Poland Targets Meta With €250 Million Fine Request as Scam Ads Become an EU Regulatory Test

Warsaw is asking the European Commission to impose a €250 million penalty on Meta, turning fraudulent advertising into a broader European test of whether Facebook and Instagram can still present themselves as neutral platforms while approving, targeting and monetizing paid ads.

Poland is opening a new front against Meta and pushing the dispute directly onto the European regulatory agenda.

Digital Affairs Minister Krzysztof Gawkowski has asked the European Commission to impose a €250 million fine on the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, accusing Meta of failing to respond effectively to fraudulent and deceptive advertising despite repeated warnings from Polish authorities.

“Despite repeated reports from the relevant Polish authorities and teams responsible for cybersecurity, Meta still does not provide an effective and adequate response to fraudulent advertisements,” Gawkowski said.

The dispute goes far beyond the 122 advertisements tested by Polish cybersecurity authorities.

It cuts to the core of the European debate over the Digital Services Act and over how much responsibility very large online platforms should bear when illegal or deceptive content is not merely hosted, but distributed through their own advertising infrastructure.

The Test That Put Meta Under Pressure

The Polish case is based in part on tests conducted by CERT Polska, the country’s national cybersecurity incident response team.

Authorities identified 122 advertisements that were classified as fraudulent.

According to the figures cited by Gawkowski:

• 106 ads were not removed
• only 10 were taken down
• six cases received no response

That means 86.8% of the reported ads remained online.

Gawkowski highlighted the result directly:

“In 106 cases, or 86.8% of the reports, Meta closed the case by deciding not to remove the advertisement. Only 10 advertisements were removed and in six cases there was no response.”

For Warsaw, the issue is no longer whether individual moderation mistakes occurred.

The question is whether the platform’s systems are structurally failing to identify and remove scam advertising.

Poland Wants Better Anti-Scam Tools, Not Just a Fine

The Polish government is not only asking for financial punishment.

It is also demanding that Meta improve its moderation and advertising-control systems.

Gawkowski called for stronger tools to detect:

fraudulent investment ads,

fake promotions,

illegal applications,

deepfake advertisements,

and scams using the identity of public figures without consent.

“I also call on Meta to immediately implement effective tools to eliminate scams, false advertising and the promotion of illegal applications,” he said.

At the time of the original report, Meta had not immediately responded to Reuters’ request for comment.

The Brzoska Case Raises the Stakes

Behind the political pressure lies an important Polish court case.

Rafał Brzoska, the billionaire founder of InPost, has taken legal action against Meta over fake advertisements that allegedly used his identity to promote fraudulent investment opportunities.

Some of the ads reportedly used deepfake technology.

The case also involved fake content using the image of Omenaa Mensah.

A Warsaw appellate court ruled in April that Meta’s role in distributing such advertising could not simply be treated as passive hosting.

That is potentially important far beyond Poland.

Because it challenges one of the long-standing defenses used by digital platforms:

that the fraudulent content was created by users, not by the platform itself.

Meta Is Not Simply a Digital Noticeboard

That argument becomes more difficult in advertising.

A platform like Meta is not merely storing content uploaded by someone else.

Its advertising system can:

review the ad,

accept payment,

target specific audiences,

optimize distribution through algorithms,

and determine who sees the content.

This matters legally and politically.

If a platform actively organizes, targets and monetizes an advertisement, regulators can argue that its role is substantially different from that of a passive hosting provider.

And that distinction may become central to the next phase of EU tech regulation.

The Digital Services Act Moves to the Center

This is where the Polish dispute becomes a Policy Europe issue.

The EU’s Digital Services Act was designed to place greater obligations on the largest digital platforms.

For companies of Meta’s scale, European rules require stronger transparency, systemic risk assessments and more effective measures against illegal content and online harms.

The key question for Brussels is now whether Poland’s evidence points to isolated moderation failures or to a systemic problem.

The distinction is crucial.

One is poor enforcement.

The other could trigger a much larger regulatory response.

Why €250 Million Matters Politically

For Meta, €250 million is not existential.

But politically, the figure matters.

Poland is effectively challenging the business logic that allows a platform to earn money from an advertisement while placing almost all responsibility for the fraud on the advertiser.

The emerging European argument is different.

If a platform approves, targets, distributes and monetizes paid advertising, then regulators may expect it to carry greater responsibility when those systems repeatedly facilitate scams.

That is the principle Warsaw is now trying to test at EU level.

Deepfakes Make the Problem Much Bigger

The timing is particularly important because generative AI is making fraudulent advertising easier and cheaper to produce.

Scammers can now create:

deepfake videos,

synthetic voices,

fake celebrity endorsements,

fabricated news websites,

and fake investment platforms

at far lower cost than before.

That changes the scale of the moderation problem.

A system that relies heavily on users manually reporting individual fraudulent ads may no longer be sufficient.

AI is accelerating the supply of scam content faster than traditional moderation systems can respond.

Meta Faces a Structural Regulatory Dilemma

Meta’s advertising technology is central to its business model.

The company has spent years improving:

targeting,

automation,

distribution,

and AI-driven ad optimization.

But the more control a platform exercises over the delivery of advertising, the harder it becomes to argue that it has little responsibility for the outcome.

In other words, the same technological sophistication that makes Meta’s advertising business so profitable may also strengthen the regulatory argument for greater accountability.

Poland Could Create an EU-Wide Precedent

If the European Commission opens formal enforcement proceedings on the basis of Poland’s evidence, the impact would extend well beyond Poland.

It could increase pressure for:

stricter advertiser verification,

stronger controls on investment ads,

faster removal of scam content,

better detection of repeated fraudulent campaigns,

and tougher identity requirements for advertisers.

That could significantly raise compliance costs across the European digital advertising market.

Other Platforms Will Be Watching

The case directly concerns Meta.

But Google, TikTok, X and other advertising platforms will be watching closely.

If Brussels adopts the principle that platforms can face stronger liability when their advertising systems repeatedly distribute fraudulent content, the regulatory implications could spread across the industry.

This is particularly important under the DSA, where the European Commission already has direct enforcement powers over very large online platforms.

The era of informal warnings is increasingly giving way to formal enforcement.

The Real Question Is Who Pays When the Algorithm Sells the Scam

The Polish case raises one of the most important questions in the modern digital economy.

If a criminal creates a fraudulent advertisement, the criminal is obviously responsible.

But what happens when a platform:

takes the advertiser’s money,

approves the ad,

selects the audience,

distributes it algorithmically,

and then leaves it online even after it has been reported?

At that point, the concept of the “neutral intermediary” becomes harder to defend.

That is the real regulatory battle Poland is trying to open.

The €250 million request is the headline.

The deeper issue is whether the European Commission will accept that active participation in the advertising market should also mean active responsibility for repeated fraud distributed through that market.

If Brussels moves in that direction, the consequences for Meta could be much larger than a single fine.

They could reshape the rules governing digital advertising across Europe.

Source: pagenews.gr