Meta Urges Court to Reject Bank Leumi’s Demand for Ad Pre-Approval
Meta has asked the Tel Aviv District Court to reject Bank Leumi's demand for pre-approval of ads, warning of internet censorship, while the bank seeks 26 million NIS over financial scam campaigns.
The legal battle between Meta and Bank Leumi has escalated significantly, offering a rare glimpse into the content moderation mechanisms of the tech giant. Meta has petitioned the Tel Aviv District Court to summarily dismiss the bank's demand to compel the platform to pre-approve any advertisement featuring its name or trademarks. In its formal response, Meta warned against setting a dangerous precedent that would grant a private financial corporation unprecedented veto power and censorship over the internet, arguing that the bank's own cybersecurity experts acknowledge that automated systems cannot entirely block sophisticated attacks.
Back in August, Bank Leumi filed an extraordinary lawsuit worth 26 million NIS against Meta, alleging that the platform enables the widespread distribution of fraudulent sponsored campaigns that fleece the public while generating lucrative ad revenues and turning a blind eye to the resulting damages.
Meta's policies surrounding financial scams have faced intense scrutiny following a series of disclosures published by Reuters. According to internal documents leaked last year, Meta generated approximately $16 billion in 2024—about 10% of its total revenue—from scam advertisements. The leaks revealed that roughly 15 billion sponsored scam ads and 22 billion organic scam attempts are displayed globally each day. Reuters also reported that the company drafted guidelines designed to fend off regulation and create a false impression of enforcement, under which employees manually deleted suspicious ads based on researchers' search keywords to evade comprehensive advertiser identity verification requirements, allegations that Meta has strongly denied.
Meta Defends Its Position
Meta raises several legal and operational arguments in its defense. First, it contends that the preliminary injunction sought by the bank would grant the ultimate remedy of the lawsuit before factual and legal questions are adjudicated in the primary proceedings. Regarding damages, Meta emphasizes that the bank specified an exact monetary figure for its alleged losses, arguing that financial damages do not constitute irreparable harm that would justify provisional relief.
Meta asserts that it acted appropriately by removing reported ads immediately, including those specified in the bank's motion, which were taken down the very day the application was served. The company stresses that merely receiving payment for publishing advertisements or hosting them on the platform does not constitute an endorsement, adoption, or legal complicity in wrongful acts under the law.
Practical Impossibility and Censorship Risks
Another core argument raised by Meta concerns practical feasibility. The company processes hundreds of millions of ads monthly for over 10 million active advertisers. Implementing a manual pre-screening and approval mechanism involving an external private entity is technologically and operationally unviable, it argues, and would completely disrupt its automated advertising ecosystem. Meta notes that even Leumi's cybersecurity personnel admitted in past correspondence regarding the complexity of the threat landscape that attackers continuously employ sophisticated methods to bypass detection systems.
Furthermore, Meta argues that the bank's demand to pre-approve any commercial mention grants a private entity unchecked censorship power over third-party speech. Such a mechanism could inadvertently block consumer advocacy reports, financial journalism, comparative product reviews, public scam warnings, or legitimate criticism of the bank, ultimately triggering over-censorship by the platform out of legal fear.
To substantiate its operational framework, Meta submitted an affidavit detailing its anti-fraud enforcement tools. The defense filing explains that detection systems incorporate AI-based automated classifiers designed to identify and block fraudulent ads before publication, alongside real-time mechanisms reacting to emerging fraud patterns. The company also disclosed that starting in late June 2025, it instituted a mandatory procedure requiring all advertisers targeting Israeli audiences with financial and investment services to undergo rigorous identity verification prior to ad approval.
Scale of Global Enforcement
To illustrate the magnitude of its prevention efforts, Meta highlighted that during the third quarter of 2025, it removed 692 million fake accounts globally, with 99.9% detected and neutralized proactively before any user reports were filed. However, the company did not disclose parallel data specific to its operations inside Israel.
Unresolved Legal Questions
The central questions facing the court include defining the boundary where a passive content intermediary transforms into a platform profiting from fraudulent sponsored campaigns; determining whether mandatory pre-filtering constitutes a disproportionate infringement on freedom of speech or a basic duty of care owed by tech giants to the public; and establishing whether Israeli jurisprudence remains adequately equipped for an era where financial fraud is orchestrated through artificial intelligence and hyper-targeted advertising systems.
Meta's court exhibits expose notable discrepancies: while the company maintains it applies uniform global policies, the submitted documents reveal strict regional restrictions on financial ads in the United States that do not apply in Israel. This raises pressing questions regarding differential safety standards and whether local regulatory pressures dictate actual enforcement levels. Moreover, while Meta reported removing hundreds of millions of accounts globally, it simultaneously claims that pre-screening is impractical. If the technology exists to verify advertiser identity before publication, the question remains why scam ads continue to evade detection.
Ultimately, the core issue extends beyond post-publication removals, centering on the baseline preventive protection standards platforms choose to provide consumers in Israel from the outset.
