News agency survey Reuters revealed this week Meta Platforms, parent company of Facebook and Instagrama project to extract billions of dollars in revenue from an “avalanche of deceptive advertising” on the platform.
The report, based on internal documents seen by Reuters, shows that fraud management priorities have a direct impact on the bottom line. According to Reuters, Meta’s internal forecast is that about 10% of its total revenue in 2024 will come from fraud and contraband advertising.
According to Meta’s internal estimates, this portion of revenue is quoted as follows: Reuters, The total amount will be approximately $16 billion. The documents suggest the problem persists, with the company’s systems showing users an average of 15 billion “high-risk” ads a day that contain clear signs of fraud.
Authoritarians don’t like this
The practice of professional and critical journalism is a fundamental pillar of democracy. That is why it bothers those who believe that they are the owners of the truth.
The magnitude of this number highlights the company’s challenge in mitigating the amount of misleading advertising published on its platform, despite detection tools in place, the report said.
Will the artificial intelligence bubble cause a financial crisis?
Other internal data adds further context. A May 2025 presentation by Meta’s security staff estimated that the company’s platform was “involved” in one-third of successful fraud cases in the United States. Although this survey result is an internal estimate, Placing meta in a central role within the digital fraud ecosystem.
he Meta spokesperson Andy Stone Questioning Reuters’ interpretation of the document,It presents a selective vision that distorts the focus of the meta.” Regarding security issues.
Despite the public announcement, the company’s own documents include the following internal confession: “The product is the basis of a global fraud economy.”according to Reuters.
Internal dissatisfaction was evident in a February 2022 memo in which MetaManager complained about a “lack of investment” in systems designed to combat fraud. These internal reports suggest that the allocation of resources to combat fraud is a point of tension within the organization.
Zuckerberg wants to create an “artificial superintelligence.” Will it work for us or destroy us?
The “penalty offer” system and the profitability of fraud
Reuters investigation details “Penalty bidding” system (“penalty bid“), implemented by Meta, Directly impacts questionable ad monetization. This system applies higher ad rates to advertisers who suspect they are fraudsters but are not completely sure whether they are fraudulent or not. Officially, Meta justifies this mechanism as a way to stop suspicious actors from posting ads on the platform.
However, Reuters concluded that applying this system “fraudulent ads are more profitable for Meta than non-fraudulent ads.” By applying additional fees to potentially illegal ads, the company generates more revenue from the activity of these advertisers.
The documents reviewed are Reuters They also suggest that Management discussed the balance between the “problem revenue” generated and expected costs. Consider financial risks and consider fines and regulatory penalties.
An example of this cost analysis is seen in Meta’s estimate of $3.5 billion in half-year revenue from “high-risk” fraudulent advertising. The figure is higher than the $1 billion the company had expected in fines and settlements with global regulators.
Mark Zuckerberg agrees to avoid trial over Cambridge Analytica scandal
In addition, the report states that the meta team in charge of anti-fraud measures Only actions that reduce advertising revenue by 0.15% of the total were allowed.there were restrictions that limited its operational ability to thwart fraud.
The criteria for permanently banning an account will also be a factor. Meta’s automated systems must have “95% certainty” that an account has committed fraudulent activity, according to the document. If your 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, resulting in the advertisers that bring in the most revenue running longer.
The design of Meta’s advertising system may increase risks to users. According to internal documents, users who interact with deceptive ads are more likely to see more ads because the algorithm attempts to serve ads based on previously expressed interests. According to the report, “Meta’s ad personalization system leaves these users more exposed to fraud.”
Concerns about Meta’s role in the scam are not unique to the company. The UK Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) revealed that Metaplatform was responsible for more than half of all payments fraud-related losses in 2023, doubling the total for other social media companies combined. This data from an external party highlights the magnitude of the challenges Meta faces as a digital commerce platform.
$1 million amount judge can demand from Mark Zuckerberg in Facebook scandal with Cambridge Analytica
consumer report responded to the investigation and asked the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and U.S. state attorneys general to take enforcement action against Meta for the following reasons: “Harmful fraudulent advertising has not been reduced”. “CR’s technology policy is an important part of our commitment to technology,” said Justin Bruckman, CR’s director of technology policy.Meta continually chooses to prioritize profits over user protection”.
Meta defended its actions, noting that the revelations came from an internal self-assessment aimed at justifying future integrity investments. However, Reuters reported that the company moved to shut down the account, which was listed as the “most fraudulent” in an internal report, only after authorities named it.
About The Author
