- The Consumers Federation of America files a class-action lawsuit against Meta for profiting from deceptive advertising on Facebook and Instagram.
- The organization denounces that Meta prioritizes profits over user safety despite the increase in scams and losses amounting to millions.
- Meta claims the lawsuit misrepresents its work and maintains that it removed more than 159 million fraudulent ads in 2025 alone.
- Scams involving videos and content generated with artificial intelligence complicate detection and increase regulatory pressure on the company.
La Legal pressure on Meta due to the proliferation of scams The company's presence on its platforms has once again placed it at the center of public debate. Facebook and Instagram now face a new class-action lawsuit accusing them of not acting decisively enough against fraudulent ads circulating on their services, nor of adequately protect users.
The legal initiative has been promoted by the Consumers Federation of America (CFA)which argues that Mark Zuckerberg's company has misled users about the real level of security and control of advertising, while profiting financially from the volume of campaigns, including those that are clearly deceptive or dangerous.
A class-action lawsuit accusing Meta of profiting from scams
According to the CFA, Meta would have designed and implemented internal policies knowing that allowed the expansion of fraudulent advertisementsInstead of effectively curbing them. In its statement, the federation maintains that the multinational technology company has chosen to prioritize advertising revenue over consumer protection.
In the documentation submitted to the court, the organization includes Screenshots of active Facebook campaigns In 2025, ads for supposed free mobile phones are displayed, videos manipulated by artificial intelligence that impersonate celebrities to promote investments or products, and the sale of items that are directly prohibited, such as certain crib accessories considered unsafe.
The demand-driven approach is not limited to specific examples, but links them to a broader trend: the rise of scams on social networks as the main channel for deceiving usersThe CFA maintains that Meta was fully aware of this drift and yet failed to strengthen its oversight mechanisms to the level that would be expected of a company of its size.
The federation emphasizes the role of the business model based on targeted advertising. It asserts that the growth in advertising revenue has gone hand in hand with a sustained increase in frauds disguised as legitimate campaignswhich, in his opinion, reinforces the theory that the company benefited economically from this dynamic.
In his argument, the CFA's Director of AI and Data Privacy, Ben Winters, maintains that, as the economic losses resulting from these scams grow, Meta has systematically prioritized profits over safetyThe message is clear: the organization believes that the tech giant has not lived up to its responsibility as guardian of a massive advertising ecosystem.
The figures for social media scams: billions in losses
The CFA's complaint relies on data from public agencies to illustrate the economic impact of this phenomenon. It cites, among others, a report from the United States Federal Trade Commission (FTC)which estimates that, since 2021, consumers have lost around $2.700 billion to scams linked to social media.
This volume of lost money shows that social networks have ceased to be merely spaces for chatting, sharing photos, or following influencers, and have become a fertile ground for digital crimes of all kindsFrom fake investment schemes to impossible offers of free or extremely discounted products, the range of traps is ever-expanding.
The CFA emphasizes that this increase in fraud figures coincides temporally with the global expansion of Meta's advertising modelwhich relies on highly precise audience segmentation. According to the federation, this combination of massive reach and high personalization has provided scammers with a very powerful tool to target potentially more vulnerable victims.
The result is a scenario in which many users encounter seemingly legitimate, well-designed, and very convincing advertisementsThese posts blend seamlessly into the rest of their feed. This appearance of normalcy, combined with the social network's trustworthy environment, makes it easier for more people to fall into these traps.
From the perspective of consumer organizations, this situation raises a fundamental question: to what extent should the platform be responsible? that hosts and monetizes those ads when the economic and reputational damage falls on the users.
Meta's response: defending its policies and fighting fraud
Meta has responded to the accusations with a strong message. A company spokesperson, in statements reported by specialized media outlets, asserts that the CFA lawsuit "It distorts reality" about the work the company does to identify and remove ads that violate its rules.
To support his position, the tech company representative cited internal data indicating that, by 2025 alone, the company It removed more than 159 million ads. for violating its advertising policies. According to Meta, these figures demonstrate the scale of its efforts and the existence of automated systems and dedicated teams to combat abuse.
The company also points out that it is not simply removing ads, but has undertaken legal action against fraudulent advertising networks in various countries. In February, for example, it filed lawsuits against groups located in Brazil and China that used the image of celebrities to redirect users to deceptive websites where they were asked for money or sensitive personal data.
From Meta's perspective, the fight against scams is a continuous process in which there will always be attempts to circumvent the controlsThe company insists that it dedicates significant resources to this task and that its interest is to maintain a relatively safe environment for both individuals and companies that use its advertising services.
However, for the CFA and other critical entities, these arguments are insufficient. They maintain that, even with efforts, The results do not reflect the magnitude of the problem.and that the number of frauds detected does not compensate for the impact they continue to have on millions of users.
The role of artificial intelligence in new scams
One of the most concerning aspects of this conflict is the use of artificial intelligence tools (AI) to make the scams more sophisticated. The complainants warn that it's no longer just about ads with poorly written text or shoddy-looking websites, but about audiovisual content that's difficult to distinguish from the real thing.
Among the evidence presented by the CFA are AI-generated videos in which Public figures appear to be recommending products, investments, or services.when in reality these are impersonations created without their consent. These materials often achieve very high viewership numbers, exceeding one million views in some cases.
The combination of AI and massive platforms like Facebook and Instagram makes users trust what they see and hear more. Add to that the fact that Algorithms tend to amplify content that generates interactionThe result is that these types of deceptive videos can gain significant visibility in a short time.
This scenario greatly complicates the task of moderation. Detecting a fraudulent ad based on suspicious text is relatively simple, but identifying a digitally manipulated hyperrealistic video It requires more advanced technologies and additional resources.
For regulators and consumer advocates, this technological evolution reinforces the need for companies like Meta Raise the bar on your controls and transparency on how these types of campaigns are detected and managed, especially when they touch on sensitive areas such as investment, health or child protection.
Legal background and increasing regulatory pressure
The demand driven by the CFA is not happening in a vacuum. Meta is already facing a history of legal disputes related to consumer protection and the security of its platforms. In the past, the company was fined $375 million in the state of New Mexico.
That case focused on the violation of state consumer protection laws and in the alleged deception regarding the actual level of security offered to users, including minors. The court then determined that the company's promises did not correspond to its actual performance.
The CFA's new legal offensive reinforces the idea that, as the power and influence of platforms like Facebook and Instagram grows, It also increases the demand for them to assume greater responsibility because of what happens within their services, especially when it comes to advertisements that can cause significant economic damage.
This type of procedure in the United States often has a significant impact in other regions, including Europe, where the The regulatory framework for digital matters is becoming stricter.Regulations such as the European Union's Digital Services Act (DSA) aim precisely to demand greater transparency and diligence from large platforms in the face of systemic risks, including fraudulent content.
Although the CFA lawsuit focuses on the US context, the debates it opens up about misleading advertising, platform liability and user protection They are shared in many European countries and are also of interest to the Spanish authorities, who closely follow the evolution of the policies of the big technology companies.
Overall, the case brings back into focus the tension between a business model based on maximizing ad exposure and the obligation to guarantee a reasonably safe environment for people who use these networks on a daily basis.
The ongoing legal battle against Meta for failing to effectively curb fraudulent ads on Instagram and Facebook illustrates just how complex the coexistence of digital advertising, technological innovation, and consumer protection has become. While the company boasts of millions of removed ads and actions against fraudsters, user organizations and regulators insist that the volume of fraud and the losses recorded demonstrate that the response still falls short and that the company will face increasing scrutiny regarding how it manages security in its vast advertising ecosystem.