In a move that signals a growing impatience within Europe’s media industry, three of Sweden’s largest publishers — Aller Media, Bonnier News, and Schibsted — have publicly backed the decision by IAB Sweden to expel Meta from its membership.

At first glance, this may look like an internal national industry dispute in an global marketing organisation. In reality, it reflects something far more consequential: a struggle over trust, accountability, and the future of digital advertising.

What led to this action

The immediate trigger for the expulsion was the persistent presence of fraudulent advertising across Meta’s platforms, particularly Facebook and Instagram. These scams have not only targeted consumers but have systematically misused the identities of journalists, public figures, and established media brands to lend credibility to deception.

When a reader cannot distinguish between legitimate journalism and manipulated advertising using a media brand’s identity, the damage extends far beyond a single scam. It erodes confidence in the entire information ecosystem.

The issue has not gone unnoticed globally. Many news organisations have reported on Meta’s inability to curb fraudulent advertising, but investigations by Reuters have gone further.

In a series of in-depth reports based on internal documents and whistleblower testimony, Reuters has alleged Meta generates as much as US$15 billion annually from scam-related advertising—and that the company’s stated strategy has been to delay, weaken, or avoid regulation that could negatively impact this revenue stream.

For established media companies — many of them daily newspapers with brands built over centuries on credibility and public trust — this is deeply provocative.

They see a platform profiting, at scale, from the deception of users on Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp, while simultaneously benefiting from the legitimacy that trusted content environments help sustain.

Confirming industry standards

Industry organisations like IAB are built on shared standards — particularly around transparency, responsibility, and ethical marketing practices. By removing Meta, IAB Sweden has effectively declared that these principles are not negotiable.

The backing from major publishers reinforces that message. Their stance is clear: Participation in the digital advertising ecosystem must come with accountability.

This is also a rare example of alignment across competing media companies. Despite commercial rivalries, these publishers have acted collectively to address what they see as a systemic risk — not just to their own brands but to the credibility of digital advertising as a whole.

The criticism directed at Meta goes beyond the existence of fraudulent ads. It focuses on what publishers perceive as a lack of sufficient action — and, more controversially, the fact that such ads continue to generate significant revenue.

From the publishers’ perspective, this creates a fundamental conflict. Can a platform remain a credible partner in an industry organisation while profiting from content that undermines that very ecosystem?

Global implications

The implications of this decision extend well beyond Sweden. With nearly 300 member companies spanning agencies, advertisers, publishers, and tech providers, IAB Sweden’s move could set a precedent for other national branches within the global IAB network.

If replicated elsewhere, it could mark the beginning of a more assertive stance by the media industry toward dominant tech platforms — one where access to industry collaboration is conditional on demonstrable responsibility.

At its core, this is not just a dispute about membership. It is about the value of trust in a digital economy increasingly shaped by platforms rather than publishers.

By supporting IAB Sweden’s decision, Aller Media, Bonnier News, and Schibsted are drawing a clear line: The future of digital advertising cannot be built on a system where credibility is exploited faster than it is protected.

Criminal allegations against Meta

Another important dimension to this conflict has unfolded at the national level in Sweden.

During 2025 and 2026, Utgivarna — which brings together the country’s three public service broadcasters, the largest commercial TV group, and the industry bodies for magazines and newspapers — has taken coordinated action against Meta over what it describes as the company’s business dealings with criminal networks.

All CEOs of the member companies and organisations sit on Utgivarna’s board. For the sake of transparency, I serve as vice chair of Utgivarna and am also a board member of both industry associations. Together, we have filed a police report against Meta and its CEO Mark Zuckerberg, citing allegations including fraud and aiding and abetting fraud.

More recently, Utgivarna also submitted a formal complaint against Meta for violations of the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA), which has been forwarded to the European Commission as part of its ongoing investigation, launched in 2024, into fraudulent advertising on Meta’s platforms.

Media companies coming together

The response is not confined to Sweden. Media companies across Scandinavia are increasingly aligned — in defense of their brands, in concern for users on Facebook, and in their push for a safer and more accountable advertising environment.

In Denmark, the media industry’s collective rights organisation DPCMO has also filed a complaint under the Digital Services Act against Meta. In Norway, MBL, the trade body for the newspaper industry, has announced that it is preparing a civil lawsuit against the company.

At the same time, the director-general of NRK and the head of MBL have jointly called for legislative change in Norway — specifically, a requirement that platforms like Meta must verify advertisers before allowing them to purchase ad space.

Media executives and editors reading this: Come together within your national media organisations and take a clear stand. Demand accountability from Meta — and exclude the company if fraudulent advertising is not decisively addressed.

Do not be misled by claims that the problem is being solved through AI algorithms, facial recognition, or other initiatives that have so far proven ineffective and, at times, appear more like delay tactics than real solutions.

If you, like IAB Sweden, believe industry bodies cannot credibly include members who profit from enabling fraud, then act accordingly. Exclude Meta.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .