Santa Clara County has taken direct aim at Meta Platforms. The California county filed a civil lawsuit Monday in superior court, accusing the social media giant of knowingly facilitating and profiting from scam advertisements that flood Facebook and Instagram. County Counsel Tony LoPresti described the scale as extraordinary. He says it must stop.
The suit, brought on behalf of all California residents, claims Meta earns as much as $7 billion a year from high-risk ads that show clear signs of fraud. Reuters first reported on the leaked internal documents that underpin much of the complaint last November. Those documents paint a picture of a company that tracks problematic ads yet chooses tolerance over eradication when revenue hangs in the balance.
But. The allegations run deeper. Meta allegedly set up guardrails that block fraud-prevention teams from actions that would dent overall revenue by more than 0.15 percent. LoPresti laid it out plainly at a San Jose press conference. “You can do your work, we want to brag about it, but we’re gonna make sure it doesn’t impact our bottom line too much.”
Short. Direct. And damning if proven.
The complaint details how Meta uses artificial intelligence and sophisticated targeting to connect vulnerable users with fraudulent offers. Seniors. Families. People who previously engaged with similar suspicious content. Internal estimates cited in the filing suggest Meta was involved in one third of all successful internet scams in the U.S. at one point. Californians reportedly lost more than $2.5 billion to such schemes in 2024 alone, with those over 60 accounting for more than $800 million.
Scam ads don’t just harm consumers. They squeeze legitimate small businesses out of ad inventory and visibility. The platforms carry around 15 billion scam ads daily, according to the county’s estimates, affecting Meta’s 3.5 billion users worldwide. And the company charges scammers a premium to run them. Systems flag the problems. Then monetize them anyway.
Leaked materials also reveal that Meta allows middlemen to sell ad accounts shielded from enforcement. Generative AI tools often help craft the deceptive creatives. The suit accuses the company of adjusting the volume of such ads to smooth quarterly earnings or hit internal targets. On information and belief, the complaint states, Meta can fine-tune that flood at will.
This isn’t the first time questions have surfaced. A December 2025 Reuters investigation showed how Meta’s own trusted experts reportedly helped run scam ads. The county’s filing weaves those findings together with the revenue data. It paints a picture of deliberate choices that prioritize growth over safety.
Meta pushes back hard. In a statement to CNET, a spokesperson said the claim relies on reporting that distorts motives and ignores daily actions against scams. “We removed over 159 million scam ads last year alone, launched new tools to protect people, and partnered with law enforcement around the globe to disrupt these criminals. We will fight this lawsuit,” the company said. It had told Reuters previously that it aggressively fights fraud because neither users, legitimate advertisers, nor the platform wants it.
Yet the county sees a gap between public statements and internal reality. LoPresti, speaking as a civil prosecutor in Silicon Valley, stressed accountability. “Meta might be a massive power broker in Silicon Valley and throughout the world, but Meta is not a company above the law.” He added that officials cannot sit by while a tech giant swindles the public to hit revenue targets. Tech is the lifeblood here. Poison cannot be allowed into that bloodstream.
The suit seeks restitution for victims, civil penalties, and a permanent injunction barring the alleged unfair practices. Santa Clara has teamed with three outside law firms — Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann, Renne Public Law Group, and Bishop Partnoy — though the county retains full control. Payment to the firms comes only if the county prevails. This marks the first such case brought by a local civil prosecutor in the nation.
Consumer harm from online scams has climbed for years. Federal Trade Commission data and reports from groups like the Consumer Federation of America show seniors lose at rates four times higher than average. A separate April 2026 complaint by the CFA against Meta in Washington, D.C., accused the company of misleading users about its anti-scam efforts while charging premiums for risky ads. That filing echoed similar themes, though it remains distinct from Santa Clara’s broader action.
Industry watchers note the suit’s potential ripple effects. If successful, it could force changes in how platforms review and approve advertisements. It might also encourage other prosecutors to examine ad-driven business models more closely. Meta’s ad revenue, which forms the bulk of its income, depends on volume and targeting precision. The complaint suggests that precision sometimes serves fraudsters as effectively as legitimate marketers.
LoPresti highlighted disproportionate impacts. Elderly users. People of color. Low-income communities. “It’s like a bully finding the weak kid on the playground and making sure that they’re getting all the attention.” The metaphor landed with local reporters. It underscores the human cost behind the billions in alleged profits.
Whether the case reaches trial or settles remains uncertain. Meta has vowed to contest the claims vigorously. Past disputes with regulators over content moderation and ad practices have produced both concessions and continued litigation. This one strikes at the core of the advertising engine that powers the company.
Santa Clara’s move arrives at a moment of heightened scrutiny for big tech. State attorneys general, federal agencies, and private plaintiffs have challenged data practices, algorithmic amplification, and youth safety features. Adding scam ads to the docket broadens the critique. It suggests that even when platforms detect harm, business incentives can blunt the response.
The leaked documents provide plaintiffs with unusually specific ammunition. Revenue projections. Internal guardrails. Targeting logic. These elements make the complaint more than a general indictment. They offer a roadmap of alleged decision-making that favored profit over protection.
Analysts will watch how Meta’s stock reacts and whether similar suits emerge from other jurisdictions. For now, the filing stands as a pointed challenge from the heart of Silicon Valley. A local authority telling one of its largest employers that influence does not confer immunity.
The outcome could reshape expectations for ad platforms. Greater investment in proactive detection. Stricter limits on high-risk accounts. Transparency around revenue tied to flagged content. Or it could reinforce the status quo if Meta successfully argues that its existing removals and partnerships demonstrate good faith.
Either way, the conversation has shifted. No longer abstract policy debates. Concrete allegations. Specific numbers. Internal evidence laid bare in court filings. Santa Clara County has drawn a line. Meta must now respond in kind.
WebProNews is an iEntry Publication