange Commission, citing Meta’s ad revenues linked to fraudulent and illicit content.
Their action followed reports that Meta could earn $16 billion in one year from flagged advertising, stirring nationwide debate about online safety.
What sparked the call for a federal probe?
The controversy began after Reuters published evidence from Meta’s internal documents that showed significant profits from ads for scams and prohibited goods.
These documents revealed that the company allowed this type of advertising despite repeated policy warnings and regulatory pushback.
Senators referenced Reuters findings in their letter, emphasizing concerns that even high-risk scams, including fake government offers and illicit gambling, continue to appear on Facebook and Instagram.
Their letter questioned Meta’s claims about clamping down on such ads and raised doubts about the company's commitment to consumer safety.
Did you know?
The Ad Library is not limited to Facebook. It aggregates ads from Facebook, Instagram, Facebook Messenger, and the Audience Network. As of late 2024/2025, it is also beginning to include ads from Threads as Meta rolls out advertising on that platform.
How much revenue do scam ads generate for Meta?
According to the leaked documents, Meta anticipated earning around 10% of its revenue in 2024 from “illicit advertising,” which would amount to about $16 billion.
Separate estimates in the documents said Meta’s platforms could be involved in a third of all scams reported in the United States.
One internal memo suggested that Meta receives roughly $3.5 billion in revenue from higher-risk scam ads every six months, globally.
These revelations have led lawmakers to demand answers about Meta’s responsibility in the propagation of these scams and the protection of users.
How effective are Meta’s anti-scam measures?
Meta responded to the allegations by highlighting recent improvements in its scam detection and moderation strategies. The company claims a 58% reduction in user reports of scams on its platforms over the past eighteen months, attributing this to stronger enforcement and new automated tools.
Nevertheless, the senators remained skeptical. Their letter cited gaps in Meta’s current efforts, noting that many fraudulent ads remain active and visible in Meta’s public Ad Library.
They questioned whether the company’s resource allocations truly prioritized consumer protection, especially as staffing for safety reportedly decreased.
ALSO READ | Zuckerberg, Meta board agree to $190 million shareholder settlement
What do senators allege about Meta’s responsibilities?
Senators Hawley and Blumenthal argue that Meta has consciously chosen profit over effective consumer safeguards. They referenced a Federal Trade Commission estimate that Americans lost $158.3 billion to scams in the previous year, proposing that Meta’s share of this total could exceed $50 billion given its scale in the online ad space.
The letter further alleged that Meta continues to run fraudulent political and government impersonation ads, even after being warned.
It detailed spam campaigns and deepfake ads that exploit government programs and public figures, including bogus offers from politicians often with links to cybercrime groups abroad.
What might come from federal intervention?
The senators urged the FTC and SEC to launch immediate, coordinated investigations into Meta’s ad practices, which could result in steep civil penalties, clawbacks of ad revenues, or new consumer safety rules.
They also called for Meta to cease running flagged ads and to revisit how it balances profit against platform security.
Meta’s official response rejected the senators’ characterizations and maintained that it fights scams aggressively.
The debate now pivots to the capability and willingness of federal regulators to establish new industry standards for online advertising and fraud prevention.
With public outrage over scam losses mounting and bipartisan attention on Meta’s practices, the next phase in social media oversight looms. Regulatory outcomes could reshape tech advertising and prompt similar actions worldwide.
Comments (0)
Please sign in to leave a comment