Browse
Log in / Register
Share
Consumer watchdog Which? has published a new investigation showing that some advertisers reported for running scam ads on Meta and YouTube keep operating anyway, often with new ads and new accounts. The findings highlight a wider gap in platform enforcement: removing an ad is not the same as stopping the person behind it. Which? says the cases show why the final fraudulent-advertising codes under the UK’s Online Safety Act must include a strong user-banning requirement. This story was updated on May 7, 2026.
There is a frustrating loop in online scam ads. You see a suspicious ad, report it, and the platform removes it. Days later, a nearly identical ad appears, often from what looks like the same advertiser using the same logo and website. Which? has been documenting this pattern for years, and its latest research shows that the people behind these ads are rarely stopped.
A series of deepfake videos promoted a cream supposedly designed to “balance hormones” in women. The ads ran on Facebook and Instagram, and Which? became suspicious because the company had no verifiable physical location — yet its Meta advertiser profile was being managed by accounts in Thailand, Colombia and the Philippines. Reviews on Trustpilot also reported receiving a product that did not match the advertised description.
Which? reported one ad through Meta’s reporting process, and the ads on that account were banned for “unacceptable business practices.” But then a new account with a very similar name appeared, using the same logo and linking to the same website. At the time of writing, that new account had 18 live ads with an estimated combined reach of 23,392 accounts.
This is a clear example of enforcement removing the symptom while leaving the disease untouched.
Another advertiser ran scam ads on Facebook and Instagram that impersonated presenter Matt Allwright, as well as the BBC and Lloyds Bank, to promote a fake investment scheme. After Which? reported the ads, they were removed within a day. But the same advertiser then posted a new version that again used BBC branding.
That version led to a fake BBC-style news article about an investment scheme allegedly powered by technology “hidden from the British public by banks.” The page asked users to register with personal details to sign up for the investment. This ad was eventually removed, but the advertiser remained active.
The pattern is consistent: take down one ad, replace it with another.
Earlier this year, Which? warned about a scam on YouTube using deepfake videos and false medical endorsements to sell weight loss patches. Which? reported the ads directly to Google, YouTube’s parent company, and they were removed for violating its ads policies. But the advertiser did not disappear.
New suspicious ads linked to the same weight loss patch appeared afterward. The landing page used stolen images to promote the product and claimed universities had researched the patch, with no evidence to back that up. After Which? shared the latest findings, Google said it suspended the advertiser account following review.
The fact that it took repeated reports to get action shows how slowly the system works.
Which? has been campaigning for tech platforms to take responsibility for scam ads. Under the draft fraudulent-advertising codes being prepared under the Online Safety Act, UK regulator Ofcom will eventually require platforms to ban bad actors and prevent them from opening new accounts. But those rules are still being drafted and are not expected to be in force until late 2027.
That leaves a long gap where platforms are mostly reacting to individual reports rather than stopping repeat offenders. Which? believes the cases show the importance of a strong user-banning requirement in Ofcom’s final codes — and of actual enforcement. The Online Safety Act allows Ofcom to fine companies 10% of their global turnover or £18 million, whichever is greater.
When Which? contacted Meta, the company said it was investigating the content brought to its attention. Google said: “We expressly prohibit ads that scam people by misrepresenting information about products or services and invest heavily in detecting and enforcing against scams. Upon review, we have suspended the advertiser account for violating our ads policies.”
That response is welcome, but it came after the ads had already been seen. For most people, the harm happens before any platform takes action.
Until regulation catches up, consumers need to stay sharp. Some warning signs are easy to spot if you slow down:
If you see a suspicious ad on social media, use the three-dot menu on the post to report it. If you have given money or personal details to a scammer, contact your bank immediately using the number on the back of your card. In the U.S., you can also file a complaint with the FTC at ReportFraud.ftc.gov, and if money was stolen, report it to the FBI’s Internet Crime Complaint Center.
The broader problem is not that platforms never remove scam ads. It’s that removal alone means almost nothing when the advertiser can simply start again. Which? says the real test is whether platforms are able to identify and ban the person behind the ads — before the next fake account appears.
