It’s Time To Talk About META
07 September 2026
Really? Do we have to? Can’t we find something else to do? There’s hair to be washed, dogs to be walked, drying paint to be monitored. Anything rather than spend any time at all discussing a nerd and his algorithms.
But our friends at what rather wonderfully used to be 1 Hacker Drive (now 1 Meta Way) are again making headlines. They have been fined US$18 billion, an amount I rather naively thought was a lot. It isn’t, as we shall see. META’s share price promptly went up.
The Facebook (as it used to be known) had started so promisingly, assuming we can get past the rather creepy idea of frat boys ranking girls. The notion of connecting people through common interests as opposed to geography, is a strong and enduring one.
Like everyone else I thought it a grand idea. I wrote any number of what I see from a distance are cringingly embarrassing posts containing my thoughts on plays I had seen, sports events in which I had an interest, and news of my children and grandchildren.
I no longer post except to thank everyone for any kind birthday wishes they may choose to send me. I sense I am not alone. I’m sure META doesn’t miss me.
Those of us who spend far too much of our time monitoring these things noticed something was awry 9 years ago. ‘The Guardian’ journalist Carole Cadwalladr unearthed the Cambridge Analytica scandal in 2017 / 2018, the first time many became aware that using personal data without permission could have serious and unforeseen consequences.
Things didn’t improve – Sarah Wynne Williams’ peerless book, ‘Careless People’ diarises the various trip-ups along a journey leading from ‘good guys connect people and improve society’ to ‘nerds use data to harm children’.
From our industry’s perspective there is a dichotomy. META is around 97% funded by advertising. META doesn’t give a fig for what advertisers think.
In 2020, concerned with the way the business was going, a number of big name brands boycotted Facebook. It had zero effect. Every so often someone (notably P&G) pops up to say they will only advertise on channels with independently verified measurement systems, regulated content, control over ad placement and so on.
Facebook shrugs, they know that at any given moment META has about 10 million advertisers. No-one advertiser or group of advertisers can possibly pressure them into doing anything they don’t want to do.
If advertisers can’t do anything, the public can. META has been up in court in the US, in a case which could in theory have had serious implications for their operations. Fines in the trillions of $ were being discussed (META turnover is about US$200 billion, their market cap is about US$1.4 trillion).
META settled for a measly ‘up to’ US$18 billion. To remind us all:
- According to Reuters META makes about US$18 billion from fraudulent ads (META disputes this, suggesting the real figure is about US$5 – US$7 billion. So that’s alright then).
- The changes META has committed to making are only in the US.
- They only get to pay the full amount if their competitors make changes to their products too. META becoming a regulator of others’ actions is a weird idea, even in an age of weird ideas.
- They have 10 years to pay.
Whilst a great deal of money to those bringing META to court, this is small change to META. I guess the question is: is this about helping those affected, or forcing change at META?
If you’re a complainant, you would surely settle for such a sum. If you were META, knowing how long this could take, how much worse your CEO testifying could make it, and how damaging a huge fine could be, you would settle too.
Whatever the implications of this trial (there will no doubt be other trials), META has lost the town hall. They’re seen as the bad guys. Even those who like their products abhor their corporate behaviour. This stuff trickles down. It may take a while but trickle down it does.
META and Zuckerberg may not care what advertisers think of their behaviour, but that doesn’t stop them lecturing the advertising business on how it should conduct itself.
A summary would go: give us the budget, we’ll do the ads, test the ads, improve the ads, write the plan, place the buys, measure the effect. We’ll do it all and save you a fortune in fees.
Watching META handle their own corporate communications, launch their own products (‘Pervert Glasses’ didn’t take long to catch on, did it?), and manage their own PR suggests they’re the last people to entrust with your money.
Meantime there’s a ‘last days of the Roman Empire’ vibe about all this. As Jonathan Freedland writing in The Guardian said considering the US$18billion settlement: “META has swerved judgement day. But that day must come.”