The FTC’s Very Polite Question
The Federal Trade Commission announced that it is considering whether to update its rule on impersonation of governments and businesses to address online platforms that may help promote impersonation scams. The agency is seeking public comment on ad-optimization tools used by social media companies, search engines and digital marketplaces.
This is government language for a question that sounds much shorter: when a platform’s machinery finds the right people, places the ad in front of them and profits from the placement, how much responsibility belongs to the machinery?
Scams With a Marketing Department
The FTC says today’s impersonation scams are not always isolated con artists sending sloppy emails. They can be sophisticated operations using the same advertising and targeting tools sold to legitimate businesses. The scammer creates a fake government or company identity, buys an ad and lets the platform’s systems help locate people likely to click.
That is a remarkable evolution from “Dear sir, your prince has a problem.” The modern version can look professional, appear in a search result and arrive precisely when someone is trying to pay a bill, renew a license or contact a government agency. The scammer supplies the lie. The advertising ecosystem supplies the delivery truck.
The Losses Are Not Theoretical
The FTC says consumers reported more than one million imposter scams in 2025 and nearly $3.5 billion in losses. Nearly 30% of consumers who reported losing money said they were first contacted on social-media platforms, with reported losses of $2.1 billion.
Those figures likely understate the damage because many victims do not report fraud. People may feel embarrassed, may not know where to report it or may discover the loss only after the money has been moved through several accounts. The platform, meanwhile, already collected its advertising fee and has moved on to optimizing the next campaign.
The Rulemaking Escape Room
The FTC’s advance notice asks about the financial incentives behind ad-optimization tools, how the tools decide where ads go and what steps platforms take to stop impersonation advertising. It is not yet a final rule and does not automatically mean a platform has violated the law.
But it does put an uncomfortable fact on the table: “the ad was targeted successfully” and “the ad was a scam” can be true at the same time. A system designed to maximize performance may be excellent at helping criminals reach victims unless someone makes fraud prevention part of the performance score.
The Bottom Line
The FTC is not asking whether the internet contains scammers. Everyone already knows that. It is asking whether the platforms that sell targeting and distribution should have obligations when those tools help a fake bank, fake agency or fake business reach millions of real people. The algorithm may not be a criminal. It may still need to answer some questions.
Source
Federal Trade Commission: Comment request on platforms’ role in impersonation scams