Meta developed internal strategies to limit the visibility of fraudulent ads to regulators, while delaying structural measures against online scams. This is according to a Reuters investigation report based on internal company documents from the past four years.
According to those documents, Meta adjusted the functioning of its public ad library, among other things, so that ads actively tracked by regulators disappeared from view more quickly. The approach was first used in Japan at a time when stricter verification requirements for advertisers were being considered.
At the same time, Meta chose to introduce broad verification of advertisers only where legislation explicitly requires it. This is despite internal analyses showing that such measures significantly reduce the number of scam ads, according to SiliconANGLE.
By focusing on the search behavior of regulators and journalists, Meta was able to create the impression that the number of fraudulent ads had decreased significantly. This did not necessarily mean that the underlying problem had been structurally solved. However, it did mean that control mechanisms found fewer violations. Internally, this was described as steering the perceived scale of the problem.
The tactic proved effective in Japan. After Meta reduced the visibility of problematic ads, the Japanese government decided to refrain from imposing stricter requirements for the identification of advertisers. Meta then incorporated the approach into a broader internal playbook that it also applies in other regions, including Europe and the United States. According to the documents, the aim is to delay or limit regulation as long as legislation does not explicitly require the company to take stricter measures.
Meta only intervenes when rules are binding
An important point of discussion remains the verification of advertisers. Meta acknowledges internally that mandatory identity checks on all advertisers would reduce a lot of scam activity. At the same time, this option is seen as costly and risky for revenue. The company has calculated that global implementation would cost billions and could wipe out a significant portion of advertising revenue. That is why Meta has chosen to intervene only when regulations enforce it.
Critics argue that this approach leaves the core of the problem untouched. According to former employees, the policy simply causes fraudulent ads to shift to other countries when they are blocked locally. The damage to users does not disappear, but is transferred to other markets.
Meta itself emphasizes that it is constantly investing in combating online scams and argues that removing ads from the library also means that they disappear from the platform. The company points out that reports of scams have declined worldwide, despite the ever-changing tactics of criminals.
However, the internal documents paint a different picture. They show that Meta does indeed consider fraud to be a serious risk, but at the same time is doing everything it can to postpone drastic measures as long as they could affect profitability. For regulators worldwide, this underscores how difficult it is to gain effective control over the advertising practices of large technology platforms.