The Gaming Commission has already sounded the alarm 7,820 times, but gambling advertisements continue to appear on Facebook and Instagram. And young people continue to click.
Since the age limit for online gambling in Belgium was raised to 21, unlicensed gambling sites have seen their chance. They use social media to recruit new players. That is not allowed. And yet it happens — time and time again, day after day.
Meta removes them, but does nothing to prevent recurrence
The Gaming Commission has a direct line to Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram. It can report advertisements for illegal gambling sites via an internal channel. Meta usually removes these advertisements quickly. But new ones appear just as quickly.
According to Member of Parliament Alexander Van Hoecke (Vlaams Belang), Meta’s approach is a sham.
‘They can effectively block those advertisements, but they deliberately choose not to,’ he says. ‘There is no control, no real barrier. Anyone with an email address can advertise.’
7 billion reasons not to be strict
Why is Meta doing so little? Internal documents recently leaked by Reuters reveal why. The advertisements that Meta itself labels as ‘high risk’ — including gambling ads and scams — generate $7 billion annually for the company. According to the company’s own calculations, strict controls would cost $2 billion.
And so, half measures remain the norm. Identity checks for advertisers are voluntary. Companies that do have their identity verified have to pay extra for it. The rest can continue to post without any problems — even when it comes to illegal gambling aimed at young people.
Facebook gives advertising credibility
That is precisely the danger, says Van Hoecke.
‘When young people see an advertisement on Facebook or Instagram, they are more likely to assume that it is reliable. It’s on a well-known platform, so it must be true, they think.’
In Belgium, newspapers and other publishers are required to check the content of advertisements. Online, it’s different. Since 2020, Google has been checking the identity of advertisers. According to the company, 90 per cent of all advertisers have now been verified. Meta, on the other hand, works with an optional system and also charges extra for a so-called quality mark.
Gaming Commission in the waiting room
In 2024, the Gaming Commission was given a direct line to Meta so that it could take action more quickly. However, practice has shown that the system is faltering. No figures are available on how many reports Meta follows up on, or how many advertisements are removed. Nor is anything known about the speed with which this happens.
The FPS Economy could soon oblige companies such as Meta to remove fraudulent advertisements within 24 hours. But that does not solve the core problem. Meta’s criteria for which advertisements are allowed remain unchanged. And as long as that door remains open, it will be a never-ending battle.
Advertisers shift when legislation is strict
What is even more troubling is that countries that take stricter action seem to be punished for it. If a gambling advertisement is banned in one country, it appears more often in neighbouring countries where the rules are more lenient. This is how Meta compensates for the loss of revenue. In internal communications obtained by Reuters, Meta staff admitted as much:
‘Without mandatory identity verification, we are moving the scam, not fighting it.’
Lobbying and silence
In Singapore and Taiwan, these mandatory checks are now law. There, fines of $180,000 per fraudulent advertisement were threatened. In other countries, Meta is doing everything it can to prevent such rules. In Belgium, the company works through “voluntary cooperation”, such as the direct reporting channel with the Gaming Commission. But without sanctions or transparency, this appears to be of little use.
Meanwhile, the flood of gambling advertisements on social media continues to reach young people. The ads disappear quickly, only to reappear under a different name. Pages use fake addresses and manage their accounts from Southeast Asia, beyond the reach of Belgian regulators. The damage is real, and protection is flimsy.