UK Gambling Regulator Accuses Meta of Turning a Blind Eye to Illegal Gambling Ads Targeting Vulnerable Users
In an unprecedented escalation against Big Tech, the UK Gambling Commission (UKGC) has issued direct and sharply worded accusations against Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, alleging that it has deliberately turned a blind eye to a flood of illegal gambling advertisements targeting some of the most vulnerable people in British society.
The accusations were delivered by UKGC Chief Executive Tim Miller during a speech at the global ICE conference in Barcelona, where he described Meta’s conduct as a form of complicity that gives criminals an “open window” to reach their victims.
The seriousness of the issue lies in the commission’s discovery of thousands of advertisements promoting unlicensed gambling websites under the label “Not on GamStop.” GamStop is the UK’s national self-exclusion scheme and is widely regarded as a last line of defense for problem gamblers, allowing users to voluntarily block themselves from all legally licensed gambling platforms.
Miller stressed that these advertisements do not merely break the law, but actively engage in what he called “organized targeting” of individuals trying to recover from gambling addiction, by luring them to offshore websites operating outside regulatory oversight.
“Allowing a global platform like Facebook to host ads that promise users a way around national protection mechanisms can only be described as an unethical exploitation of human vulnerability for profit,” he said.
He added that almost anyone who spends even a short amount of time on Meta’s platforms is likely to encounter ads for illegal online casinos, many of which do not participate in the UK’s GamStop self-exclusion program.
Asked for comment by Reuters, Meta said it enforces strict advertising policies on gambling and gaming content, and that any ad found to be in breach of those policies is removed immediately. A company spokesperson stated:
“We work closely with the Commission to identify and remove reported ads and use this information to strengthen our proactive detection tools. We encourage continued collaboration to protect users and legitimate advertisers from bad actors.”
However, the UK Gambling Commission firmly rejected Meta’s justification that the sheer volume of content makes it difficult to detect all violations in advance. Miller described this claim as “plainly untrue,” pointing out that Meta’s public Ad Library clearly displays many of these ads through simple keyword searches.
“If our staff can find these ads within minutes,” Miller said sarcastically, “a company with some of the world’s most advanced AI and algorithmic capabilities can certainly remove them in seconds. The reality is that Meta chooses not to look, because every ad shown—no matter how criminal—adds to its bottom line.”
The report also revealed troubling details about behind-the-scenes exchanges between the regulator and the company. According to Miller, Meta suggested that the regulator itself should develop advanced technical tools to monitor Meta’s platforms and report violations. The UKGC described this proposal as “institutional arrogance,” arguing that it is unreasonable to expect a taxpayer-funded public body to perform oversight duties that are fundamentally the company’s responsibility.
These accusations do not come in isolation. Similar concerns have been raised in countries including Italy, Indonesia, and Brazil, where Meta has faced allegations of enabling a “shadow economy” of illegal gambling.
In the UK, the controversy has reignited parliamentary calls for heavy financial penalties against social media companies that fail to filter criminal content, under the Online Safety Act.
Experts believe this confrontation marks a turning point in the relationship between regulators and technology giants. Rather than merely requesting cooperation, the UK Gambling Commission has moved toward public accountability and reputational pressure, signaling that “the era of impunity under the guise of technological neutrality is over.”
For Meta, the crisis presents a stark choice: demonstrate a real ability to cleanse its platforms of harmful gambling ads that prey on addicts, or face potential legal action that could include restrictions on its advertising business in major markets. So far, the company’s response has been limited to broad assurances of policy compliance—an answer that many observers say is no longer sufficient in light of the evidence presented by the regulator.
