A UK regulator claims that while criminals target vulnerable gamblers, Meta makes money.

A UK regulator claims that while criminals target vulnerable gamblers, Meta makes money.

Tim Miller, Executive Director of Research and Policy at the U.K. gaming Commission (UKGC), chastised Meta for permitting illicit gaming companies to place advertisements on its platforms.

Miller made the comments during a speech on the opening day of the ICE 2026 global gambling conference in Barcelona. He said he used the platform to issue a warning to regulators around the world, stressing that the problem extends far beyond Great Britain.

He noted that anyone who spends even a short time on Facebook or Instagram is likely to encounter advertisements for offshore online casinos. One of the most troubling issues, he said, is the way black-market operators deliberately target problem gamblers in the UK. These sites frequently market themselves as being “not on GamStop.”

GamStop is the UK’s national self-exclusion scheme, which all UK Gambling Commission–licensed operators are required to use. Individuals can self-exclude for six months, one year, five years, or permanently, and once activated, exclusions cannot be reversed. Illegal operators often exploit this system by targeting excluded gamblers who are seeking ways to bypass the restrictions and continue gambling elsewhere.

Miller acknowledged that Meta claims it “doesn’t tolerate the advertising of illegal sites” and removes offending ads when they are reported by users or regulators. However, he dismissed Meta’s assertion that it is unaware of such ads, calling it “simply false.”

The UKGC director said that anyone can easily search Meta’s ad library using phrases such as “not on GamStop” and quickly find prohibited advertisements. He described the tool as “effectively a window into criminality.”

Heavy Spending on Illegal Advertising

Despite attempts by the UKGC to work with Meta on the issue, Miller said those efforts have resulted in only “limited progress.”

He added that Meta could use AI-driven tools to proactively monitor and report illegal ads. Instead, he suggested, the company’s lack of action gives the impression that it is “quite happy to turn a blind eye and continue taking money from criminals and scammers until someone shouts about it.”

A Reuters investigation published in November highlighted how lucrative illegal advertising may be for Meta. According to internal estimates cited in leaked documents, roughly 10% of the company’s $164.5 billion revenue in 2024 could be linked to such ads.

Reuters reviewed internal discussions in which one employee suggested setting aside funds for potential fines, stating that penalties of up to $1 billion would be manageable.

In response, a Meta spokesperson told Reuters that the documents presented a “selective view that distorts Meta’s approach to fraud and scams.” The spokesperson said the 10% estimate was a rough and “overly inclusive” figure and noted that reports of scam ads had fallen by 58% over the previous 18 months.

Meta’s advertising policies require gambling advertisers to obtain prior authorization. However, black-market operators use various tactics to evade these rules, including registering “front” businesses, using bait-and-switch landing pages, or avoiding explicit gambling terms in favor of phrases like “not on GamStop.”

A Broader Pattern of Regulatory Scrutiny

The dispute with UK regulators reflects a wider global pattern of concern over Meta’s handling of illegal and high-risk advertising, particularly in the gambling sector.

In 2025, Brazilian authorities gave Meta 48 hours to remove illegal ads from its platforms. Regulators in Malaysia have also warned the company that it must do more to tackle online crime and unlawful advertising.

In India, Meta and Google were summoned in connection with gambling advertising investigations, and Meta later failed to appear for questioning in a money-laundering probe linked to online betting promotions. In the Philippines, Meta removed Facebook pages associated with illegal gambling influencers following regulatory intervention.

These international actions have coincided with criticism in the United States over Meta’s broader content and advertising enforcement policies. Earlier this year, the company ended its third-party fact-checking program and replaced it with a crowd-sourced “Community Notes” system.

CEO Mark Zuckerberg described the change as a move to support free speech, but critics warned it could weaken protections against fraud and deceptive advertising.

Taken together, these developments underscore ongoing tensions between Meta’s advertising-driven business model and regulators’ expectations for proactive enforcement.

Serious Consequences

This is not the first time Miller has publicly criticized Meta. Just last week, he commented on the death of football fan Ollie Long. Media reports said Long struggled with gambling addiction for eight years and had been targeted by sites aimed at people who had self-excluded through GamStop.

Miller described Meta’s practice of removing ads only after complaints are filed as “slightly disappointing.” Although the coroner did not directly link Long’s death to gambling, his sister accused the UKGC of failing to do enough to address black-market online gambling.

Miller’s remarks reflect growing frustration among regulators who believe enforcement alone is insufficient to curb illegal gambling advertising. He said the key question for platforms like Meta is no longer whether illegal gambling ads exist, but whether they are prepared to take meaningful action to stop them.