If Meta is gold standard, what’s sub-standard?

In 2025, Meta was awarded the IAB’s Gold Standard certification.

The first stated aim of the IAB Gold Standard is to reduce ad fraud. Second is to increase brand safety. Third, improve the consumer advertising experience.

Also in 2025, Meta was accused of knowingly profiting from industrial-scale scam advertising. A Reuters investigation found that Meta projected 10% of its 2024 revenue – $16bn – would come from ads for scams and banned goods.

I doubt you’re even shocked, and that’s part of the problem.

Let’s put that $16bn in perspective. The annual NHS budget for mental health is around £15bn – some of which is needed to address damage caused by social media.

Ofcom’s annual budget is around £200m, so what Meta makes from scams in a year could fund it for decades.

Internally, according to Reuters, Meta estimated that its platforms showered users with 15bn scam ads a day. And, if you click on a scam ad, Meta’s algorithms will send you more of the bad stuff. That’s not a bug; that’s design.

Armed with this information, Meta did what anyone who puts profit first would do: instead of blocking scammers, they charged them more – as a deterrent, naturally.

And they have a remarkably high tolerance for scams. According to documents Reuters reviewed, small advertisers must be flagged at least eight times for financial fraud before they are removed. High-value advertisers can accumulate over 500 strikes without being banned.

Gold. Standard.

While TV’s rules protect viewers, Meta’s appear to protect income. What if a bank were found to tolerate fraud in the way Meta stands accused? What, if any other regulated industry, was?

EssenceMediacom, Havas, IPG Mediabrands, Mindshare, Omnicom Media Group, Publicis, Wavemaker, and WPP Media were all also awarded the IAB’s Gold Standard certification in 2025.

But if Meta gets it too, what standard are we living up to? Is it worth the PDF it’s written on?

We, the advertising industry, should care if Meta is allowing and profiting from scam ads whilst accepting an industry kitemark for being a good actor.

First, there is a cost to advertisers: Meta’s scam ads inflate its profits, but they also raise the cost for legitimate advertisers because more bidders drive prices higher. And this is at a time when research suggests the industry is already up to 3x over-invested in social.

But there’s also a reputational cost: it debases advertising as a whole, damaging its reputation and undermining trust in our industry.

When people are repeatedly scammed – or even just repeatedly annoyed – the whole industry pays. We lose cultural permission. We lose effectiveness. We all lose from Meta’s gain.

The IAB Gold Standard is a good idea from good people with good intentions. But, if Reuters is right, its certificate for Meta is tarnished gold; a fig leaf on a bin fire. Call it scam-washing.

Lindsey Clay is CEO at Thinkbox.