LONDON/SAN FRANCISCO, March 18 - Britain’s Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) concluded in a focused review that Meta repeatedly failed to intercept paid adverts promoting high-risk financial products on its platforms despite committing to restrict such content to authorised firms. The regulator’s review found that in a one-week sample taken in November, 1,052 adverts for foreign exchange trading and certain complex derivative instruments were placed on Meta’s services by advertisers who were not authorised by the FCA to promote those products.
The FCA’s review further determined that 56% of those adverts originated from an unspecified set of unauthorised advertisers that the regulator had already reported to Meta, according to material seen by the financial regulator and described here for the first time. Meta’s platforms referenced in the review include Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp.
Internal records and prior reporting have shown that Meta’s services have been a channel through which users worldwide have been exposed to advertisements for fraudulent e-commerce and investment schemes, illegal online gambling services and prohibited medical products. The FCA has highlighted a growing incidence of online trading scams on social media where consumers are lured into currency trading offers and other speculative products.
What the FCA reviewed
The FCA concentrated its analysis on adverts for foreign exchange trading and contracts for difference (CFDs), which it considers particularly risky for consumers. CFDs are leveraged derivative products that enable bets on the price movements of assets including currencies; because of leverage, reported losses can far exceed initial deposits. For that reason the FCA requires firms offering CFDs to make detailed disclosures to clients, such as the proportion of clients who lose money.
During the November sample week, the regulator identified 1,052 adverts for foreign exchange and certain complex instruments placed on Meta’s platforms by advertisers lacking FCA authorisation. More than half of these came from advertisers that the FCA had previously flagged to Meta, indicating the regulator’s prior reports had not sufficed to prevent recurrence.
The FCA repeated the exercise for another week in December and again found that a relatively small number of repeat offenders accounted for most of the illegal adverts it detected, a person familiar with the regulator’s work said. That person declined to provide a precise count for the December week or a breakdown of the repeat offenders, but said that despite frequent engagement with Meta, the regulator has not observed a material change in Meta’s approach and intends to continue testing the company’s detection and monitoring systems.
Meta’s response
A Meta spokesperson, Ryan Daniels, said the company fights fraud and scams aggressively across its products and takes swift action on the vast majority of reports within days. He also emphasised that advertisers running financial services ads in the UK are required to be authorised by the FCA and remain responsible for complying with applicable law.
Meta added that any suggestion it ignores FCA reports misrepresents its ongoing efforts to protect users, and the company highlighted changes it has made to verification processes in some jurisdictions. Meta said it has increased the proportion of ad revenue coming from verified advertisers globally to 70% in 2025 from 55% at the end of 2024.
Legal and regulatory context
At present there is a regulatory gap in the UK governing paid-for scam advertisements. Britain’s Online Safety Act - which includes provisions allowing regulators to fine social media platforms up to 10% of global revenue for hosting illegal user-generated content - started coming into force in March 2025, but the specific measure granting regulators the power to take action against paid-for scam ads remains deferred until at least 2027.
In the absence of that legal authority, Meta issued a voluntary commitment in 2022 to permit only firms authorised by the FCA to run financial services advertisements in the UK and updated its UK policy to reflect that pledge. Nonetheless, the FCA cannot take direct enforcement action against Meta itself because regulatory oversight of large online platforms in the UK sits with communications regulator Ofcom.
An Ofcom spokesperson said the organisation is working to implement the relevant powers and that the timeline has been affected by factors beyond its control, including a legal challenge to the government. Ofcom added that it has proposed social media companies use automated technology to detect and remove fraudulent content but noted it currently lacks the specific powers to act on paid-for scam adverts until the delayed Online Safety Act provision is activated.
Enforcement and investigative activity
While the FCA is limited in its ability to sanction platforms, it can and does take action against unauthorised advertisers for running financial ads on social media. It issues alerts to consumers about unauthorised firms, has charged and fined unauthorised influencers in the UK for promoting high-risk products on social media, and continually requests removal of illegal financial adverts from platform operators.
Britain’s National Crime Agency has also pursued and successfully dismantled scam networks targeting UK residents on social platforms, with activity traced to operations located in countries including Nigeria. Fraud Minister David Hanson said he will continue to press Meta and other platforms to do more on scam adverts until the Online Safety Act’s relevant provisions are in force, saying he expects firms to "go further and faster in standing up to this threat."
Comparing jurisdictional approaches - a test ad
To evaluate how Meta’s ad controls function under different national regimes, a reporter created a deliberately suspicious investment promotion that promised 10% returns a week and attempted to place it on Facebook for both the UK and Australia. During the ad verification process in both countries, Meta required the advertiser to declare whether the ad promoted financial services by ticking a checkbox. To mimic scam behaviour, the advertiser did not tick that box in either case.
In this test the ad was approved and began running in the UK without further scrutiny before it was removed by the advertiser. In Australia, the identical ad was blocked during the verification process even though the checkbox had not been ticked; Meta then requested proof that the advertiser was authorised by Australia’s financial regulator to run financial services adverts.
Meta explained that the ad was blocked in Australia because of enhancements to its advertiser verification process in that country, without detailing the precise technical steps. Australia’s approach requires mandatory advertiser verification for financial services, and regulators there can levy fines of up to A$50 million (about $35 million) for failures to detect scams under that regime.
Advocacy group and bank findings
Reset Tech, a digital rights advocacy group, analysed Meta’s advertising library over a two-week period in July and August, searching ads that referenced three UK banks - Barclays, HSBC and Revolut - and flagging ads that exhibited three or more "red flags," such as promises of impossible returns, suspicious domains or fake endorsements.
Reset Tech reported that of the 2,913 adverts it examined, 51.1% appeared likely to be scams, encompassing suspected fraudulent investment schemes, dubious credit offers or fake government support initiatives. The group estimated that Meta could host 29,068 scam adverts referencing those banks over a year, amounting to 53.6 million cumulative exposures across Britain and the EU. These figures were presented by Reset Tech and have not been independently verified here.
Meta criticised Reset Tech’s methodology, calling its classification criteria subjective and unreliable and arguing that the advocacy group's categories of "suspected scams" and "suspicious ads" could not be validated as actual scams. Meta also said that the material it flagged as suspected scams had substantially lower reach than legitimate adverts, which it presented as evidence that its systems were working to limit distribution of potentially violating content.
Barclays cited a consumer survey it commissioned of 2,000 people in Britain showing eight in 10 respondents believed tech firms should do more to prevent scams. Barclays called for banks, social media companies, tech firms and telecoms operators to collaborate to curb fraud. Revolut said Meta’s platforms were the largest source of authorised fraud reports it receives and urged Meta to urgently strengthen verification systems and demonstrate that anti-scam initiatives are producing measurable results. HSBC declined to comment.
Policy implications and industry response
The FCA’s review and the subsequent testing underline a disparity in how Meta’s verification systems operate across jurisdictions. In markets where regulatory frameworks impose mandatory advertiser verification and financial penalties for non-compliance, Meta’s processes appear to be more stringent. Where the UK lacks an enforceable legal mechanism for paid-for scam adverts, the FCA found the platform repeatedly hosted unauthorised financial promotions, even when the regulator had alerted Meta to the offending advertisers.
Meta says it is seeking more effective global safeguards and has been rolling out changes to limit distribution of potentially problematic adverts. It also said it has raised the share of ad revenue coming from verified advertisers, a metric the company uses to demonstrate progress on advertiser verification, though the FCA reported continued deficiencies in UK enforcement.
Limitations and next steps
The FCA’s review was deliberately narrow in scope, confined to ads for currency trading and CFDs because the regulator considers these products particularly harmful to consumers. The review did not attempt to catalog the total number of such adverts on Meta’s platforms outside the sampled weeks, and Reuters was unable to independently determine the total number of FX and CFD adverts posted to Meta during the sampled periods. Meta did not provide a breakdown of weekly totals when asked.
The FCA plans to continue testing Meta’s controls and monitoring systems. The regulator remains constrained from taking direct action against Meta itself, and Ofcom’s regulatory remit over large platforms for paid advertising will not be fully activated until the delayed Online Safety Act provisions come into force. In the interim the FCA continues to warn consumers and take enforcement action where possible against unauthorised advertisers, while urging platforms to improve automated detection and takedown capabilities.
Voices from consumer advocacy and government
Consumer campaigner Martin Lewis argued that tech companies should not present scam adverts as primarily a technological issue. "This is a financial problem," he said, noting that if platforms and firms invest enough resources, they can more effectively block scammers. Lewis called for a shift in economics to make it worthwhile for platforms to prevent the distribution of scam adverts.
Fraud Minister David Hanson told officials he will continue to press platform operators to step up action against scams, reiterating that the government expects tech firms to accelerate efforts to combat fraudulent advertising prior to the full legal powers of the Online Safety Act being available.
Conclusion
The FCA’s targeted review exposes a persistent enforcement challenge: even after receiving alerts from the regulator, Meta’s UK-facing systems allowed a substantial volume of unauthorised adverts for high-risk financial products to appear on its platforms in the sampled weeks. Meta highlights improvements in its verification practices and points to stronger controls where regulators have mandated verification, but the FCA and government officials say further progress is required and intend to keep testing the company’s measures until statutory powers over paid-for scam adverts come into effect.