FOR YEARS, IRISH social media users have been plagued by a seemingly endless deluge of scam ads.

While many people may dismiss ads that, for instance, falsely make use of the reputations of Irish celebrities to dupe users, as obvious fakes – they clearly work.

The Central Bank has estimated that, in a staggering 80% of cases, social media is the source of payment fraud.

This commonly includes scammers tricking victims into voluntarily authorising transfers.

It’s a crime which is becoming more prevalent – the value of payment fraud in Ireland surged by a shocking 25% in 2024 alone, to €160m.

So, fraud is rising. And most fraud originates on social media. What are tech giants doing about it?

Well – making bank.

A new report published during the week found that social media companies take in tens of millions of euros per year from showing scams to Irish users.

The likes of Meta has also touted its many anti-fraud measures. But social media is still the key source of criminal ads.

Ireland, of course, is just a small piece of the pie. The report published during the week estimated that, across Europe social media firms such as Meta and TikTok take in about €4 billion a year from these suspect ads.

So, what can be done to save consumers from this onslaught of scams? Who will come forth as the new people’s champion?

Step forward… Revolut.

The fintech firm is the company which commissioned the study – carried out by English consultancy firm Juniper Research.

It then used the publicity from the report as an opportunity to call out social media giants, urging them to “invest more substantially in processes that can better detect and block scam ads”.

It warned about the impact that scams have on consumers. And it also said that fighting fraud is in the best interest of social media giants themselves, predicting a long-term drop in trust if the problem isn’t addressed.

Now the obvious question – why is Revolut so interested in social media users getting scammed?

A major factor for this is that banks, such as Revolut, tend to be the first port of call from a consumer who has just been scammed. Normally, they’re hoping that the bank will be the one to recover or refund their money. Often, banks do just that.

So social media companies profit from showing fraudulent ads. And then once a consumer gets scammed, banks are often the ones left on the hook for the bill.

Banks see this as inherently unfair, and have previously called for tech companies to share some of reimbursement costs.

Revolut issued a particularly noteworthy statement in October 2024, when it singled out Meta by name.

The tech giant had just launched a new ‘information sharing partnership’ with banks.
“[This] allows banks to share intelligence with us directly to combat scams on our platforms,” the firm said.

But while it said it would share data, it stopped short of providing any money towards compensation.

Revolut called this out, arguing that its data sharing initiative with UK banks “falls woefully short of what’s required to tackle fraud”.

Why did this all kick off in October 2024? Because the UK just introduced a new scheme which requires banks to reimburse most fraud victims.

Previously, it was often at the discretion of banks and other financial firms as to whether they would have to refund consumers.

But the UK introduced a measure where banks must refund most fraud victims up to £85,000 for ‘qualifying scams’ within five business days.

Where does this compensation come from? The companies which process payments – normally, that means banks.

The idea is to create a stronger incentive for finance firms to cut down on fraud, improve their defences and protect their customers.

And where that all fails, give them back their money.

The rule is proving to be expensive for payments firms, which reimbursed £112 million to scam victims in the nine months following its introduction.

Banks tend to refund a decent chunk of scam victims anyway.

But the fact that it has become mandatory solidifies it as an obligation for them to do so, and clearly rankles.

The issue of scam losses is one which has grown in recent years, as fraud becomes ever easier and more convincing with the likes of AI.

Other countries are looking at introducing similar reimbursement measures – the question is, who will pay up.

So far, not only do social media companies not have to contribute. They profit handsomely.

This is shown in Revolut’s report. In a statement to The Journal, Revolut emphasised that the report was “developed independently by Juniper Research, using established forecasting methodologies”.

But if that’s not enough for you, the core thrust is independently reported to be true.
Meta itself (in internal documents uncovered by Reuters) projected that 10% of its 2024 revenue would come from ads for scams and banned goods.

Asked by The Journal why it commissioned the research, Revolut said in a statement: “Our decision to commission Juniper Research primarily stemmed from the fact that we were aware that scammers were allowed to advertise directly to users on social media platforms. [We] wanted to find out the scale of it.

“Our decision… was to ensure other stakeholders are aware of this issue too, given the impact on Irish consumers, but also consumers throughout Europe.”

Asked about fraud reimbursement, Revolut said: “Revolut has previously called for Meta to commit to sharing reimbursement of scam victims and we note The Irish Times’ view that social media companies must pay a price also.

“Banks are the last line of defence against fraud but shouldn’t be the only line of defence.”

This is key, and a large part of the reason why the likes of Revolut have taken an interest in Irish consumers getting scammed.

Banks can see other countries moving to introduce reimbursement schemes. And they would like them to be different to the one in the UK.

They feel not all the responsibility to pay up should fall on payment firms – social media giants should have to dip into their own pockets as well.

It’s an argument which is gaining increasing traction.

The EU is moving toward stronger scam refund rules. While the details still have to be ironed out, there are indications that social media companies could be held liable for reimbursement costs in certain cases. Additionally, tech firms may have to repay banks who pay out to customers.

The new EU rules haven’t been enacted yet. They’re still working their way through the parliamentary process, so the final measures likely won’t come into force for another year or two.

But banks want to keep steering the conversation in the direction where social media companies will be made to foot their share of the bill.

And with the enormous amount of cash that the likes of Meta rake in from these scam ads – it’s hard to argue that they shouldn’t also take on some of the responsibility.