Andrew Forrest pressures IAB Australia to penalize Meta over scam revenue

The pressure on IAB Australia shifts the fraud debate from platform moderation to industry-level accountability and the integrity of the programmatic supply chain. If industry bodies start ejecting dominant players like Meta, it complicates brand safety certifications and could lead to a fragmented self-regulatory landscape. Concretely, this exposes a conflict in Meta’s business model: charging 'penalty bids' to likely scammers turns fraud into a higher-margin revenue stream rather than a liability to be eliminated. Industry strategists should monitor whether IAB Australia follows the Swedish chapter’s lead, as a second expulsion would likely trigger wider brand safety audits and pressure on other trade organizations like the Global Alliance for Responsible Media.

The escalating tension between Andrew Forrest and Meta mirrors a global surge in deepfake-driven financial fraud via social media. Per the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC), the Scams Prevention Framework Bill introduced in late 2024 aims to establish mandatory obligations for digital platforms to disrupt scams. This legislative push followed reports that Australian scam losses exceeded $2.18 billion in 2025, with social media acting as a primary entry point for investment fraud. This domestic pressure aligns with Forrest’s $60 million civil lawsuit in California, where his legal team is challenging Meta's Section 230 immunity by arguing the platform's AI-powered Advantage+ tools turn it into a 'co-author' of fraudulent content.

International friction reached a peak in April 2026 when IAB Sweden formally expelled Meta. Per MediaPost (March 2026), the decision was driven by major Nordic publishers like Bonnier News and Schibsted, who cited Meta's failure to prevent the misuse of media brands in crypto scams. While Meta did not appeal the Swedish expulsion, it continues to maintain that its internal systems took down 159 million scam ads in 2025 before they were reported. Despite these efforts, Reuters reported in November 2025 that Meta users were still exposed to an estimated 15 billion higher-risk advertisements daily. This has attracted scrutinization from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) regarding the transparency of Meta’s 'violating revenue' and its impact on auction floors for legitimate advertisers.