Meta Allows Over 1,000 Illegal Financial Ads Weekly Despite UK Promises

Britain's financial regulator discovered more than 1,000 unauthorized financial advertisements running on Meta's platforms during a single week in November, despite the company's commitment to block such content. Over half of these illegal ads came from advertisers the regulator had already flagged to Meta as problematic.

Social media giant Meta has consistently allowed illegal financial advertisements to appear on its platforms in Britain, contradicting the company’s pledge to prevent such content, according to findings from the UK’s financial watchdog.

During a one-week period in November, Britain’s Financial Conduct Authority discovered 1,052 advertisements promoting currency trading and complex financial products posted by companies lacking proper regulatory authorization to market these services on Meta’s platforms.

The situation proved even more troubling when regulators found that 56% of these unauthorized advertisements originated from advertisers the FCA had previously reported to Meta as problematic, according to exclusive review results obtained by Reuters.

Meta’s global user base has encountered billions of fraudulent advertisements spanning fake investment opportunities, unauthorized online gambling sites, and prohibited medical products, based on the company’s internal documentation previously disclosed by Reuters.

The FCA initiated this investigation after warning that social media users faced increasing targeting by online trading schemes, where criminals promise lucrative currency trades. The review aimed to evaluate Meta’s effectiveness in eliminating fraudulent advertisements.

Ryan Daniels, representing Meta, responded to the FCA’s discoveries by stating the company “fights fraud and scams aggressively on a global level and takes swift action on the vast majority of reports within days.”

Regulators concentrated their examination on Meta’s suite of platforms—Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp—because these services host an unusually high volume of questionable financial promotions, according to someone knowledgeable about the FCA’s investigation.

“Fraud is the most common crime in the UK,” stated an FCA representative. “With over half of some scams originating on their platforms, it’s vital Meta steps up and uses its tools to protect users from scam content.”

The authority conducted a follow-up review in December, again discovering that a limited group of repeat violators generated most of the illegal advertisements, though specific numbers weren’t provided by the source familiar with the FCA’s efforts.

Despite ongoing discussions with Meta regarding fraudulent advertisements, the FCA has observed no meaningful improvement in the company’s methods and plans to continue evaluating Meta’s oversight systems, the source indicated.

“Any suggestion that we ignore FCA reports misrepresents our ongoing efforts to protect people,” Daniels responded.

Meta emphasized that companies running financial advertisements in Britain must obtain FCA authorization and bear responsibility for following applicable regulations.

Britain’s Online Safety Act, enabling regulators to impose fines up to 10% of global revenue for hosting illegal user content, began implementation in March 2025. However, provisions addressing paid fraudulent advertisements won’t activate until at least 2027.

Without legislative backing, Meta voluntarily committed in 2022 to restrict financial service advertisements to FCA-authorized firms and modified its UK policies accordingly.

The FCA lacks authority to act against Meta directly, as communications regulator Ofcom oversees the company. Regarding paid fraudulent advertisements, Ofcom also remains powerless until the Online Safety Act provisions become effective.

“We’re working at pace to implement this. The timeline has been affected by factors beyond our control, in particular a legal challenge against the government,” an Ofcom representative explained, noting recommendations for social media companies to employ automated fraud detection technology.

While the FCA can pursue unauthorized advertisers promoting financial services on social platforms, many operate outside Britain’s jurisdiction.

The authority issues consumer warnings about unauthorized firms, has prosecuted and fined unauthorized British influencers promoting high-risk products on social media, and regularly requests social platforms remove illegal financial advertisements.

Britain’s National Crime Agency has successfully dismantled financial fraud networks targeting British citizens through social media from countries including Nigeria.

Fraud Minister David Hanson pledged continued pressure on Meta and other platforms regarding enhanced scam prevention until the Online Safety Act’s fraudulent advertisement provisions activate.

“In the meantime … I expect them to go further and faster in standing up to this threat,” Hanson told Reuters.

The FCA’s examination focused specifically on foreign exchange trading and contracts for difference (CFDs) advertisements, having identified these products as particularly harmful to consumers, according to the investigation source.

CFDs represent complex derivative instruments for speculating on asset price movements, including currencies. Since losses can dramatically exceed initial investments, the FCA requires strict investor protections, including mandatory disclosure of client loss percentages.

Reuters could not establish the total volume of currency and CFD advertisements appearing on Meta’s platforms during the review periods, as Meta didn’t respond to requests for weekly totals.

To evaluate Meta’s fraud prevention effectiveness under different regulatory frameworks, a Reuters journalist created a suspicious investment advertisement for Facebook, promising 10% weekly returns.

Reuters attempted running the advertisement in Britain—where Meta faces no financial penalties for hosting fraudulent ads—and Australia, where companies risk fines up to A$50 million ($35 million) for failing to detect scams under mandatory financial advertiser verification.

During verification for both countries, Meta requested Reuters declare whether the advertisement promoted financial services by checking a box. Emulating scammer behavior, Reuters left the box unchecked in both cases.

The advertisement ran in Britain without additional review. Reuters removed the advertisement shortly after Meta’s approval.

In Australia, despite Reuters not identifying the advertisement as financial services-related, Meta blocked it and demanded proof of authorization from Australia’s financial regulator for running financial service advertisements.

Meta explained that Reuters’ Australian advertisement was intercepted due to enhanced financial services verification processes in that country, without detailing these improvements.

Meta stated it was developing more effective global safeguards and had increased the percentage of global advertising revenue from verified advertisers to 70% in 2025, up from 55% at 2024’s end.

British consumer rights advocate Martin Lewis argued that major technology companies should stop characterizing fraudulent advertisement prevention as a technological challenge.

“This is a financial problem. If you spend enough money, you can stop the scammers, and we need to change the economics so it is worth their while to spend the money to stop the scammers,” Lewis told Reuters.

Digital rights organization Reset Tech analyzed Meta’s advertisement library during a two-week July-August period.

The group searched for advertisements mentioning three British banks—Barclays, HSBC, and Revolut—then identified those displaying three or more warning signs, including unrealistic return promises, suspicious website domains, or false endorsements.

Reset Tech determined that 51.1% of the 2,913 identified advertisements were likely fraudulent, including suspected fake investment schemes, credit offers, or government support programs. The organization estimated Meta could host 29,068 bank-related fraudulent advertisements annually, resulting in 53.6 million total exposures across Britain and the EU.

Reuters couldn’t independently confirm Reset Tech’s previously unreported findings.

Meta criticized Reset Tech’s report for using subjective and unreliable methods to identify “suspected scams” and “suspicious ads,” none of which the organization could verify as actual fraud.

Meta argued the report demonstrated that suspected scams achieved significantly lower reach than legitimate advertisements, proving its systems successfully limited potentially violating content distribution.

Barclays referenced a commissioned survey of 2,000 British residents showing eight in ten believe technology firms should increase anti-scam efforts. The bank advocated for collaboration between banks, social media platforms, technology companies, and telecommunications providers to combat fraud.

Revolut identified Meta’s platforms as the primary source of authorized fraud reported to the bank. Revolut demanded Meta urgently improve verification system effectiveness and demonstrate tangible anti-scam initiative results.

HSBC declined commentary.