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.”
Fixed-income markets recorded significant re-pricing during the week ending July 25, 2026, as a convergence of strong labor market metrics and surging energy costs drove U.S. Treasury yields higher across all maturities. The benchmark 10-year Treasury yield climbed toward 4.70%, reaching its highest point in several months. Institutional bond investors rapidly adjusted portfolio durations as expectations for near-term interest rate cuts by the Federal Reserve faded in response to inflation concerns.
The upward shift in sovereign yields reflects a broader fundamental reassessment of global monetary policy. Earlier in the quarter, money markets had priced in a series of rate reductions designed to support economic activity. However, with initial jobless claims falling to 187,000 and crude oil breaching $100 per barrel, fixed-income traders are pricing in a ‘higher-for-longer’ interest rate environment. The inversion between short-term Treasury bills and long-term bonds narrowed, indicating a shift toward term premium expansion.
Rising Treasury yields present both challenges and opportunities for institutional wealth managers. While commercial lenders and mortgage origination volumes face headwinds from elevated borrowing costs, fixed-income investors are locking in attractive real yields on high-quality sovereign and investment-grade corporate bonds. Institutional debt issuers, conversely, are recalibrating their capital structures, opting for shorter-term refinancing instruments or private credit facilities to avoid committing to elevated long-term coupon rates.
Navigating the current bond market landscape demands strict duration management and credit selection. Wealth advisors recommend maintaining flexible fixed-income allocations, combining short-duration Treasuries with inflation-protected securities (TIPS) to shield capital against potential energy-driven inflation spikes while earning dependable nominal income.
Private credit markets reached a pivotal milestone during the week ending July 25, 2026, as non-bank direct lending consortiums captured a record share of middle-market corporate debt originations. With commercial banks maintaining conservative credit standards and public bond yields remaining elevated, corporate borrowers are increasingly turning to private fund managers for customized capital solutions. This expansion marks a permanent structural shift in enterprise finance, establishing private credit as a primary pillar of institutional corporate liquidity.
The acceleration of private credit deals is driven by speed, deal certainty, and flexible terms. Unlike traditional syndicated bank loans that require lengthy underwriting, credit rating approvals, and public roadshows, private direct lenders can structure tailored financing packages within days. Middle-market firms facing upcoming debt maturities are utilizing private debt facilities to execute recapitalizations, strategic acquisitions, and growth capital deployments without risking execution delay in public markets.
However, financial regulators and central bank supervisors are scrutinizing the sector’s rapid growth. Supervisory agencies are evaluating potential systemic risks associated with non-bank leverage, valuation transparency, and liquidity mismatches during economic downturns. Despite regulatory interest, major pension funds, insurance firms, and sovereign wealth entities continue to expand capital allocations to private credit funds, attracted by reliable floating-rate yields that outperform public fixed-income benchmarks.
As private credit matures into a dominant asset class, corporate chief financial officers must evaluate non-bank lenders alongside traditional banking relationships. Direct lending partnerships provide valuable balance sheet resilience, enabling companies to secure flexible financing terms even during periods of public market turbulence.
The landscape of institutional debt markets is undergoing a profound structural shift on July 21, 2026, as major corporate issuers and commercial banks rapidly accelerate the deployment of tokenized debt instruments. Data published by leading capital market consortiums indicates that primary issuances of digital commercial paper and tokenized corporate bonds have reached record volumes this month. By moving legacy debt origination, underwriting, and secondary distribution onto permissioned distributed ledgers, corporate treasurers are unlocking unprecedented operational flexibility and instantaneous cross-border liquidity.
The adoption of tokenized debt is fundamentally altering how enterprise balance sheets manage short-term liquidity needs. Traditional corporate bond settlement cycles historically required multi-day clearing processes involving numerous intermediaries, custodial entities, and clearinghouses. Through programmable smart contracts on distributed ledgers, issuers can now execute atomic settlement—enabling continuous, 24/7 access to institutional capital pools. This instantaneous clearing mechanism drastically reduces counterparty risk, eliminates costly settlement friction, and allows treasury teams to dynamically optimize working capital in real time.
A major catalyst driving this institutional migration is the establishment of comprehensive digital asset regulatory frameworks across major financial hubs. Clear legal guidelines regarding ledger-based securities ownership have provided institutional compliance officers with the regulatory confidence necessary to transition multi-billion-dollar liquidity facilities onto digital platforms. Furthermore, the integration of automated regulatory reporting directly into token smart contracts simplifies ongoing compliance audits, ensuring that secondary market trades automatically enforce investor accreditation limits and tax withholding requirements.
For chief financial officers and institutional portfolio managers, tokenized debt represents a fundamental evolution in fixed-income strategy. Companies that embrace ledger-based debt structures gain direct access to a broader, global base of digital-native institutional investors while substantially reducing borrowing overhead. As ledger interoperability continues to improve across global exchanges, tokenized debt is poised to become the standard infrastructure for global corporate finance.