Meta Accused of Turning Blind Eye to Illegal Gambling Ads

The Core Accusations

Miller's speech centered on a fundamental question: whose side is Meta on? He accused the company of allowing illegal gambling operators to advertise freely on its platforms, particularly sites marketed as not on GamStop that specifically target British consumers who have self excluded from gambling. GamStop is Britain's multi operator self exclusion scheme designed to help people with gambling problems.

The Commission's executive director rejected Meta's claim that it only becomes aware of illegal ads when they are reported. Miller stated this assertion is simply false, pointing to Meta's own publicly searchable ad library where anyone can find illegal operators by searching basic keywords. If regulators can locate these ads easily, Meta certainly has the capability to do so proactively.

Meta's Response Criticized

When the Gambling Commission engaged with Meta about the illegal advertising problem, the company's response drew sharp criticism. Meta suggested that regulators should deploy AI tools to find and report the problematic ads themselves. Miller expressed surprise that Meta, as one of the world's largest tech companies, claims it cannot proactively use its own keyword facilities to prevent illegal gambling advertising. He suggested Meta is happy to turn a blind eye and continue taking money from criminals until someone complains publicly.

Tragic Human Cost

The regulatory criticism follows the East Sussex coroner's inquiry into the February 2024 suicide of Ollie Long, a 36 year old football fan who had been battling gambling addiction for eight years. The inquiry heard that Long had self excluded through GamStop but subsequently used illegal offshore gambling sites that target self excluded consumers through not on GamStop advertisements on social media platforms.

Long had initially used licensed UK sportsbooks but after realizing he had a problem, sought treatment and self excluded. However, in the months before his death, he made over 50 bets with illegal offshore operators he discovered through online advertising. Long's case highlights the deadly consequences when self exclusion systems are undermined by illegal operators advertising on major social media platforms.

Internal Documents Reveal Revenue from Fraudulent Ads

Meta faces mounting international scrutiny following a major investigation that obtained internal company documents. These documents revealed that Meta internally projected approximately 10 percent of its 2024 revenue, roughly 16 billion dollars, would come from advertisements promoting scams and banned goods, including illegal gambling operations.

The internal documents showed that Meta's platforms serve an estimated 15 billion higher risk scam advertisements to users every single day. Additionally, users are exposed to 22 billion organic scam attempts daily, separate from the paid advertisements. The scale of fraudulent advertising on Meta's platforms represents a systemic problem affecting users worldwide.

Internal communications revealed a troubling cost benefit analysis within the company. Documents noted that revenue from fraudulent ads would almost certainly exceed the cost of any regulatory settlement involving scam ads. When enforcement staff proposed shutting down fraudulent accounts, Meta sought assurance that growth teams would not object given the revenue impact.

Global Pattern of Illegal Advertising

Miller emphasized that the problem extends far beyond Britain, stating that regulatory resources and taxpayer money around the world is currently being spent doing Meta's job. The pattern repeats country by country, with governments forced to allocate substantial resources to combat illegal advertising that Meta could prevent using its own technology.

In Malaysia, the Communications and Multimedia Commission summoned Meta in November 2025 over allegations that scam and gambling advertisements have proliferated on its platforms. Malaysian regulators requested the removal of more than 157,000 illegal online advertisements and nearly 45,000 scam advertisements between January and early November 2025.

China emerged as a significant source of fraudulent advertising on Meta's platforms. Internal documents labeled China the company's top scam exporting nation, accounting for 25 percent of all scam and banned product ads globally. Meta generated roughly 18 billion dollars in advertising revenue from China in 2024, with nearly one fifth, approximately 3 billion dollars, coming from ads tied to scams, illegal gambling, pornography, and other prohibited activity.

UK Government Response

The UK Government has taken action to address the illegal gambling crisis. As part of the November budget, authorities allocated an additional 26 million pounds over three years to the Gambling Commission specifically to fight illegal gambling operations. New legislative powers to suspend IP addresses and domain names linked to illegal operators are currently passing through Parliament, giving regulators stronger enforcement capabilities.

However, regulatory officials emphasize that government action cannot fully compensate for Meta's failure to police its own platforms. The technology and data required to identify and remove illegal gambling ads already exist within Meta's systems. The company's ad library and keyword search capabilities demonstrate that identifying problematic advertisers is technically straightforward.

Financial Incentives and Platform Responsibility

The controversy raises fundamental questions about the responsibilities of major technology platforms and the adequacy of current regulatory frameworks. Meta possesses sophisticated AI and machine learning systems capable of analyzing and categorizing advertisements at massive scale. The company deploys these technologies for various purposes, including identifying content that violates community standards in other areas.

Critics argue that Meta's failure to apply similar technology to identify illegal gambling advertising represents a deliberate business decision rather than a technical limitation. The financial incentives appear misaligned, with the company earning billions from fraudulent advertisements while facing relatively modest regulatory penalties.

Industry observers note that Meta has demonstrated it can rapidly remove content when facing serious regulatory or reputational threats. The company's selective enforcement of advertising standards suggests that illegal gambling ads have not risen to a priority level that would justify significant revenue loss.

Broader Implications for Tech Regulation

The Meta gambling advertising controversy connects to broader debates about technology platform accountability and regulatory effectiveness. Traditional regulatory approaches that rely on reporting and reactive enforcement struggle to address problems at the scale of modern social media platforms serving billions of users daily.

Regulators worldwide are exploring more proactive requirements that would mandate platforms to deploy their technological capabilities to prevent illegal activity rather than simply responding to reports. The European Union's Digital Services Act and similar legislation in other jurisdictions represent attempts to shift responsibility for platform safety more directly onto technology companies.

The gambling advertising case demonstrates how platform business models can create perverse incentives where allowing harmful content becomes more profitable than preventing it. As regulatory pressure mounts globally, Meta and other major platforms face increasing pressure to demonstrate that user safety and legal compliance take precedence over short term revenue considerations.