The $16 Billion Question Haunting Mark Zuckerberg
A new study finds Facebook hosts the vast majority of social media scams, and critics argue it is because Meta prioritizes profit over protecting users, according to the New York Post.
Internal documents obtained by Reuters show Meta projected $16 billion — about 10% of revenue — from scam ads last year. Experts say the company only bans advertisers when its systems detect a 95% probability of fraud, while charging higher ad fees to suspicious buyers, a system critics describe as “pay to play.”
Former California prosecutor Erin West says the documents prove fraud is a “major moneymaker” for Meta. “To know that Facebook is aware of this and they tolerate it — and in fact, they even command additional fees from the worst offenders — is egregious… the practice itself is outrageous, jaw-dropping, unacceptable.”
Data from fraud-reporting firm SafelyHQ shows Facebook is cited in 85% of scam reports that identify a platform, with more than 50,000 verified complaints collected so far. CEO Patrick Quade says the problem is far larger: “For 50,000 people to find us and independently document their losses implies a victim count in the tens of millions… This isn’t ‘cherry-picking’ — it is the overflow of a systemic failure that Meta’s own documents confirm.”
One victim, Brian Kuhn, lost $70 buying records from a fake Facebook sale. “It felt a little creepy that they seemed to know my taste so well… I somehow blame myself equally, but that doesn’t excuse Facebook from allowing the thieves to prey on people.”
The Post writes that lawmakers Josh Hawley and Richard Blumenthal have demanded a federal investigation, writing: “Perversely, Meta reportedly charges higher rates for ads that it suspects might be fraudulent — in effect, imposing a scam tax…”
Meta spokesperson Andy Stone denies the claims, saying: “We aggressively fight fraud and scams… Scammers are persistent criminals…”
Yet internal Meta reports from 2025 found the company was involved in one-third of successful U.S. scams and that it was “easier to advertise scams on Meta platforms than Google.”
Another victim, Betty, who bought counterfeit cosmetics from a Facebook ad, described the platform’s targeting: “You like one thing or look at something or you make a comment about one thing and then these ads appear… Some are really good — they’re fake, but you really can’t tell at first.”
Quade warns that “the ‘fox’ isn’t even guarding the henhouse — it’s charging a toll for other foxes to walk right in… Meta’s system is algorithmically trapping regular citizens in e-commerce scams…”
Consumer Reports and policy experts argue Meta’s protection under Section 230 must be narrowed, especially for paid ads. As Quade concludes, “You can’t let the company profiting from the crime be the one in charge of stopping it.”