On 27 August 2026, Poland’s deputy prime minister and digital affairs minister Krzysztof Gawkowski formally requested the European Commission to impose a fine of €250 million (roughly US$291.3 million) on Meta over its failure to effectively tackle fraudulent advertising across Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp.
The request rests on testing conducted by CERT Polska, Poland’s national cybersecurity incident response team. Of 122 advertisements flagged as fraudulent, Meta declined to remove the advertisements in 106 cases (86.8 percent), removed only 10, and provided no response at all in 6 cases.
The request was preceded by a formal inquiry: on 18 August 2026 Poland sent Meta nine written questions covering the scale of scam advertising in the country, how the company detects deepfakes, how it verifies advertisers, and how long it takes to review reports of such advertising, giving the company seven days to respond. Deputy Minister Dariusz Standerski had already indicated that an unsatisfactory answer would trigger a letter to the Commission requesting formal proceedings under the DSA. The European Commission has confirmed receipt of Poland’s submission, stating that the evidence provided will be taken into account within its ongoing investigation into Meta.
The procedural framing matters for a proper legal reading of this development. As industry commentary notes, Poland cannot itself fine Meta or set the amount of any penalty, because enforcement against very large online platforms (VLOPs) falls within the exclusive competence of the European Commission. The €250 million figure is therefore a recommended sanction, not an imposed fine. The Commission is not subject to a specific deadline to respond to such a submission.
Facebook and Instagram are designated VLOPs under the Digital Services Act (DSA), which requires Meta to conduct regular systemic risk assessments and adopt proportionate mitigation measures, including with respect to fraudulent and misleading content. The maximum fine under the DSA is 6 percent of a company’s global annual turnover, which for Meta would run into several billion euros. By comparison, the Commission previously fined X €120 million for breaching its transparency obligations. Against that benchmark, Poland’s requested amount appears calibrated to be plausible rather than maximally punitive.
Poland’s political demand is anchored in a specific court decision. On 27 March 2026 the Warsaw Court of Appeal, ruling on an application for interim injunctive relief brought by entrepreneur Rafał Brzoska (founder of InPost) and television presenter Omenaa Mensah, partially granted the application for interim measures in respect of Mensah and set aside the interim measures in respect of Brzoska, finding that part of the request had been framed too broadly.
The court’s reasoning is the significant part. Meta, the court found, receives remuneration for advertising placement and provides advertisers with support tools, including algorithms, which makes it an active participant in the advertising process rather than a passive intermediary. On that basis the court rejected Meta’s argument that it could rely on the hosting-provider liability exemption under Articles 6 and 7 of the DSA. At the same time, the court stressed that interim proceedings are not the appropriate vehicle for imposing broad, systemic preventive obligations requiring complex technical and organisational measures, meaning the ruling should be read as a narrow, fact-specific finding rather than a general declaration that Meta must pre-moderate all advertising.
Even so, the underlying qualification of Meta as an active participant in advertising carries implications beyond this single case. It is potentially applicable to any platform that monetises advertising through its own algorithmic targeting tools, not only Meta.
Poland’s request adds to an already pending Commission proceeding against Meta. In July 2026 the Commission preliminarily found Meta in breach of the DSA over the addictive design of Instagram and Facebook, citing infinite scroll, autoplay, push notifications and personalised recommendation algorithms. Executive Vice President for Tech Sovereignty, Security and Democracy Henna Virkkunen stated that protecting the physical and mental health of Europeans must be a priority for social media platforms. If confirmed, that breach could expose Meta to a fine exceeding €11 billion.
The timing overlaps with a separate development. One day before Poland’s request became public, Meta agreed to pay US$18 billion under a settlement with US state attorneys general resolving claims that the company designed its platforms to be addictive to minors. The contrast illustrates a structural divergence in enforcement models. In the United States, the principal mechanism remains civil litigation grounded in consumer protection and tort law. In the European Union, enforcement operates through the DSA’s model of preventive regulation, built on proactive systemic risk obligations and administrative fines issued by a single supranational regulator. For international platforms this means running two materially different compliance frameworks in parallel, since findings made in one proceeding are routinely relied upon as evidentiary support in the other.
The case establishes several practical reference points.
First, complaint response statistics now function as direct evidence in regulatory and judicial proceedings. The 86.8 percent rejection rate formed a key part of the evidence of a formal request to the European Commission, underscoring the need to document response times and outcomes for reports of fraudulent content.
Second, a judicial finding that a platform is an active participant in the advertising process rather than a passive host broadens the grounds for claims seeking compensation for losses caused by fraudulent advertising placed through that platform’s own advertising tools. This reasoning is not limited to Meta and is potentially relevant to disputes concerning advertising and moderation decisions taken by Google Play, the App Store and other major platforms.
The Arbitration & IT Disputes practice at REVERA Law Group is ready to help assess contractual and regulatory risks arising from the use of advertising platforms, review advertising campaigns for DSA compliance, and advise on disputes with Meta, Google Play, the App Store and other major online platforms.
