Appeals Centre Europe Report Points to Gaps in Social Media Scam Moderation

Scam content on social media is not only a problem of detection. It is also becoming a problem of enforcement and accountability. When users, organisations and trusted groups report potentially harmful content, platform decisions can determine whether scam-related material remains visible, spreads further or is removed before more people are exposed.

Appeals Centre Europe’s second Transparency Report offers an early view of how scam-related disputes are developing under the EU’s Digital Services Act. Covering the period from April 2025 to March 2026, the report examines disputes submitted by people and organisations challenging decisions by major social media platforms, including Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, YouTube, Threads and Pinterest.

The findings point to a wider issue for scam prevention. As scams increasingly rely on social media visibility, impersonation, misleading offers and fraudulent financial claims, the ability to challenge platform decisions becomes an important part of the response.

Independent Review Is Becoming More Important

Appeals Centre Europe is an independent out-of-court dispute settlement body certified under Article 21 of the Digital Services Act. It allows people and organisations in the EU to challenge certain decisions made by social media platforms, including decisions to remove content, suspend accounts or leave potentially violating content online.

Between April 2025 and March 2026, the Appeals Centre received more than 24,000 disputes from people and organisations across the EU, of which 12,400 were eligible for review. By the end of March 2026, it had made more than 10,200 decisions on those eligible disputes.

Where the Appeals Centre was able to review the content in question, it disagreed with the platform’s decision 59% of the time. This included cases where platforms removed content and where platforms left potentially harmful content online.

For the anti-scam ecosystem, this matters because scam content often depends on speed and reach. A misleading investment offer, fake loan advertisement or giveaway deception may only need a short window of visibility to attract victims. If harmful content is left online after being reported, independent review can help identify where moderation decisions are missing clear risks.

Looking to contribute to collaborative anti-scam initiatives? GASA Working Groups bring members together to develop practical, real-world solutions.

Scam-Related Disputes Are Emerging as a Key Policy Area

Despite the Appeals Centre only expanding to take fraud and scam cases in December 2025, it was among the top policy areas challenged during the reporting period.

Since it began making decisions on fraud and scam cases in early 2026, between then and the end of March, the Appeals Centre had issued 45 decisions about potential scam content that platforms had left up. It overturned the platform’s decision in 36 of those cases, equal to 80%.

This was the highest overturn rate of any policy area for content left up by platforms, although the report notes that the sample size is still small. The Appeals Centre says it will continue tracking whether this high overturn rate remains as more cases are reviewed.

The early finding suggests that scam-related content may be especially difficult for platforms to assess consistently. Fraudulent content can appear as a legitimate offer, financial opportunity, support service, giveaway or advertisement. It may avoid obvious malicious signals while still creating a pathway to financial harm.

Hear from Appeals Centre Europe

The Appeals Centre’s findings on fraud and scams are helping to hold platforms to account. We disagreed with social media platforms’ decisions to leave up potential scam content 80% of the time, and fraudulent material often remains accessible even after users report it. The Appeals Centre’s decisions show that more needs to be done to protect users from online scams.

Thomas Hughes

CEO, Appeals Centre Europe

Scam Content Is Part of a Wider Moderation Challenge

The report also shows that the issue is not limited to scams. In cases where platforms left potentially harmful content online, Appeals Centre Europe overturned the decision nearly two-thirds of the time after reviewing the content. This was the highest overturn rate across platform policy areas.

For fraud and scams, the report identifies examples including misleading crypto, loan and investment offers, “solve your financial problems” content and giveaway deceptions. These are familiar entry points for online fraud, particularly when they are promoted through social platforms, comments, groups or paid content.

The figures also sit alongside wider concerns about platform responses to harmful material. Appeals Centre Europe found that platforms did not always provide the content needed for review, leading to a large number of default decisions. In account suspension disputes especially, platforms often failed to provide the relevant content, limiting the ability to complete a substantive review.

For scam prevention, this creates two linked challenges. The first is whether platforms can identify and remove scam-related content consistently. The second is whether external review bodies, users and trusted organisations can access enough information to understand and challenge those decisions.

Trusted Organisations Could Help Build a Clearer Picture

One of the most relevant parts of the report for the anti-scam community is its discussion of financial institutions, consumer bodies and anti-scam organisations. Appeals Centre Europe notes that these groups are beginning to use dispute mechanisms to challenge potentially scam-related content.

This could become an important source of evidence. Individual disputes can help address specific pieces of content, but repeated disputes may also reveal patterns: recurring scam formats, platform-specific weaknesses, enforcement gaps or types of content that are repeatedly left online despite violating platform policies.

For example, if consumer bodies or financial institutions repeatedly challenge misleading investment offers, fake loan promotions or fraudulent recovery claims, the resulting decisions could help show where scam risks are being missed. Over time, this could support more consistent reporting, better policy enforcement and clearer escalation routes for trusted organisations.

This is especially important because social media scams rarely stay within one platform. A scam may begin with an advertisement or post, move into direct messaging, lead to an external website and end in a bank transfer, crypto payment or identity theft. Platform moderation data alone may not show the full harm chain, but dispute outcomes can help identify where the first visible signals appeared.

AI-Manipulated Content Adds Another Risk Layer

The report also includes a case involving AI-manipulated content related to the Russia-Ukraine war. A non-profit organisation submitted a dispute about a video on TikTok that used a manipulated newsreader clip, with an artificial voiceover and synchronised editing to mislead viewers on a matter of public importance. Appeals Centre Europe found that the video violated TikTok’s policy on AI-generated content and overturned the platform’s decision to leave it online.

While this case concerned misinformation rather than a financial scam, it reflects a broader risk relevant to scam prevention. AI-generated or manipulated content can make deception more convincing, especially when scammers imitate trusted people, institutions, news formats or public authorities.

As scam operations adopt synthetic media, voice cloning, AI-generated reviews, fake endorsements and manipulated video, moderation systems will need to assess not only whether content looks suspicious, but whether it is being used to create false trust.

What This Means for Scam Prevention

The Appeals Centre Europe report shows that independent dispute review can provide useful signals about where platform moderation may be failing to address harmful content. For scam-related cases, the early data is still limited, but the 80% overturn rate for potential scam content left up by platforms is a warning sign.

It suggests that scam content may remain online even after being reported, and that users, consumer bodies, anti-scam organisations and financial institutions may need stronger routes to challenge those decisions.

For platforms, this points to the need for clearer scam policies, stronger review processes and better cooperation with independent dispute bodies. For regulators and policymakers, it shows how dispute data can help identify recurring risks and moderation gaps. For the anti-scam ecosystem, it creates another source of evidence on how scam content appears, spreads and survives online.

As scams continue to move across platforms, payment systems and communication channels, content moderation cannot be treated as a separate digital safety issue. It is part of the wider scam prevention chain.

Appeals Centre Europe is also expanding its scope. To support work on scam prevention, it will begin accepting disputes about fake reviews on Google Maps in early August 2026. The organisation also plans to publish its third transparency report in November, with a focus on scams and fraud.

Sign up for the GASA newsletter to receive regular updates on scam prevention, research, and best practices.