Poland’s Deputy Prime Minister Krzysztof Gawkowski, who also serves as the country’s minister of digital affairs, has formally asked the European Commission to impose a €250 million ($291 million) fine on Meta Platforms, accusing the company of failing to police fraudulent content and scam advertisements across Facebook and Instagram.

The request, set out in a letter dated August 26, 2026, alleges that Meta has violated multiple provisions of the Digital Services Act (DSA) and calls for a full investigation into the company’s content moderation practices.

CERT Polska findings at the center of the complaint

At the center of the complaint is a 2026 study by CERT Polska, the country’s national cybersecurity response team. The study tested 122 fraudulent advertisements that had been flagged to Meta; the company removed just 16 of them, leaving 86.8% of known scam content live on its platforms.

Years of escalating pressure

Gawkowski’s letter targets alleged violations across six articles of the DSA, the EU’s sweeping content moderation law that took full effect in 2024. The provisions in question relate to risk assessment obligations and content reporting requirements.

The Deputy Prime Minister described the advertising environment on Meta’s platforms as a “Wild West.”

Poland’s frustration with the company did not materialize overnight. The country has been escalating pressure on Meta for years, driven in part by a high-profile legal battle involving Polish billionaire Rafał Brzoska, founder of parcel-locker operator InPost. Since 2024, Brzoska has pursued litigation against Meta over fake advertisements that misused his likeness to promote scams.

A pivotal moment came in early 2026, when a Warsaw appellate court ruled that Meta operates as an active participant in its advertising ecosystem rather than a passive intermediary. That distinction carries significant weight under EU law: platforms that merely host third-party content enjoy broad liability protections, while active participants do not. The ruling effectively narrowed Meta’s legal shield in Poland.

Meta’s defense meets a skeptical audience

Meta has pushed back on the narrative that it ignores fraud on its platforms. The company reported that it proactively removed approximately 137,000 scam ads originating from Poland between July 2025 and June 2026.

Polish authorities, however, have pointed to the CERT Polska findings showing that nearly nine out of ten specifically flagged ads remained online.

The fine request targets what Gawkowski frames as a systemic failure rather than isolated incidents. Under the DSA, very large online platforms — defined as those with more than 45 million monthly active users in the EU — must conduct regular risk assessments of their services and take meaningful action to mitigate identified risks.

Stakes for Meta and Big Tech regulation in Europe

While substantial, the €250 million figure would represent a fraction of Meta’s annual revenue. Under the DSA, the European Commission can impose fines of up to 6% of a company’s global annual turnover for violations. For Meta, whose parent company reported over $160 billion in revenue in recent fiscal years, the maximum theoretical penalty would be vastly larger.

The Commission is no stranger to such cases. It opened formal DSA proceedings against Meta itself in April 2024, examining concerns that include deceptive advertising, and has launched parallel investigations into other very large platforms including X, TikTok and AliExpress.

Poland is effectively asking the Commission to validate a member state’s findings and open a formal DSA enforcement proceeding against the world’s largest social media company. The next move belongs to the Commission alone: under the DSA, enforcement against very large platforms rests exclusively with the EU executive, which retains discretion over whether member-state complaints justify formal action.

The Warsaw court’s classification of Meta as an active advertiser also introduces a legal question that extends beyond Poland’s borders, with potential implications for how platforms monetize advertising across EU jurisdictions.