Meta is facing calls from U.K. banks and payment firms like Revolut to financially compensate people who fall for scams on their services.
Jaap Arriens | Nurphoto via Getty Images
Tensions are escalating between banking and payment companies and social media firms in the U.K. over who should be liable for compensating people if they fall victim to fraud schemes online.
Starting from Oct. 7, banks will be required to start compensating victims of so-called authorized push payment (APP) fraud a maximum £85,000 if those individuals affected were tricked or psychologically manipulated into handing over the cash.
APP fraud is a form of a scam where criminals attempt to convince people to send them money by impersonating individuals or businesses selling a service.
The £85,000 reimbursement sum could prove costly for large banks and payment firms. However, it’s actually lower than the mandatory £415,000 reimbursement amount that the U.K.’s Payment Systems Regulator (PSR) had previously proposed.
The PSR backed down from its bid for the lofty maximum compensation payout following industry backlash, with industry group the Payments Association in particular saying it would be far too costly a sum tor the financial services sector to bear.
But now that the mandatory fraud compensation is being rolled out in the U.K., questions are being asked about whether financial firms are facing the brunt of the cost for helping fraud victims.
On Thursday, London-based digital bank Revolut accusedMeta of falling “woefully short of what’s required to tackle fraud globally.” The Facebook-owner announced a partnership earlier this week with U.K. lenders NatWest and Metro Bank, to share intelligence on fraud activity that takes place on its platforms.
Woody Malouf, Revolut’s head of financial crime, said that Meta and other social media platforms should help cover the cost of reimbursing victims of fraud and that, by sharing no responsibility in doing so, “they have no incentive to do anything about it.”
Revolut’s call for large tech platforms to financially compensate people who fall for scams on their websites and apps isn’t new.
Proposals to make tech firms liable
Tensions have been running high between banks and tech companies for some time. Online fraud has risen dramatically over the last several years due to an acceleration in the usage of digital platforms to pay others and buy products online.
In June, the Financial Times reported that the Labour Party had drafted proposals to force technology firms to reimburse victims of fraud that originates on their platforms. It is not clear whether the government still plans to require tech firms to pay compensation out to victims of APP fraud.
A government spokesperson was not immediately available for comment when contacted by CNBC.
Matt Akroyd, a commercial litigation lawyer at Stewarts, told CNBC that, after their victory on lowering the maximum reimbursement limit for APP fraud down to £85,000, banks “will receive another boost if their efforts to push the government to place some regulatory liability on tech companies is also successful.”
However, he added: “The question of what regulatory regime could cover those companies who do not play an active role in the PSR’s payment systems, and how, is complicated meaning that this issue is not likely to be resolved any time soon.”
More broadly, banks and regulators have long been pushing social media companies for more collaboration with retail banks in the U.K. to help combat the fast-growing and constantly evolving fraud threat. A key ask has been for the tech firms to share more detailed intelligence on how criminals are abusing their platforms.
At a U.K. finance industry event focusing on economic fraud in March 2023, regulators and law enforcement stressed the need for social media companies to do more.
“We hear anecdotally today from all of the firms that we talk to, that a large proportion of this fraud originates from social media platforms,” Kate Fitzgerald, head of policy at the PSR, told attendees of the event.
She added that “absolute transparency” was needed on where the fraud was occurring so that regulators could know where to focus their efforts in the value chain.
Social media firms not doing enough to combat and remove attempts to defraud internet users was another complaint from regulatory authorities at the event.
“The bit that’s missing is the at-scale social media companies taking down suspect accounts that are involved in fraud,” Rob Jones, director general of the National Economic Crime Centre, a unit of the U.K. National Crime Agency, said at the event.
Jones added that it was tough to “break the inertia” at tech companies to “really get them to get after it.”
Tech firms push ‘cross-industry collaboration’
Meta has pushed back on suggestions that it should be held liable for paying out compensation to victims of APP fraud.
In written evidence to a parliamentary committee last year, the social media giant said that banks in the U.K. are “too focused on their efforts to transfer liability for fraud to other industries,” adding that this “creates a hostile environment which plays into the hands of fraudsters.”
The company said that it can use live intelligence from big banks through its Fraud Intelligence Reciprocal Exchange (FIRE) initiative to help stop fraud and evolve and improve its machine learning and AI detection systems. Meta called on the government to “encourage more cross-industry collaboration like this.”
In a statement to CNBC Thursday, the tech giant stressed that banks, including Revolut, should look to join forces with Meta on its FIRE framework to facilitate data exchanges between the firm and large lenders.
FIRE “is designed to enable banks to share information so we can work together to protect people using our respective services,” a spokesperson for Meta said last week. “Fraud is a multi-sector spanning issue that can only be addressed by working collaboratively.”
Move over artificial intelligence. There’s a new hot topic on corporate earnings calls in 2025: tariffs. The word “tariffs” has come up on more than 350 earnings calls of S & P 500 -listed companies reporting first quarter results, according to a CNBC analysis of call transcripts compiled by AlphaSense. By contrast, the term “AI” has been mentioned on less than 200 calls in the same period. Mentions of tariffs have soared in recent weeks as President Donald Trump’s plan for steep levies announced last month has put both C-suites and Wall Street on high alert. That’s biting into time on calls with analysts and investors that corporate management formerly used to discuss AI, which has been a buzzword ever since the introduction of ChatGPT in late 2022. The import taxes have stirred anxiety in part because of fears that they might push up prices, dampen spending and drive the economy into a recession. More than 60% of CEOs in an April survey said that they expect some sort of economic slowdown in the next six months, and nearly three-fourths said tariffs would hurt their business. “We are entering unchartered territory as the trade tariffs start to have a more significant impact beginning in the second quarter,” said Christopher Clulow, head of investor relations at Cummins , during the Indiana engine maker’s call with analysts earlier this week. “The breadth and changing nature of the tariffs have introduced a great degree of uncertainty.” Rising ‘uncertainty’ Cummins was one of many companies that said tariffs were muddying the ability to make accurate forecasts for future performance. Many firms said they were simply leaving financial outlooks unchanged given the evolving nature of the levies. Others adjusted figures to reflect how current plans might affect business. That was due to the suspension of many of Trump’s reciprocal tariffs for three months, until early July, after the president unveiled his original tariff policy on April 2. For medical equipment maker Solventum , a spinoff from 3M in ealry 2024, the overhang of tariffs led management to keep its full-year earnings per share guidance unchanged. That was in spite of the company’s stronger business that executives said in other circumstances would have led them to boost their outlook. “To be clear, tariffs will be a headwind for us this year,” Solventum CEO Bryan Hanson said on the company’s earnings call Thursday. “Without them, we would be raising our EPS guidance commensurate with the underlying momentum we’re seeing in the business.” Part of the hesitation expressed by business centers on understanding how the tariffs will affect consumers’ view of the economy. The University of Michigan’s consumer sentiment index in April fell to one of the lowest levels ever recorded since it began in the early 1950s. Tariffs “have created significant uncertainty for small businesses, while concerns over escalating prices for imported goods have weighed on consumer confidence,” eBay CEO Jamie Iannone said during the online resale platform’s earnings call at the end of last month. Some executives directed their criticism at Trump’s policy while speaking with analysts. “We support the U.S. government’s goals to increase domestic investment,” Eli Lilly CEO David Ricks said last week. “However, we don’t believe tariffs are the right mechanism.” — CNBC’s Nick Wells contributed to this report.