US tech giant Meta continues to struggle with effectively policing illegal financial advertisements on its platforms – Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp – in the United Kingdom, despite repeated warnings and commitments to prevent them. A recent review by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) found that over 1,000 unauthorized financial ads were posted in just one week in November, with 56% originating from advertisers already flagged by the regulator.
This isn’t an isolated incident. Meta’s platforms have been linked to broader global issues, including exposure of users to fraudulent schemes, illegal casinos, and banned medical products. The FCA’s review highlights a persistent failure to protect users from high-risk financial products promoted by unauthorized entities.
The Problem Persists Despite Warnings
The FCA has repeatedly engaged with Meta, urging improvements in its monitoring and controls. However, the regulator has observed “no material difference” in Meta’s approach. This lack of progress is particularly concerning given that the UK experiences a high rate of fraud, with social media platforms being a common origin point for scams.
Meta spokesperson Ryan Daniels claims the company aggressively fights fraud globally, taking swift action on most reports. However, the FCA’s findings suggest otherwise. The regulator notes that small groups of repeat offenders are responsible for a significant portion of illegal ads, indicating systemic weaknesses in Meta’s enforcement.
Regulatory Gaps and Delayed Enforcement
The situation is complicated by legislative delays. Britain’s Online Safety Act, which could impose fines up to 10% of global revenue for illegal content, won’t fully apply to paid-for scam ads until at least 2027. Currently, the FCA lacks direct enforcement power over Meta, as it falls under the jurisdiction of communications watchdog Ofcom, which is also limited until the Act is fully implemented.
Meta made a voluntary commitment in 2022 to only allow authorized firms to run financial ads, but enforcement remains weak. The FCA can pursue unauthorized advertisers, but many operate from outside British jurisdiction.
Disparities in Global Enforcement
The effectiveness of Meta’s enforcement varies significantly by region. A Reuters test revealed that a suspicious investment promotion ran unchecked in Britain, while the same ad was immediately blocked in Australia, where stricter financial advertiser verification rules are in place. This suggests Meta adapts its approach based on regulatory pressure.
Meta claims improvements in Australia are due to “enhancements” in its verification process, but details remain unclear. The company states it has increased the percentage of ad revenue coming from verified advertisers to 70% in 2025, up from 55% in 2024.
Calls for Stronger Action
Consumer rights advocates like Martin Lewis argue that the issue isn’t technological but financial. “If you spend enough money, you can stop the scammers,” Lewis stated, urging companies to prioritize resources to eliminate fraudulent ads. Digital rights groups, such as Reset Tech, have estimated that over half of ads referencing major British banks may be scams, potentially exposing millions to fraud.
Banks like Barclays and Revolut have voiced frustration, citing Meta’s platforms as a primary source of authorized fraud. They call for urgent improvements to verification systems and demonstrable progress in anti-scam initiatives.
Ultimately, while Meta claims ongoing efforts, the FCA’s findings underscore a continued failure to adequately protect users from illegal financial promotions. Until regulatory enforcement is strengthened, the risk of widespread fraud on Meta’s platforms remains significant.
