Meta Repeatedly Failed to Block Illegal Financial Ads in Britain, Regulator Finds

A review by Britain’s financial regulator has revealed that U.S. tech giant Meta repeatedly failed to prevent illegal advertisements for high-risk financial products on its platforms. During a single week in November, Meta permitted more than 1,000 ads for currency trading and complex instruments to run on Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp, despite the company’s voluntary commitment to block such content.

According to the review seen by Reuters, 56% of these unauthorized ads originated from advertisers that the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) had previously flagged to Meta. The findings highlight a significant gap between the company's public promises and its operational reality, leaving billions of users globally exposed to potential fraud.

Background and Context

The proliferation of online trading scams has become a pressing concern for UK authorities. Fraud is currently the most common crime in Britain, with social media platforms serving as a primary vector for scammers offering currency trades and fraudulent investment schemes. In 2022, Meta made a voluntary commitment to allow only firms authorized by the FCA to run financial services advertisements. However, the regulator’s recent assessment suggests these measures are insufficient to curb the tide of illicit financial content.

Key Figures and Entities

The Financial Conduct Authority conducted the review to test the effectiveness of Meta’s controls, focusing on high-risk products like Contracts for Difference (CFDs). Despite regular engagement with the company, the regulator noted it has failed to see a material difference in Meta’s approach. A person familiar with the FCA’s work indicated that a small number of repeat offenders are responsible for the majority of illegal ads.

Meta spokesperson Ryan Daniels defended the company’s record, stating that it fights fraud aggressively and takes swift action on reports. However, internal documents previously reported by Reuters indicate that users worldwide have been exposed to ads for fraudulent schemes and illegal products.

Consumer rights campaigner Martin Lewis criticized the framing of the issue as merely a technological challenge. “This is a financial problem,” Lewis told Reuters, arguing that tech companies must alter the economics of scam prevention to make it viable to invest in robust safeguards.

Legal and Financial Mechanisms

A comparative test conducted by Reuters illustrates the disparity in regulatory enforcement. When a reporter created a suspicious investment ad promising unrealistic returns, it was approved to run in Britain without scrutiny. In contrast, the same ad was blocked in Australia, where laws impose fines of up to A$50 million for failing to detect scams.

In the UK, Meta requires advertisers to declare if content is financial, but the system was easily bypassed in the test. While Meta claimed that revenue from verified advertisers has risen to 70% globally, the FCA’s findings demonstrate that unauthorized actors continue to penetrate the platform’s defenses. The company noted that unauthorized advertisers are responsible for complying with the law, shifting the burden of compliance onto those who often operate outside the jurisdiction.

International Implications and Policy Response

The situation is exacerbated by a legislative gap in the United Kingdom. The Online Safety Act, which allows regulators to fine social media companies up to 10% of global revenue for illegal user-generated content, began coming into force in March 2025. However, provisions granting power over paid-for scam ads have been delayed until at least 2027.

Until these laws are active, communications watchdog Ofcom remains powerless to fine Meta for hosting paid scam ads. An Ofcom spokesperson stated that implementation is proceeding, though a legal challenge has affected the timeline. Fraud Minister David Hanson emphasized that tech firms must do more to tackle the threat in the interim.

Sources

This report draws on a review by the Financial Conduct Authority, independent reporting by Reuters, and analysis from digital rights advocacy group Reset Tech.