Internal documents leaked from Meta Platforms reveal a troubling reality: the company estimated that ads for scams, illegal goods and fake services would generate about 16 percent of its ad revenue in 2024, roughly $16 billion.

What’s Really Going On

According to Meta’s internal audit, by late 2024 its platforms were distributing around 15 billion “high-risk” scam ads every single day.

These included fake investment schemes, illegal online gambling promotions and unapproved medical products. One internal memo bluntly stated, “It is easier to advertise scams on Meta platforms than Google.”

The problem is not just a question of oversight. It exposes a deeper conflict between growth and governance, where the pursuit of revenue appears to outweigh the responsibility of protecting users and advertisers alike.

Marketing’s Accountability Moment

For marketers, this is more than another headline about a tech company’s mismanagement. It challenges the foundations of modern advertising—trust, brand safety and the customer experience.

Meta’s internal papers show that the company measured enforcement actions against the potential loss in ad revenue. Documents suggested an internal cap of 0.15 percent of total income for ad-integrity measures, meaning brand safety decisions were partly guided by financial limits.

This revelation raises a critical question: if a platform knowingly allows questionable ads to appear, how safe is that environment for legitimate brands?

When users click on scam ads, they are often served more of them, trapped in a cycle of algorithmic profiling gone wrong. For marketers, that triggers two urgent concerns.

First, how much of our media spend is flowing into “dark inventory” that we cannot track or control? Second, how much do these compromised ad ecosystems distort our customers’ paths to purchase?

The risk is no longer theoretical. Meta itself expects regulatory fines that could exceed $1 billion for its role in distributing risky ads. Platform choices are no longer neutral spaces; they carry direct consequences for brands.

What Marketers Should Do Now

Marketers must demand full transparency from platforms. Before spending a single naira or dollar, ask how they monitor “high-risk” advertisers, what penalties they impose, and how they ensure that legitimate ads do not appear next to fraudulent ones.

Auditing campaign ecosystems is equally essential. Ensure your campaigns do not sit alongside or within automated flows that target vulnerable audiences. Brand safety today extends beyond avoiding violent or offensive content. It now includes protecting your brand from being tainted by scam-related inventory.

Marketers must also integrate brand safety into every buying discussion. During media negotiations, teams should ask more than questions about CPMs or reach. They should press for details about quality control, advertiser verification and placement transparency. Brands can demand stricter pre-screening and full access to event-level data.

Finally, shift the conversation from volume to value. The Meta leaks demonstrate how billions of impressions can mask a deficit in trust and legitimacy. Marketing leaders must refocus on meaningful engagement and credible reach, where impact is measured in relationships, not raw numbers.

Looking Ahead

Digital platforms are no longer just conduits for ads; they are custodians of the advertising ecosystem. Meta’s situation highlights a widening gap between platform priorities and brand interests. Platforms chase scale. Brands rely on trust. When those diverge, brands pay the price.

For Nigerian and African marketers, the lesson is clear. Growth must never come at the expense of credibility. As brands pursue reach, they must equally protect the integrity of the environments where their messages appear.

In an age where accountability defines success, your brand’s legitimacy is shaped not only by what you say but by where you choose to say it.

ALSO WATCH MARKETING EDGE ONTV