Google, Meta and TikTok Face EU Complaints Over Financial Scam Ads Under DSA

21st May 2026
Google, Meta and TikTok are facing coordinated European Union complaints that could expose the platforms to major Digital Services Act scrutiny and potential multibillion-dollar penalties over alleged failures to remove financial scam advertisements. The complaints, filed by the European Consumer Organisation (BEUC) and 29 member organisations across 27 European countries, accuse the companies of allowing fraudulent financial promotions to remain active despite repeated reports from consumer groups. The filings were submitted to the European Commission and national regulators under the DSA, the EU law imposing stricter obligations on very large online platforms to address illegal and harmful content risks. According to BEUC, consumer organisations reported nearly 900 advertisements suspected of breaching EU laws between December and March. The groups claim only 27% of those ads were removed, while more than half of the reports were either rejected or ignored. The complaints target Alphabet Inc., Meta Platforms and TikTok under DSA provisions requiring large online platforms to identify and reduce systemic risks tied to harmful or illegal content. Under the legislation, fines can reach up to 6% of a company’s global annual turnover for serious breaches. Consumer Groups Challenge Platform Fraud Controls The complaints are likely to draw attention to how European authorities interpret the DSA’s broader obligations around platform oversight, risk management and fraud prevention. Earlier internet liability models focused largely on whether platforms removed unlawful content after receiving reports. The DSA introduced a wider framework that places greater emphasis on identifying and reducing systemic risks before widespread consumer harm occurs. That may place scrutiny on how scam advertisements were approved, how quickly reports were reviewed and whether repeat fraud advertisers were able to continue reaching users after earlier complaints. Authorities could also examine whether financial scam advertising was treated internally as a higher-risk category requiring enhanced monitoring or escalation procedures. The scale of the complaints may add further pressure. Rather than involving a single national authority, the allegations span almost the entire EU consumer market through coordinated filings across 27 countries. Google and Meta both defended their existing anti-scam measures. A Google spokesperson said the company strictly enforces its advertising policies and blocks more than 99% of violating advertisements before they appear. The company said its systems are continuously updated to respond to evolving fraud tactics. Meta said it actively removes scam content and fraudulent advertisers from its platforms. According to the company, more than 159 million scam advertisements were removed last year, with 92% identified before users reported them. Financial Scam Advertising and Platform Oversight Financial scam adverts tend to attract greater scrutiny because the consumer harm is easier to trace. Someone sees an advert, transfers money, shares financial details or signs up to what appears to be a legitimate investment opportunity. The losses can occur almost immediately. That changes the focus for authorities examining platform systems. The question is no longer limited to whether harmful content was eventually removed. Increasing attention is being placed on how fraudulent adverts were approved, how long they remained active and what happened after warnings or reports were submitted. The complaints also arrive as authorities across Europe increase pressure on online platforms over impersonation scams, fake investment promotions and organised fraud campaigns using digital advertising systems to reach large audiences quickly. For companies operating large advertising networks, recommendation systems or online marketplaces, the focus is likely to fall on internal processes rather than public moderation statistics alone. Authorities may want to understand how high-risk financial adverts are reviewed, when human escalation becomes necessary and whether repeated scam patterns are being identified quickly enough. Even where large amounts of harmful content are removed each year, repeated failures involving the same type of scam activity can still create enforcement pressure if authorities conclude that existing controls are not operating effectively. Wider Implications for Large Online Platforms The complaints are likely to be closely watched across the technology sector because they touch on broader questions around platform accountability, internal controls and oversight of advertising systems handling large volumes of consumer-facing content. The DSA was designed to move beyond a purely reactive moderation model and place greater emphasis on preventative risk management for very large online platforms. Financial scams present one of the clearest examples of the kind of consumer harm authorities may view as foreseeable and capable of being reduced through stronger internal controls. The implications extend beyond social media platforms alone. Businesses operating advertising marketplaces, recommendation algorithms or large-scale user-generated commercial services may eventually face similar questions about fraud prevention systems, escalation procedures and governance oversight tied to platform safety obligations. At this stage, no findings of wrongdoing have been made against Google, Meta or TikTok. European regulators will now determine whether the complaints justify formal investigations or additional enforcement measures under the DSA framework.