According to engadget, Meta is making billions annually from scam ads across Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp. Reuters reports these fraudulent ads could account for a staggering 10% of Meta’s revenue – that’s about $16 billion last year alone. The scams include fake investment schemes, illegal casinos, and banned medical products. Even more alarming, Meta’s internal researchers estimated its apps “were involved in a third of all successful scams in the U.S.” The company reportedly gives small advertisers eight strikes before banning them, while bigger spenders can accumulate over 500 violations. Just four removed ad campaigns this year accounted for $67 million in revenue.
Sponsored content — provided for informational and promotional purposes.
The business model conflict
Here’s the thing that makes this so difficult for Meta to fix – scam ads are literally built into their business model. When just four campaigns bring in $67 million, you start to understand why executives are hesitant to crack down too hard. The Reuters report says managers were told not to take actions that could cost Meta more than 0.15% of total revenue. Basically, there’s an internal calculation happening where some level of fraud is considered an acceptable cost of doing business.
The repeat offender problem
Meta’s enforcement approach seems almost designed to protect revenue over users. Small advertisers get eight strikes before being banned? Big spenders can rack up hundreds of violations? That’s not just being permissive – that’s creating a system where scammers know exactly how much they can get away with. And when you’re talking about platforms that reach billions of people, the scale of harm becomes enormous. How many people need to lose money before a “big spender” actually faces consequences?
Meta’s response
Unsurprisingly, Meta pushed back on the 10% revenue figure, calling it “rough and overly-inclusive” without providing alternative numbers. They did point to some progress – a 58% reduction in user reports of scam ads globally over 18 months, and removal of 134 million pieces of scam content so far in 2025. But here’s my question: when you’re starting from such an enormous baseline, even big improvements might not be enough. And if the underlying financial incentives remain unchanged, are we just treating symptoms rather than the disease?
Broader implications
This isn’t just a Meta problem – it’s a platform problem. When your revenue depends on advertising, there’s always going to be tension between safety and profits. But Meta’s scale makes this particularly concerning. Think about it: their own research says they’re involved in a third of all successful US scams. That’s not just a few bad actors slipping through – that’s systemic. And when the company’s own processes make it harder for internal teams to fight these ads, you have to wonder where their priorities really lie.
