I remember how shocked I was at the end of last year when Reuters reported that up to 15 billion scam ads are running on Meta every single day. In one day. Meta is estimated to generate around 10% of its annual advertising revenue from this.
What is most astonishing is that Meta allows suspicious advertisers to continue operating unless the system is 95% certain that it is a scam. The only penalty is a higher price for ads.
At this point, a newcomer to digital advertising might think that surely this would be the blow that wakes media buyers from their decades-long hibernation when it comes to Meta’s brand safety. Surely advertisers must conclude that Meta is not a safe environment for brands – or at least not as safe as quality news media?
But no.
As we have seen with previous controversies, budgets remain firmly with Meta. And they continue to flow there in increasing amounts. Still, I was pleased to realize one day in March that someone in the industry had actually taken a stand on behalf of advertisers. And done so boldly!
Quietly (at least from a Finnish perspective), on April 11, 2026, IAB Sweden decided that Meta would no longer be a member. Meta had been a long-standing member and even held a seat on the board. The reason was specifically the scam ads on Meta and the view that Meta had not presented sufficient measures to prevent them. IAB Sweden had already initiated discussions with Meta on the issue well before the Reuters reporting. The decision was not unanimous, but the majority prevailed. Publishers including Bonnier News, Schibsted, and Aller Media have publicly stated their support for the decision.
IAB Sweden’s decision is unprecedented, and its significance is amplified by its position as an industry body. Meta is one of the largest advertising platforms in the world, and the industry organization it belonged to publicly took a stand and sanctioned it. This is a clear signal of distrust. According to IAB Sweden, this is a long-standing issue that the market has grown frustrated with.
Something had to be done on behalf of the industry, finally. The boldness of the decision is further highlighted by the fact that other local IABs have not yet followed.
There is also a broader concern behind this: beyond scam ads, Meta platforms are being used to misuse media brands and public figures. We have seen this in Finland as well. On April 14, Finland’s public broadcaster YLE and one of the largest commercial media companies, MTV, launched a campaign to warn audiences about scams on social media. The campaign states:
“On social media, scams circulate in which well-known and trusted news presenters from reputable media houses, such as YLE and MTV, are used for criminal purposes. Their faces and names are used without permission in content and advertisements that spread false information. In the worst cases, these scams lead innocent people to fall victim to fraud, causing financial losses and emotional harm.
By allowing misleading content and scam ads on its platforms, Meta earns significant sums of money each year. To prevent the spread of false and misleading information and to stop profiting from disinformation, Finnish media companies are now calling on Meta to take responsibility and put an end to scam ads and fraudulent content on its platforms.”
In Sweden, publishers have gone a step further and filed a criminal complaint against Meta through Utgivarna, the joint industry organization for Swedish media companies and publishers. The allegation is that scam ads use the names and images of well-known journalists, as well as fake media brands. In practice, publishers are accusing Meta of enabling fraud and benefiting financially from it through advertising revenues.
So once again: Meta enables scam ads on its platform and does not take sufficient action to prevent them.
The other side of the coin is that everyone in the industry seems to recognize the problem, yet the discussion around brand safety is surrounded by hypocrisy. When advertisers and buyers discuss brand safety, the focus is typically directed at news media. Brand safety in social media is discussed far too rarely.
This is deeply paradoxical. Responsible premium news media produce editorial content that follows journalistic standards. At the same time, they can offer high-quality, effective brand safety and brand suitability solutions for advertisers. At Alma, this is part of everyday work.
On social media, content is not moderated in the same way, and each user’s experience is different. From an advertiser’s perspective, it is an environment that is difficult to control in terms of brand safety.
Advertisers are looking in the wrong direction when it comes to brand safety.
According to Alma’s study (the largest of its kind on programmatic advertising in Finland) budgets are directed to social media due to cost efficiency and the sheer ease of buying. Many buyers note that advertisers have no real incentive to shift budgets from social media to news media. And why would they, if budgets can be spent easily and, at least superficially, effectively through social platforms?
A statement. And a much-needed one. That is what this was from IAB Sweden. Will we see concrete changes in advertisers’ budgets anytime soon? Unlikely, at least not quickly. Will advertisers demand greater accountability from Meta on brand safety? Uncertain. Could it be that others will take a similarly bold and concrete stand in the future? Perhaps.
Sometimes history is made in small steps, and it must begun somewhere.
Who will follow, and how long can others afford not to react?
