Is Meta making billions on scam ads? Malaysia ministers cite ‘disturbing’ report
Summary
A Reuters investigation, based on internal Meta documents, suggests Meta may earn as much as 10% of its revenue — an estimated $7bn to $16bn — from advertisements linked to scams, including bogus investment schemes, illegal online casinos and outlawed medical products. Malaysian regulators, already critical of persistent illegal iGaming promotions on Meta platforms, called the findings “disturbing” and of “grave concern.”
The Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) says Malaysians lost nearly $60m to e-commerce scams on Meta platforms from 2023 through August 2025, and the government has issued over 168,000 take-down requests this year alone. Meta disputes Reuters’ portrayal, saying the investigation selectively represents its anti-fraud work. Reuters reports Meta waits until 95% certain before banning advertisers and may instead charge more to suspected scam advertisers while continuing to target susceptible users.
Key Points
- Reuters’ report, drawn from internal Meta documents, estimates $7bn–$16bn in revenue from scam-related ads, potentially up to 10% of Meta’s total income.
- Malaysia’s MCMC labels the findings “very worrying” and highlights nearly $60m lost by Malaysians to scams on Meta platforms (2023–Aug 2025).
- Malaysia now requires social platforms with 8m+ users to hold a licence; penalties include fines and jail terms — Meta says it does not need to join the licensing framework.
- Reuters says Meta only bans advertisers once it is about 95% sure they are illicit; suspected offenders may simply be charged higher ad rates.
- Officials and experts are calling for stronger regulation, greater transparency and tools such as public safety/online-harm ratings for digital platforms.
Context and Relevance
This story sits at the intersection of platform responsibility, consumer harm and regulatory action. For regulators and industry players in iGaming, payments and ad-tech, it highlights persistent enforcement gaps: takedown request volumes, cross-border payments, and platform advertising policies that may inadvertently monetise fraudulent activity. It also feeds the growing debate on whether existing platform self-policing is sufficient or if tougher oversight and penalties are needed.
Why should I read this?
Because if dodgy gambling and investment ads keep showing up on your phone, this explains why — and who might be profiting. Quick read, big implications for regulators, advertisers and anyone worried about fraud online. Worth your time if you care about platform safety or run ads in these channels.
Author style
Punchy: this isn’t background noise — the figures are large and the regulatory fallout could be real. Read the details if you want to understand how advertising policies and enforcement choices can translate into huge revenue streams and ongoing consumer harm.
