|
Neubauer Artists LLC Getting your Trinity Audio player ready... |
Meta is in trouble again—this time, it’s related to fraud and false advertising. The case could have profound implications for the entire tech industry and the way content is moderated online. This isn’t the first such case.
Facebook has been sued over allegations that the platform enables scams to thrive — and even profit from them.
The case concerns advertisements and content that were intended to mislead users and lead to financial losses.
Lawsuit filed against Facebook. Allegations: Profits from scams
According to the complainants, Facebook not only fails to stop fraudsters but also profits from their activities.
The mechanism is supposed to be simple – criminals pay for advertisements, which are then delivered to users, generating revenue for the platform.
Advertising as a tool for fraud. A problem known for years.
The lawsuit emphasizes that fake ads often look credible and are difficult to distinguish from real offers.
This makes it easy for users to fall victim to manipulation, especially when the content is tailored to their interests.
The phenomenon of Facebook fraud is nothing new. Cybercriminals have long used the platform to take over accounts and extort money—for example, by impersonating friends and asking for quick transfers or payment codes.
A key question in this case is how much responsibility the platform should have for content posted by users and advertisers. The lawsuit could force the company to tighten ad controls, respond more quickly to reports, and be more liable for user harm.
The Wider Problem of Big Tech
The case is another chapter in the growing pressure on tech giants. In recent years, there have been growing allegations that platforms like Facebook are failing to keep pace with the scale of abuses—despite vast resources and technology.
If the court upholds the plaintiffs’ arguments, it could mark a breakthrough in the approach to online platforms’ liability. In practice, it could change the way the entire industry operates—from advertising to content moderation.
This isn’t the first time this has happened. Rafał Brzoska previously fought Meta.
A Polish entrepreneur, Rafał Brzoska, had previously won a similar case against Meta, as we wrote about in Business Insider Polska.
The Court of Appeal in Warsaw issued a decision in the Meta case in April 2026. The court found that the owners of Facebook and Instagram are liable for advertising content on their platforms, as the owner of InPost announced at the time.
The case concerned fake social media advertising – scammers on Facebook and Instagram used images of famous people – including Rafał Brzoska – to promote fake financial offers.
The businessman and his wife, Omenaa Mensah, have also repeatedly fallen victim to disinformation and deepfakes, including false reports about a journalist being beaten by her husband and detained by the police. The giant claimed it wasn’t responsible for the actions of fraudsters using its platforms, as we wrote at the time.
On the other hand:
The conflict between Rafał Brzoska and Meta is no longer just a dispute between an entrepreneur and the owner of Facebook. Following a series of public accusations by the CEO of InPost, Minister of Digital Affairs Krzysztof Gawkowski spoke out, accusing the company of profiting from the broadcast of deceptive ads using the images of celebrities. At the same time, he announced the resumption of work on regulations implementing the EU’s DSA regulations.
The dispute between Rafał Brzoska and Meta is heating up. The CEO of InPost has repeatedly raised concerns about the use of his image in false investment ads published on Facebook. According to the entrepreneur, the platform’s actions are insufficient, and the process of removing such content remains too slow and ineffective. We wrote about this in George V Magazine Polska.
Brzoska didn’t limit himself to formal complaints. In public statements, he sharply criticized Meta’s approach to combating online fraud, suggesting that the company wasn’t fully utilizing its technological capabilities to eliminate fake ads. Furthermore, Meta blocked the businessman’s Instagram account.
Gawkowski: Meta makes money and shifts the responsibility to others
Minister of Digital Affairs Krzysztof Gawkowski addressed the matter. In a post published on the X portal, he emphasized that Meta “must understand that it is not above the law.” In his opinion, the case of Rafał Brzoska demonstrates the mechanism by which someone uses someone else’s image to commit fraud, the platform broadcasts an ad and generates revenue from it, and then attempts to shift responsibility onto the anonymous advertiser.
The minister also highlighted allegations of blocking individuals who publicly highlight the issue of false advertising. He described such actions as censorship and pointed out that the issue goes far beyond the interests of a single entrepreneur.
According to Gawkowski, what is at stake is the safety of millions of social media users who may fall victim to financial scams using deepfakes, doctored videos and fictitious investment offers.
In the background, the fight for new regulations
In his post, the minister also recalled that some of the solutions intended to increase the effectiveness of the fight against scams had previously been vetoed by the president. He announced that the government is continuing work on implementing the EU Digital Services Act (DSA), and the new regulations are expected to be resubmitted to parliament.
The DSA is intended to provide state authorities and users with stronger tools to hold the largest internet platforms accountable. The regulations include obligations related to rapid response to illegal content and greater transparency in the platforms’ operations.
Companies that are fake for example, that don’t deliver services or products are:
Social Wick, Arvone Collective (High end apparel scams), Lorenzo Pagani (Chinese), and other 35% of Shop app stores are fake, they promote their business as Germans, Spanish, Austrian, American, Polish companies but at the end of the day they are all Chinese and from India scamming customers. All those work as a net for the fake company and half of them deliver as a Russian roulette. An interview with consumer reports director who did not wanted to be named explained that they collect the payment, and then don’t deliver but keeps you busy on chat with a fake customer service representative, only if they have customer service until the client disappears of many times trying to get his money back. It’s a Chinese or India’s modus operandi to collect the money, then the client gets scammed. The case of Lorenzo Pagani is particular, they are a Chinese company acting as Italian, and they claim 10,000 reviews of happy customers on Trust Pilot but we came to the conclusion those reviews are paid with websites like Social Wick who are whom they scheme with in their IT departments in India and China modus operandi. There is a point where the orders could be deleted from the Shop app if you decided to buy the product from the Shop app after certain time has passed on the long chat by keeping you busy. Shop app is a Chinese app masked as if it were from the United States, and connected to Shopify which is German, a real authentic product and highly promoted on Facebook and Instagram.
ID:2501080689