According to MakeUseOf, internal Meta documents from 2021 through 2024 reveal the company estimates a staggering 10% of its overall revenue comes from scam advertising and banned goods, equating to approximately $16 billion. Another document shows Meta earns around $7 billion annually from advertising specifically marked as “higher risk” that it knows are problematic. The UK Payment Systems Regulator found in 2023 that more than half of all scams involved Meta platforms, with about £1 of every £5 lost attributable to the company. Meta spokesman Andy Stone called the documents a “selective view” but declined to provide updated figures, while internal warnings show the company only bans advertisers when 95% certain they’re fraudulent. A 2023 document alleges Meta dismisses most scam claims, ignoring or incorrectly rejecting over 96% of them.
The uncomfortable truth about engagement
Here’s the thing that makes this particularly damning. Meta’s internal documents show the company is actively aware of this revenue stream and even has a term for it – “violating revenue.” They’re concerned that abruptly reducing scam advertising could affect business projections. But at the same time, they’ve implemented restrictions on how much they’re willing to spend fighting these scams in one hit. So we have a company making $90 billion in just the first half of 2025 apparently worried about losing money from fraudulent advertising. That creates a pretty clear conflict of interest, doesn’t it?
How this actually affects real people
The consequences here aren’t just theoretical. When UK regulators found that over half of all scams involve Meta platforms, that translates to real financial harm for millions of people. And because of Meta’s hyper-targeted advertising systems, clicking on one scam ad essentially trains the algorithm to show you more. You make one mistake, and suddenly your feed becomes a minefield of similar fraudulent offers. The personalization that makes Meta’s advertising so effective for legitimate businesses becomes a weapon against users who fall for these schemes.
Where Meta’s priorities really lie
Look at the evidence: Meta only bans advertisers when they’re 95% certain of fraud. If they’re only 94% certain? They just charge them more to access the platforms. That’s not just lax enforcement – that’s monetizing suspicious behavior. And dismissing over 96% of scam claims suggests a systemic unwillingness to address the problem. When you’re dealing with numbers this large – $16 billion annually – the financial incentive to look the other way becomes overwhelming. The company’s public statements about aggressively fighting fraud ring pretty hollow when the internal reality shows such different priorities.
So what are our options here?
Basically, users are stuck between a rock and a hard place. The obvious answer is to leave Meta’s platforms entirely – ditch Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, Threads. But for many people, that’s simply not practical. WhatsApp dominates messaging in many countries outside the US, and these platforms are deeply integrated into both social and professional lives. The alternative is becoming hyper-vigilant about spotting scams and fake celebrity endorsements. But should users really bear the burden of constant vigilance when the platform itself could be doing so much more? Given the sums of money involved, it’s hard to see this improving anytime soon without serious regulatory intervention like the UK parliamentary investigations already underway.
