Meta Projects ~$16 B in Revenue from Scam and Illicit Ads, Internal Documents Show

Internal documents of Meta Platforms (parent company of Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp) indicate that approximately 10 % of its 2024 advertising‐revenue – roughly US$16 billion – stems from advertisements linked to scams, illicit goods and banned content. The findings, reported by Reuters after reviewing internal company documents, raise significant concerns for brand advertisers and regulators alike.

Key Findings

Scale and revenue:

• The documents estimate that Meta’s platforms display around 15 billion “higher-risk” scam ads per day, defined as ads showing clear signs of potential fraud.
• One internal slide reportedly states that about US$7 billion annually comes from this “higher-risk” category of ads.
• According to a December 2024 document, Meta projected that some 10.1 % of its ad revenue in 2024 would derive from scam and prohibited-goods advertising.

Enforcement and policy mechanics:

• Meta’s internal policy reportedly bans advertisers only when its automated systems estimate at least a 95 % probability of fraud. Advertisers under that threshold may continue campaigns but are charged higher ad rates—a “penalty bid” system—to maintain exposure while reducing profitability.
• A separate internal review concluded that “it is easier to advertise scams on Meta platforms than on Google LLC,” a claim Meta acknowledged but did not fully explain.
• Documents also show Meta imposed an internal “guardrail” limiting anti-scam enforcement actions to those costing no more than 0.15 % of total revenue in the first half of 2025 (~US$135 million, based on estimated revenues), though Meta characterized the figure as a forecast not a strict budget cap.

Regulatory exposure and accountability:

• One internal presentation estimated that Meta’s platforms were involved in roughly one‐third of all successful scams in the United States.
• The documents show that the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is investigating Meta for facilitating ads tied to financial scams. They also note that platforms owned by Meta were linked to 54% of payment-related scam incidents in the U.K. in 2023.

Meta’s Response

Meta spokesperson Andy Stone (also cited as Matthew Tye in some reports) stated that the internal estimates were “rough and overly-inclusive,” and asserted that subsequent reviews showed lower figures because the original projections included “many” legitimate ads. He declined to provide an updated revenue estimate.

The company further noted that over the past 18 months user-reports of scam ads declined by 58 %, and that so far in 2025 it had removed more than 134 million pieces of scam-ad content.

Meta says its aim is to reduce the share of its ad revenue derived from scams, illegal gambling and prohibited goods: from ~10.1 % in 2024 down to 7.3 % by end-2025, 6 % by end-2026, and 5.8 % by end-2027.

Implications for Advertisers and the Industry

• Brand safety: Advertisers may unwittingly compete in auctions where scam‐advertisers participate, potentially driving up cost-per-thousand‐impressions (CPM) and distorting ad auction dynamics.
• Competitive pressure: If scam advertisers are charged penalty-bids yet remain in auctions, the bidding environment may disadvantage legitimate advertisers.
• Regulatory risk and oversight: With multiple investigations underway, platforms may face stricter regulation or higher enforcement burdens, which could impact ad-ecosystem models.
• Transparency and trust: The revelations highlight growing scrutiny over how digital platforms moderate and monetise questionable advertising content—raising questions of accountability, auditability and platform governance.

Background Context

Advertising fraud has increasingly become a systemic challenge in digital media. Platforms like Meta rely heavily on programmatic ad auctions, where automated systems match advertisers to user-profiles and bid for placement. Within that model, any entity that can reliably demonstrate high click-through and conversion rates—even if the underlying offer is fraudulent—can remain lucrative for the platform until flagged and removed.

Meta has previously faced criticism for its moderation of “bad ads.” In a 2022 settlement with the U.S. Department of Justice, Meta agreed to address discrimination in ad delivery but observers noted that enforcement and transparency remained weak. The current disclosures extend those concerns into the domain of fraud and illicit advertising.

Moreover, as Meta invests heavily in artificial intelligence and infrastructure (for example, building large data centres and expanding AI research), advertising revenue remains a critical funding source. The internal documents’ explicit linkage of enforcement cost-concerns and revenue drag suggests a direct tension between platform growth objectives and ad-integrity priorities.

Outlook

Meta’s ambitions to reduce the share of scam-derived ad revenue will face operational and strategic challenges. Enforcement efforts may accelerate, but the documents indicate that Meta is cautious about actions that might reduce revenue too quickly. As regulatory activity intensifies—particularly around consumer protection, payments fraud, and advertising transparency—platforms will likely confront greater scrutiny and potential liability.

For advertisers, the environment may shift in several ways: more rigorous vetting of ad-buyers, enhanced transparency in auction participation, and possibly higher costs for compliance and brand safety. At the same time, increased platform enforcement may reduce the prevalence of scam ads, improving overall ecosystem confidence — but the transition may create short-term friction.

As Meta, regulators, and industry stakeholders respond to the disclosures, the balance between monetisation and integrity in ad ecosystems will remain a focal point in digital-advertising governance.