Tag

lawsuits

Browsing

By Reuters

WASHINGTON — Meta and Google enlisted trusted children’s brands such as Sesame Street, Girl Scouts and Highlights magazine to teach kids to use technology in moderation — even as the companies designed apps that made it difficult for those same young users to unplug, public statements and internal documents show.

Backed by tens of millions of dollars from the tech giants, these ​organizations delivered lessons about personal responsibility to hundreds of thousands of children and parents, using colourful magazines, popular characters and catchy songs, according to public statements.

Alphabet’s Google and Meta’s sponsorships of those lessons are fuelling criticism that the companies are ‌finding new ways to encourage kids to become dependent on social media, particularly by partnering with brands aimed at children younger than 12, an age paediatricians say is often too young for smartphone ownership.

The tech giants designed apps that made it difficult for those same young users to unplug, public statements and internal documents show.Syda Productions – stock.adobe.com

The partnerships also weaken trust in decades-old institutions families have relied on for advice on raising kids, parent advocates said, at a time when the tech giants are facing down multiple lawsuits accusing them of designing addictive products that harmed youth mental health.

The first case to reach trial ended with a $6 million judgment against the two companies.

“It’s like Sesame Street teaming up with Philip Morris to teach kids how to smoke cigarettes safely,” said Rose Bronstein, whose 15-year-old son died ​by suicide after he was bullied online. “How is it any different?”

Meta and Google’s properties generate billions of dollars in advertising revenue from businesses marketing to minors. That economic incentive, critics say, makes it difficult for the companies to offer unbiased guidance on screen use.

“Their ​very business model relies on maximum time on device,” said Emily Boddy, co-lead of US Smartphone Free Childhood, a parent group that advocates against phones in schools. “Their guidance or advice can’t be neutral, and we ⁠see that it’s not.”

Corporations, ranging from soda companies to the tobacco industry, have long made donations to “trusted institutions” to improve their reputations, said Nora Kenworthy, a public health researcher at the University of Washington Bothell.

“It’s very much a reputation management strategy,” Kenworthy said.

Sponsorships extend across several brands

Reuters reviewed ​thousands of pages of company documents made public through lawsuits, along with company-sponsored educational videos and lessons.

The documents reveal that Meta’s strategy to partner with outside groups to promote positive messages about technology began several years ago as criticism of the apps started to proliferate.

In a 2018 draft document, ​internal user experience researchers deliberated how to respond to accusations that social media companies were “designing addictive products that can harm well‑being.”

Researchers proposed asking external experts to identify Facebook features that could have a negative effect on users over time.

In a 2018 draft document, ​internal user experience researchers deliberated how to respond to accusations that social media companies were “designing addictive products that can harm well‑being.”Davide Angelini – stock.adobe.com

Among their list of ideas, they wrote: “Form an alliance where the third party can vouch for the thoroughness and relevance of our approach for targeting the ‘addiction’ claims.” In a statement to Reuters, Meta said it did not act on that idea.

The companies did establish relationships with numerous brands. Google sponsored Sesame Street, Highlights and Girl Scouts. Meta also sponsored Girl Scouts.

Some of the materials promoted by Meta and Google do include digital safety ​instructions, children’s media researchers said, including reminders to set strong passwords and avoid scams.

The companies declined to say what they paid these organizations. But in a 2024 statement, Google pledged to spend at least $20 million supporting groups that promote “digital well-being,” including Highlights Magazine and Sesame Workshop.

“We prioritize the ​well-being of our youngest users by building industry-leading safeguards and putting families in charge of their digital experiences — any suggestion otherwise is simply wrong,” a Google spokesperson told Reuters.

Sesame Workshop said Google had no control over its digital well-being educational materials, adding in a statement that Google executives gave advice “prior to the start ‌of content development.” ⁠Child development researchers, parents and caregivers weighed in on the materials themselves, Sesame said.

Meta said in a statement it had a limited role in designing the Girl Scout materials, but said it was proud of its work with experts in online safety. The company often works with academics to study negative use of the platform, a spokesperson said.

Highlights Magazine declined to answer specific questions about its Google partnership. Spokesperson Melanie Bay said the magazine designs products to help kids “make thoughtful choices.”

Merit badges for using tech

The Girl Scouts’ digital safety curriculum, sponsored by Meta’s Instagram, requires that girls complete age-specific lessons to earn a “digital leadership” badge.

One part of the curriculum aimed at middle-school-aged scouts instructs girls to track their screen time. Girls are then challenged to “create digital content to support a topic” they care about.

The Girl Scouts’ digital safety curriculum, sponsored by Meta’s Instagram, requires that girls complete age-specific lessons to earn a “digital leadership” badge.

Last year, Google began sponsoring its own Girl Scouts patch, called the “Be Internet Awesome Fun Patch,” ​tied to the company’s digital literacy curriculum. Girls learn about being kind ​online, using strong passwords, and keeping personal information private.

The ⁠patch, available on the Girl Scouts website, features its logo, as well as Google’s.

“It’s almost priming them to desire to get on social media once they reach the minimum age,” said Brendesha Tynes, a children’s media researcher at the University of Southern California.

Girl Scouts did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

Smartphone sleeping bags

Google also paid Highlights magazine at least $5 million. A 2024 special edition sponsored by Google includes instructions on how to make ​a “sleeping bag” to store devices overnight.

“Before you shut down for the night, put your device to bed,” the magazine says.

The activity makes it appear normal for Highlights readers — who range in age from six ​to 12 — to have smartphones at that ⁠age, seven parents who advocate for tech restrictions told Reuters after reviewing the magazine.

Google paid Highlights magazine at least $5 million.Christopher Sadowski

Google provided an extra 250,000 copies of the special Highlights edition to organizations such as Save the Children and Reading is Fundamental.

In a statement, a Google spokesperson said the company’s internet safety curriculum is “accredited and reputable,” adding that Google worked with safety organizations to design it.

One of those organizations is the Family Online Safety Institute, a non-profit that receives the majority of its revenue from tech companies, including Google. Meta is not a member.

The institute said in a statement that they reviewed the curriculum before launch.

Some consequences addressed

The lessons sponsored ⁠by Google and ​Meta addressed some of the apps’ effects on kids, four children’s media researchers and paediatricians told Reuters.

Meta’s sponsored Girl Scouts curriculum for middle schoolers addresses how companies take user ​data to sell products or “influence you online.”

A Scholastic worksheet sponsored by Google asks kids to practice what to do if they get a pop-up message that says, “You’ve won a free smartphone! Click here to get it!”

Feature image credit: creativeneko – stock.adobe.com

By Reuters

Sourced from New York Post

By

In short: Meta faces a convergence of lawsuits across the US, Australia, and the UK alleging the company knowingly profited from scam ads on Facebook and Instagram, with its own internal documents projecting that 10% of 2024 revenue, roughly $16 billion, came from fraudulent advertising. The cases span a $500 million pump-and-dump scheme, deepfake celebrity endorsements, financial professional impersonation, and cryptocurrency fraud, while leaked internal assessments show Meta calculated that scam revenue would exceed the cost of any regulatory settlement.

Meta is facing a convergence of lawsuits, class actions, and regulatory investigations over scam advertisements on Facebook and Instagram that, according to the company’s own internal projections, generated roughly $16 billion in revenue in 2024, approximately 10% of Meta’s total advertising income. The legal actions span the United States, Australia, and the United Kingdom, and collectively allege that Meta knowingly profited from fraudulent ads including AI-generated deepfake celebrity endorsements, pump-and-dump stock schemes, fake investment platforms, and unauthorised impersonation of financial professionals, while maintaining ad moderation systems that were structurally inadequate to prevent the fraud and, in some cases, deliberately weakened to protect revenue.

The most financially significant case, filed in February in the US District Court for the Northern District of California, alleges that Meta facilitated a pump-and-dump scheme involving Jayud Global Logistics, a Chinese stock listed on Nasdaq. According to the complaint, scammers acquired 50 million shares at discounted prices in December 2024, then used targeted Facebook and Instagram ads to drive the share price to nearly $8 before dumping their positions in April 2025. Consumer losses exceeded $500 million. A California federal judge dismissed the class action on 25 March, ruling that the plaintiffs had not sufficiently alleged Meta “co-created” the ads, though the dismissal appeared to be without prejudice.

The pattern across jurisdictions

A separate class action, filed by Scott+Scott on behalf of financial professionals John Suddeth and Sara Perkins, alleges that Meta allowed scammers to use their names, images, voices, and professional personas in paid advertisements, causing client diversion, reputational harm, and regulatory inquiries. A bipartisan coalition of US state attorneys general had warned Meta in June 2025 that impersonation ads and fraudulent WhatsApp investment groups were being used for widespread fraud. According to the complaint, materially identical impersonation ads continued running after the warning.

In December, the US Virgin Islands attorney general sued Meta in Superior Court, alleging the company “knowingly profited” from scam ads and “charged fraudsters extra for the right to advertise scams” rather than removing them. The Virgin Islands suit joined actions by 42 other state attorneys general who have taken Meta to court, primarily over child safety but with increasing overlap with advertising fraud. In April, New York attorney general Letitia James issued an investor alert specifically about investment scams on Meta platforms.

In Australia, the Competition and Consumer Commission has been pursuing Meta in federal court since March 2022 over cryptocurrency scam ads that used the likenesses of businessman Dick Smith, television presenter David Koch, and former New South Wales premier Mike Baird. A single victim cited in the complaint lost more than A$650,000. Meta failed to get the case dismissed in 2023. In the United Kingdom, the Financial Conduct Authority found 1,052 illegal financial advertisements on Meta platforms in a single week in November 2025. A leading UK bank found that 80% of its fraud cases originated on Meta’s platforms, with Facebook Marketplace accounting for 60% of purchase fraud, Instagram responsible for 67% of investment fraud, and WhatsApp impersonation scams up 300% year on year. Meta’s platforms account for 61% of all authorised push payment scams in the UK, according to UK Finance, with criminals stealing £485.2 million.

The $16 billion question

The scale of the problem is defined by Meta’s own internal documents. A Reuters investigation published in November 2025 revealed that Meta projected 10% of its 2024 global revenue, roughly $16 billion, derived from scam and fraud-related advertising. The company served an estimated 15 billion “higher risk” scam ads per day. Nineteen percent of Meta’s ad revenue from China, approximately $3 billion, was linked to scams. Internal documents showed that when enforcement staff proposed shutting down fraudulent accounts, Meta sought assurance that “growth teams would not object given the revenue impact.” A subsequent Reuters report in January found that Meta had developed an internal “playbook” to neutralise regulators and manipulated its ad library to make scam ads harder to find.

Rob Leathern, Meta’s former senior director of product management who led business integrity operations, said of the findings: “The levels that you’re talking about are not defensible.” Meta described the Reuters projections as “a rough and overly-inclusive estimate” and said the documents presented “a selective view that distorts Meta’s approach to fraud and scams.”

The economics are straightforward. Implementing universal advertiser verification would cost Meta approximately $2 billion and reduce revenue by up to 4.8%. Internal assessments reportedly noted that “revenue from risky ads would almost certainly exceed the cost of any regulatory settlement,” a calculation that treats fines as a cost of doing business rather than a deterrent.

The deepfake dimension

AI-generated deepfakes have become central to the scam ad ecosystem. Deepfake fraud attempts have surged by 3,000% as generative AI tools have become cheaper and more accessible, enabling scammers to create convincing fake video endorsements at scale. Martin Lewis, the UK’s most prominent personal finance campaigner, was targeted with a deepfake video promoting a “Quantum AI” investment scheme. Deepfakes of Donald Trump, Elon Musk, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and Bernie Sanders were used to promote fake government benefit schemes. In Brazil, AI-altered images and voices of prominent physicians promoted fraudulent healthcare products.

The Tech Transparency Project identified 63 scam advertisers responsible for more than 150,600 political ads and $49 million in lifetime spending on Meta. During a 90-day period in mid-2025, at least 45 scam advertisers spent over $18 million. Meta says it protects images of 500,000 celebrities and public figures through automated detection and is testing facial recognition technology to compare faces in suspected scam ads against public figures’ profile pictures. EU lawmakers have agreed to ban AI-generated non-consensual deepfakes through amendments to the AI Act, signalling increasing regulatory appetite to legislate against synthetic media that platforms have failed to police.

What Meta says it is doing

Meta recently rolled out new scam detection tools across Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, and Messenger. The company says it removed 159 million scam ads and took down 10.9 million accounts linked to scam operations in 2025, with 92% of scam ads caught proactively before any user report. It disabled 150,000 accounts associated with Southeast Asian scam centre networks and partnered with the Royal Thai Police in disruption operations that led to 21 arrests. Meta is targeting 90% of ad revenue from verified advertisers by the end of 2026, up from 70%. In February, it filed its own lawsuits against scam advertisers in Brazil, China, and Vietnam, and sent cease-and-desist letters to eight former Meta Business Partners offering “un-ban” services to fraudulent advertisers.

The gap between Meta’s enforcement claims and the data in its own internal documents is the through line connecting every lawsuit. The company says it catches 92% of scam ads proactively. Its own projections estimated $16 billion in scam-related revenue in a single year. It removed 159 million scam ads. It served 15 billion higher-risk ads per day. It is investing in facial recognition to detect deepfakes. Its internal assessments concluded that scam revenue would exceed the cost of any regulatory settlement. The numbers do not cohere into a story of a company that failed to notice the problem. They describe a company that noticed the problem, measured it, calculated the cost of fixing it against the cost of not fixing it, and chose the option that preserved revenue. The lawsuits are, in that sense, not about whether Meta knew. They are about what it did with what it knew.

By

Sourced from TNW