fraudulent

Meta anticipated earning about 10% of its total annual revenue, or $16 billion, from advertising for scams and banned items, according to internal documents reviewed by Reuters. The documents reveal that for at least three years, the company failed to stop a significant number of ads exposing its billions of users on Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp to fraudulent schemes, illegal casinos, and banned medical products. On average, around 15 billion “higher risk” scam ads, showing clear signs of fraud, were displayed daily on these platforms. Meta reportedly generates about $7 billion annually from these scam ads.

Many of these ads were linked to marketers flagged by Meta’s internal systems. However, the company only bans advertisers if fraud is at least 95% certain according to its systems. If less certain but still suspect, Meta imposes higher ad rates as a penalty instead of outright banning them. This approach aims to deter dubious advertisers without fully eliminating them. The company’s ad-personalization system also ensures that users who click on scam ads see more of them based on their interests.

The documents create an image of Meta grappling with the extent of abuse on its platforms while hesitating to take stronger actions that could impact its revenue. The acceptance of revenue from suspicious sources highlights a lack of oversight in the advertising industry, as noted by fraud expert Sandeep Abraham. Meta’s spokesperson, Andy Stone, counters that the documents provide a biased view and argues that the actual share of revenue from scam ads would be lower than estimated. He claimed the plan aimed to validate investments in combating fraud.

Stone mentioned that Meta has significantly reduced user reports of scam ads globally and removed millions of scam ad content in recent efforts. The company aims for major reductions in scam ads in the upcoming year. Despite this, internal research indicates that Meta’s platforms are central to the global fraud economy, with one presentation estimating they contribute to a third of all successful fraud in the U. S. Competitors were noted to have better systems to combat fraud.

As regulators step up pressure for stronger consumer protections, the documents reveal the U. S. Securities and Exchange Commission is investigating Meta for financial scam ads. In Britain, regulators identified Meta as the source of over half of the payment-related scam losses in 2023. The company has acknowledged that addressing illicit advertising may hurt its revenue.

Meta is investing heavily in technology and has plans for extensive capital expenditures in AI. CEO Mark Zuckerberg reassured investors that their advertising revenue can support these projects. The internal documents suggest a careful consideration of the financial impact of increasing measures against scam ads, indicating that while the company intends to reduce illicit revenue, it is wary of the potential business implications.

Despite planning to diminish scam ads’ revenue share, Meta is bracing for regulatory fines, estimating penalties that could reach up to $1 billion. However, these fines are viewed as comparatively minor against the income from scam ads, which already generates significant revenue. The leadership’s strategy shows a tendency to react to regulatory pressure rather than implementing proactive measures to vet advertisers effectively. Stone disputed claims that Meta’s policy is to act only under regulatory threat.

Meta has set limits on how much revenue it can afford to lose from actions against suspect advertisers. In early 2025, a document revealed that the team reviewing questionable ads was restricted to a loss of no more than 0.15% of company revenue, which equated to around $135 million from Meta’s total of $90 billion in the same period. A manager noted that this revenue cap included both scam ads and harmless ads that might be mistakenly blocked, indicating strict financial boundaries in their approach.

Under increasing pressure to manage scams more effectively, Meta’s executives proposed a moderate strategy to CEO Mark Zuckerberg in October 2024. Instead of a drastic approach, they suggested targeting countries where they anticipated regulatory action. Their goal was to reduce the revenue lost to scams, illegal gambling, and prohibited goods from approximately 10.1% in 2024 to 7.3% by the end of 2025, with further reductions planned for subsequent years.

A surge in online fraud was noted in 2022, when Meta uncovered a network of accounts pretending to be U. S. military members trying to scam Facebook users. Other scams, such as sextortion, were also rising. Yet, at that time, Meta invested little in automated systems to detect such scams and categorized them as a low-priority issue. Internal documents showed efforts were mainly focused on fraudsters impersonating celebrities, which threatened to alienate advertisers and users alike. However, layoffs at Meta affected the enforcement team, as many working on advertiser rights were let go, and resources shifted heavily toward virtual reality and AI projects.

Despite layoffs, Meta claimed to have increased its staff handling scam advertising. However, data from 2023 revealed that Meta was ignoring about 96% of valid scam reports filed by users, suggesting a significant gap in their response to customer concerns. The safety staff aimed to improve this by reducing the number of dismissed reports to no more than 75% in the future.

Instances of user frustration were evident, such as a recruiter for the Royal Canadian Air Force who lost access to her account after being hacked. Despite multiple reports to Meta, her account remained active, even sharing false cryptocurrency investment opportunities that defrauded her connections. Reports indicated that she had many people flag her account, but it took about a month before Meta finally removed it.

Meta refers to scams that do not involve paid ads as “organic,” which include free classified ads, fake dating profiles, and fraudulent medical claims. A report from December 2024 stated that users face approximately 22 billion organic scam attempts each day, alongside 15 billion scam ads, highlighting the company’s ongoing struggle to manage fraud effectively. Internal documents suggest that Meta’s efforts to police fraud are not capturing much of the scam activity occurring across its platforms.

In Singapore, police shared a list of 146 scams targeting local users, but Meta staff found that only 23% of these scams broke the platform’s policies. The remaining 77% went against the spirit of the rules but not the exact wording. Examples of unchecked scams included fake offers on designer clothes, false concert tickets, and job ads pretending to be from major tech firms. In one case, Meta discovered scam ads claiming to belong to the Canadian prime minister, yet the existing rules wouldn’t flag the account.

Even when advertisers are found to be scamming, the rules can be lenient. Small advertisers need to be flagged for scams eight times before being blocked, while larger ones can have over 500 complaints without being shut down. Some scams generated significant revenue; for example, four removed ads were linked to $67 million monthly.

An employee initiated reports highlighting the “Scammiest Scammer” each week to raise awareness, but some flagged accounts remained active for months. Meta tried to deter scammers by charging them more in ad auctions, labeling this practice “penalty bids. ” Advertisers suspected of fraud would have to bid higher amounts, thus reducing competition for legitimate advertisers. Meta aimed to decrease scam ads from this approach, which showed some success, resulting in fewer scam reports and a slight dip in overall ad revenue.

With information from Reuters

Rapper RBX has sued Spotify, alleging that the Swedish audio company has failed to stop the artificial inflation of music streams for artists like Drake and is hurting the revenue other rights holders receive through the platform.

RBX, whose real name is Eric Dwayne Collins, is seeking a class-action status and damages and restitution from Spotify. RBX, along with other rights holders, receive payment based on how often their music is streamed on Spotify, according to the lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in L.A. on Sunday.

Spotify pays rights holders a percentage of revenue based on the total streams attributed to them compared with total volume of streams for all songs, the lawsuit said.

The Long Beach-based rapper said that rights holders are losing money on Spotify because streams of some artists are being artificially inflated through bots powered by automated software, even though the use of such bots is prohibited on the platform, according to the lawsuit.

For example, the lawsuit notes that over a four-day period in 2024 there were at least 250,000 streams of Drake’s “No Face” song that appeared to originate in Turkey, but “were falsely geomapped through the coordinated use of VPNs to the United Kingdom in attempt to obscure their origins.”

Spotify knew or should have known “with reasonable diligence, that fraudulent activities were occurring on its platform,” states the lawsuit, describing the streamer’s policies to root out fraud as “window dressing.”

Spotify declined to comment on the pending litigation but said it “in no way benefits from the industry-wide challenge of artificial streaming.”

“We heavily invest in always-improving, best-in-class systems to combat it and safeguard artist payouts with strong protections like removing fake streams, withholding royalties, and charging penalties,” Spotify said in a statement.

Last year, a U.S. producer was accused of stealing $10 million from streaming services and Spotify said it was able to limit the theft on its platform to $60,000, touting it as evidence that its systems are working.

The platform is also making efforts to push back against AI-generated music that is made without artists’ permission. In September, Spotify announced it had removed more than 75 million AI-generated “spammy” music tracks from its platform over the last 12 months.

A representative for Drake did not immediately return a request for comment.

RBX is known for his work on Dr. Dre’s 1992 album “The Chronic” and Snoop Dogg’s 1993 album “Doggystyle.” He has multiple solo albums and has collaborated with artists including on Eminem’s “The Marshall Mathers LP” and Kris Kross’ “Da Bomb.” RBX is Snoop Dogg’s cousin.

Artificial intelligence continues to change the way that the entertainment industry operates, affecting everything from film and TV production to music. In the music industry, companies have sued AI startups, accusing the businesses of taking copyrighted music to train AI models.

At the same time, some music artists have embraced AI, using the technology to test bold ideas in music videos and in their songs.

More details are emerging about a company that allegedly paid Los Angeles Clippers star Kawhi Leonard millions to circumvent the NBA’s salary cap, including that the team came close in 2021 to granting naming rights for its Inglewood arena to Aspiration Partners.

Clippers owner Steve Ballmer nearly granted naming rights to the company, but ended up choosing financial services firm Intuit to grace the $2-billion venue, a source familiar with the matter said. Intuit, which has a $186-billion net worth and developed TurboTax, Credit Karma and QuickBooks, ended up paying a reported $500 million over 23 years for the naming rights.

Four years later, Aspiration, a sustainability firm that also generated and sold carbon credits, is out of business. Co-founder Joseph Sanberg has agreed to plead guilty to defrauding multiple investors and lenders. Listed among creditors in Aspiration’s bankruptcy documents is Leonard, raising questions about whether his $28-million endorsement deal with the company skirted NBA salary cap rules.

One of the investors Sanberg defrauded was Ballmer, listed by Fortune magazine as the sixth-richest person in the world, with a net worth of $157 billion. The Clippers owner invested $50 million in Aspiration, which in turn entered into a $330-million sponsorship agreement with the team.

This week, the Athletic reported allegations that Aspiration agreed to pay Leonard $28 million for a job with no responsibilities, in an effort to circumvent the NBA salary cap. Ballmer was interviewed Thursday night by ESPN’s Ramona Shelburne and denied involvement in Leonard’s deal with Aspiration, but the NBA has launched an investigation.

Ballmer said he was “conned” by the company and that the Clippers did not circumvent NBA salary cap rules, which the team was accused of doing in a podcast report by Pablo Torre of the Athletic.

A plane flies over the Intuit Dome in Inglewood.

(Wally Skalij / Los Angeles Times)

Ballmer told Shelburne that Aspiration offered more than Intuit for dome naming rights, and a Clippers spokesman confirmed that account. However, Ballmer insisted that the Clippers did not violate NBA rules against skirting the salary cap, and the team had agreed to a contract extension with Leonard and the sponsorship deal with Aspiration before the player and the company met.

“We were done with Kawhi, we were done with Aspiration,” Ballmer said. “The deals were all locked and loaded. Then, they did request to be introduced to Kawhi, and under the rules, we can introduce our sponsors to our athletes. We just can’t be involved.”

The Clippers signed Leonard to a four-year, $176-million contract in August 2021 even though he was recovering from a partially torn ACL in his right knee that kept him sidelined the entire 2021-22 season. Ballmer said the sponsorship deal with Aspiration was completed in September 2021 and that the Clippers introduced Leonard to Aspiration two months later.

“As part of our cooperation with the Department of Justice and Securities and Exchange Commission, we produced texts and emails,” Ballmer said. “It was part of the document production in their investigation. We even found the email that made the first introduction [between Aspiration and Leonard]. It was early in November.

“Where could any of this circumvention happened? It couldn’t have, it didn’t. The introduction got made and they were off to the races on their own. We weren’t involved.”

The Boston Sports Journal reported that Leonard did not appear in promotional material as other endorsers did because Aspiration executives “saw no brand synergy with Leonard and chose not to use his services. They instead preferred to partner with climate-focused influencers.”

Ballmer couldn’t explain why Leonard did no marketing or endorsement work for Aspiration, telling Shelburne that he never spoke with the player about his deal with the company.

“I don’t know why they did what they did and I don’t know how different it is, I really don’t,” he said. “And, frankly, any speculation would be crazy. These were guys who committed fraud. Look, they conned me. I made an investment in these guys thinking it was on the up-and-up and they conned me. At this stage, I have no ability to predict why they did anything they did.”

The salary cap is a dollar amount that limits what teams can spend on player payroll. The purpose of the cap is to ensure parity, preventing the wealthiest teams from outspending smaller markets to acquire the best players.

Circumventing the cap by paying a player outside of his contract is strictly prohibited. Teams that exceed the cap must pay luxury tax penalties that grow increasingly severe. Revenues from the tax penalties are then distributed in part to smaller-market teams and in part to teams that do not exceed the salary cap.

The NBA said it will investigate the allegations laid out by Torre. Ballmer said he welcomes the probe. If allegations were made against a team other than the Clippers, “I’d want the league to investigate, to take it seriously,” he said.

“We know the rules, and if anything is not clear, we remind ourselves what the rules are. And we make it absolutely clear we will abide by those rules.”

The cap was implemented before the 1984-85 season at a mere $3.6 million. Ten years later, it was $15.9 million, and 10 years after that it had risen to $43.9 million. By the 2014-15 season it was $63.1 million.

The biggest spike came before the 2016-2017 season when it jumped to $94 million because of an influx of revenue from a new nine-year, $24-billion media rights deal with ESPN and TNT.

Salary cap rules negotiated between the NBA and the players’ union are spelled out in the Collective Bargaining Agreement. Proven incidents of teams circumventing the cap are few, with a violation by the Minnesota Timberwolves in 2000 serving as the most egregious.

The Timberwolves made a secret agreement with free agent and former No. 1 overall draft pick Joe Smith, signing him to a succession of below-market one-year deals in order to enable the team to go over the cap with a huge contract ahead of the 2001-02 season.

The NBA voided his contract, fined the Timberwolves $3.5 million, and stripped them of five first-round draft picks — two of which were later returned. Also, owner Glen Taylor and general manager Kevin McHale were suspended.

Then-NBA commissioner David Stern told the Minnesota Star Tribune at the time: “What was done here was a fraud of major proportions. There were no fewer than five undisclosed contracts tightly tucked away, in the hope that they would never see the light of day. … The magnitude of this offense was shocking.”

According to Article 13 of the CBA, if the Clippers were found to have circumvented the cap, it would be a first offense punishable by a $4.5-million fine, the loss of one first-round draft pick, and voiding of Leonard’s contract. However, the Clippers don’t have a first-round pick until 2027.