The state of Rhode Island has filed a major consumer protection lawsuit against Meta Platforms, alleging that the technology company systematically profited from deceptive promotions while tolerating extensive scam advertising across Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp. Filed by Rhode Island Attorney General Peter Neronha in Providence Superior Court on Thursday, the complaint marks the first state-level enforcement action against Meta concerning fraudulent advertising, following a related action initiated in May by California’s Santa Clara County. The lawsuit seeks civil penalties, restitution for defrauded consumers, the disgorgement of ill-gotten gains, and court orders compelling the social media company to halt the monetization of fraudulent content.
Internal Documents Point to Billions of Deceptive Daily Impressions
The complaint relies heavily on internal Meta records, which reportedly reveal that the company served roughly 15 billion higher-risk scam advertisements to users every day. The state contends that fraudulent e-commerce storefronts, unverified health remedies, and otherwise prohibited marketing formats generated nearly 10% of Meta’s overall revenue in 2024. Rather than preventing abuses, the lawsuit claims that Meta’s artificial intelligence advertising tools assisted illicit operators in refining their marketing materials to maximize user engagement and capture victims more effectively.
The legal filing further asserts that Meta routinely failed to ban accounts flagged for fraudulent activity by its automated monitoring systems. Instead of imposing permanent suspensions, the platform allegedly penalized certain offending accounts by levying additional financial fees, allowing deceptive ad placements to remain active. Among the exhibits cited is an advertisement falsely claiming to reverse Alzheimer’s disease within 45 days, which had over 2,000 distinct iterations active across Meta’s ad library, specifically targeting vulnerable patients and their families.
Impersonation of Financial Leaders and Spread of Non-Consensual Imagery
The lawsuit also incorporates findings from the Center for Countering Digital Hate, a research organization that identified nearly 94,000 scam promotions across Meta services. It highlights that multiple rogue ad accounts spent more capital on Meta’s ad systems over multi-year periods than leading corporations like Walmart and Pfizer. The complaint details instances where syndicates based in China fabricated promotions using the identity of a senior Bank of America executive, funneling users from Facebook and Instagram into WhatsApp chat groups to execute fraudulent stock-trading schemes.
Beyond financial swindles, Rhode Island highlighted the distribution of advertisements promoting generative artificial intelligence tools designed to create non-consensual sexually explicit deepfakes. The filing details promotions that displayed standard images of clothed women beside digitally altered depictions showing them engaged in explicit sexual acts. The state contends that such promotions demonstrate systemic breakdowns in automated ad screening and an unacceptable failure to prevent the monetization of abusive applications.
Internal Reviews Contrast with Public Enforcement Assurances
Meta did not immediately issue a formal statement regarding the lawsuit. In past responses to related inquiries, the company stated that it aggressively combats fraudulent campaigns because scams undermine trust among legitimate advertisers and platform users, maintaining that its enforcement systems have seen substantial upgrades in recent months.
However, Rhode Island pointed to an internal Meta assessment conducted in April 2025 which reportedly concluded that deploying fraudulent advertisements was significantly easier on Meta platforms than on Google. The filing further alleges that Meta resisted legislative initiatives aimed at tightening advertiser identity verification, while allowing suspended bad actors to re-enter the network simply by registering new email addresses or phone numbers. The lawsuit argues that without binding court orders, automated ad systems will continue to expose retail consumers to widespread financial and digital harm.
Follow for daily updates on cybercrime, corporate fraud, DFIR, hacking, investigations, and digital forensics
