Over the past year, Americans watched the Trump administration’s Department of Homeland Security detain lawful residents, harass individuals based on their ethnicity, and kill two innocent civilians. At the same time, scams exploiting immigrants’ fear and vulnerability have been proliferating on platforms like Facebook. Now more than ever, we need greater transparency and accountability from social media companies regarding online scams.
In February, five men were indicted in a federal court in Brooklyn for posing as an immigration law firm and scamming victims out of hundreds to thousands of dollars. The group staged court appearances and charged exorbitant fees for their nonexistent services, which they primarily advertised on Facebook. Similar scams are targeting immigrant communities nationwide.
There’s already political momentum to tackle this issue. In April, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg sent an open letter to Mark Zuckerberg urging Meta to crack down on accounts that falsely pose as legal services organizations and target immigrants. The epidemic of false legal service providers is so severe that Bragg’s office also launched a public awareness campaign.
In response to Bragg’s letter, Meta said it takes action against users that violate its policies and is committed to working with law enforcement to address this issue. But in November, a Reuters investigation uncovered that Meta is not only aware of rampant scams, but profiting off them.
About 10 percent of the company’s revenue, up to $16.1 billion, was generated by scam ads in 2024, according to the investigation. Apparently, Meta is incentivized to let these scams continue targeting vulnerable users. Indeed, the investigation revealed that Meta charges a higher rate to advertise to accounts that have been flagged as potential scams. While working class immigrant families lose their savings to scams, Meta earns extra.
There’s no question that these scams are illegal and the perpetrators must be held accountable by law enforcement. Similarly, Meta and other social media companies must also take responsibility for permitting and profiting off ads promoting these exploitative schemes.
Holding social media platforms accountable has proven a persistent challenge for U.S. lawmakers. Online platforms are protected from liability for user-generated content under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which has become a subject of intense debate in this era of online misinformation. The current trend of tech leaders rebuking content moderation (mirroring conservatives’ rebuke of so-called cancel culture) certainly doesn’t help. For example, Elon Musk’s X sued New York in 2025 over a law intended to prevent hate speech on social media platforms.
The tide is slowly turning. In March, a California jury found Meta and Google guilty of harming a young user’s well-being by building addictive design features into Facebook and Youtube, respectively. Both companies were ordered to pay millions in damages. Even in this climate, fighting to hold social media companies accountable isn’t hopeless.
Braggs’ open letter and public awareness campaign is a good start. Leaders nationwide should act fast to maintain the momentum. District Attorneys, Attorneys General, and consumer and worker protection agencies in other cities and states could enact their own campaigns addressing local immigrant populations’ specific concerns. They could even form a consortium, similar to how state Attorneys General banded together to protect abortion access, bolstering their demands to Meta with collective power.
These demands should focus on transparency and accountability. Policy leaders must ensure Meta honors its commitment to address scams by requesting it share data on the prevalence of legal services scams, the profits Meta derives from them, and preventive steps being taken. As federal enforcement actions continue to threaten immigrants’ livelihoods and safety, it’s crucial that leaders secure every protection they can for these communities.
The Zeitgeist aims to publish ideas worth discussing. The views presented are solely those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect the views of the editorial board.
