suit claims meta was aware of scam advertisers and allowed them to persist

Tech giant Meta is being sued again, this time over claims that it was not only aware of scam advertising but also created a means to profit from it.

Tech Justice Law (TJL) and Tycko & Zavareei LLP filed the class action suit against Meta Platforms Inc. on Tuesday morning on behalf of the Consumer Federation of America and Washington, D.C. consumers in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. The suit alleges that Meta systematically deceived Facebook users about the pervasive scam advertising on its platforms, all while knowingly profiting billions from consumer harm.

“Meta has, as a matter of company policy, deliberately profited from rampant, inexcusable harm to users on its platforms,” said Sarah Kay Wiley, Attorney and Managing Director at Tech Justice Law. “Meta told its users it was fighting fraud. Internally, it was charging scammers a premium for access to those same users. That is not a failure of enforcement, that is a business model built on predatory deception.”

The complaint details how Meta made public claims that it fights fraud and scams aggressively, while internal policies allowed scams to thrive.

A report by Reuters in November 2025 explored company documents that showed that in 2024, Meta projected earnings of about 10 percent of its overall annual revenue, which is about $16 billion, from running advertisements for scams and banned goods.

“On average, one December 2024 document notes, the company shows its platforms’ users an estimated 15 billion “higher risk” scam advertisements – those that show clear signs of being fraudulent – every day. Meta earns about $7 billion in annualized revenue from this category of scam ads each year, another late 2024 document states,”

Reuters - Meta is earning a fortune on a deluge of fraudulent ads, documents show

The suit claims that instead of blocking high-risk advertisers, Meta charged them a premium, ultimately increasing the company’s profits and allowing greater access to the platform's users. Another internal document highlights how far Meta went to maintain this profit stream; the documents reveal that the Meta ad-vetting teams were restricted from taking any action that would cost the company more than 0.15% of total revenue, and that the company ignored or incorrectly rejected 96% of valid user reports of fraudulent activity on its platforms each week.

Also alleged is that Meta actively manipulated its public Ad Library database to make search results appear cleaner to regulators, a tactic codified in Meta’s “General global playbook.”

The complaint seeks damages, restitution of illegal profits, and a permanent injunction prohibiting Meta from continuing to mislead D.C. residents about the risks of using its platforms.