Online Scams and Romance Fraud on Social Media – Know Your Rights

Social media platforms are a primary vector for online scams: from fake investment schemes and celebrity impersonation to romance fraud that can devastate victims financially and emotionally. Platforms are required to enforce their own fraud policies, but scam accounts frequently remain active long after being reported. Whether your content was wrongly removed as fraud or the platform refused to act on a scam you reported, the Digital Services Act (DSA) gives you a route to challenge the decision.

Since the Digital Services Act (DSA) came into force, users can challenge unfair moderation decisions through a certified out-of-court dispute settlement body. User Rights is the first such body certified under Article 21 DSA in Europe for social media platforms, certified by the German Federal Network Agency (Bundesnetzagentur). The procedure is free of charge for users. The platform bears the costs. You do not need to complete the platform's internal complaint procedure before turning to User Rights. All we require is proof that you submitted a report or filed an internal appeal through the platform's complaint mechanism. Cases are currently reviewed for Instagram, Facebook, TikTok, X, YouTube, LinkedIn, Snapchat, and Pinterest. Our assessments are based on platform policies and, where relevant, EU law as well as national law, including German and Italian law in applicable cases.

What Are Online Scams and Romance Fraud?

Online scams are deceptive schemes carried out through social media that aim to extract money, personal data or access credentials from victims. Romance fraud, also known as pig butchering in its most organised form, involves building a fabricated emotional or romantic relationship with a target over weeks or months before manipulating them into transferring money, typically to fake investment platforms.

What makes social media scams distinctive is the role the platform itself plays: the fraudster's account, the content they post and the links they share all exist on the platform's infrastructure. Platforms are therefore in a position to detect and remove scam operations, and their community standards prohibit this conduct. When they fail, users can challenge that inaction.

Example: A user reports an Instagram account using stolen photographs of a real person to pose as a military officer seeking a romantic relationship. The account has been messaging multiple users, building emotional connections before requesting money for an emergency. The report is dismissed with a notification that the account does not violate community standards. This is a textbook romance fraud operation and a clear failure to enforce Meta's Fraud, Scams and Deceptive Practices policy.

Common types of online scams addressed by platform policies

Romance fraud: fake personas building emotional relationships to extract money
Pig butchering: romance fraud combined with fake cryptocurrency investment schemes
Fake celebrity or brand giveaways requiring a fee or personal information
Investment fraud: fraudulent promises of high financial returns
Impersonation scams: fake accounts mimicking real individuals or companies
Phishing: links or messages designed to steal login credentials or payment data
Advance fee fraud: promises of large payments conditional on upfront fees
Fake job offers: collecting personal information or fees under the guise of recruitment

Romance fraud: what victims need to know

Romance fraud is one of the most harmful forms of online deception. Victims are targeted deliberately and manipulated over extended periods before money is requested. The emotional investment built during this process makes it difficult to recognise the fraud while it is happening, and can make victims reluctant to report it afterwards. If you have been targeted by romance fraud on a social media platform, you are not at fault. Reporting the account is an important step both for your own situation and to protect others who may be targeted by the same operation.

What is outside User Rights' scope of review

Not every scam-related incident is reviewable by User Rights. The following fall outside our scope:

Hacked or compromised accounts: If your own account was taken over as part of a phishing or social engineering attack, this is treated as a cybersecurity or platform security matter by Meta, TikTok and Pinterest, which is explicitly outside User Rights' scope of review. Contact the platform's account recovery service directly.

Bot-driven fake engagement: Scam operations often use automated accounts to amplify fraudulent content. Moderation actions taken against inauthentic behaviour or fake engagement (rather than against the content itself) are outside our scope. User Rights reviews decisions about specific content, not behaviour-based enforcement.

Direct messages: User Rights does not review the content of direct messages. If a scammer only contacted you via DMs without any public-facing account activity, the platform moderation of those messages is not reviewable. Report the account itself and any publicly accessible content it posted.

Note: User Rights does not review moderation actions that were taken more than six months ago.

A full overview of what is and is not within scope is available on the scope of review page.

Fraud and Scam Policies on Social Media Platforms

All platforms covered by User Rights are subject to the DSA, which requires them to give reasons for moderation decisions and to cooperate with certified dispute settlement bodies. Each platform explicitly prohibits fraud, deception and scam operations in its community standards.

Meta: Instagram and Facebook

Meta's Fraud and Deception policy prohibits content designed to defraud people of money or personal information, including fake investment schemes, fraudulent giveaways and impersonation for financial gain. Meta's Human Exploitation policy is separate and targets the trafficking side of large-scale operations: pig butchering scams are frequently run by trafficked individuals held in compounds, and content coordinating that exploitation falls under this policy rather than under Fraud and Deception.

TikTok

TikTok's Community Guidelines on Frauds and Scams prohibit content that deceives people for financial gain, including fake investment opportunities, fraudulent giveaways and phishing schemes. Please note that TikTok's Deceptive Behaviours and Fake Engagement policy is only partly within User Rights' scope. We can review decisions about the content itself, but not enforcement based solely on inauthentic account behaviour, for example an account removed for automated posting or bulk account creation rather than for what it published. TikTok's Human Trafficking and Smuggling policy, also within User Rights' scope, addresses the operators rather than the fraud, as large-scale scam operations are frequently staffed by trafficked individuals. Content coordinating that exploitation falls under this policy rather than under Frauds and Scams.

YouTube

YouTube addresses scam and deceptive content under its Spam policy, which covers content intended to scam, mislead or defraud other users. Forms of scams which are covered include get-rich-quick investment schemes, fake job offers and fake customer support contacts used to obtain bank details, passwords or government IDs. Two adjacent policies often apply alongside: the impersonation policy, where the account poses as someone else, and the external links policy, since scam videos typically drive users off YouTube to the site where the loss occurs. Note that romance fraud is not named in the policy. A report will usually need to be framed around the deceptive scheme or the impersonation rather than the relationship itself.

X

X prohibits scam and fraudulent content under Authenticity policy. It prohibits deceiving others into sending money or personal financial information through scam tactics, phishing or other fraudulent methods, and the first named example is relationship and trust-building scams: deceiving someone into sending money by operating a fake account or posing as a public figure or organisation. Note: account-level enforcement targeting coordinated inauthentic behaviour rather than specific published content is only partially within User Rights' scope. When reporting a scam account on X, documenting the individual posts, such as fake investment pitches, fraudulent giveaway posts, impersonation content, gives User Rights the most to work with.

LinkedIn's Professional Community Policies prohibit scams, fraud and deceptive practices, including fake job offers, fraudulent investment pitches and impersonation of professionals or companies. LinkedIn's professional context makes it an active ground for recruitment scams, credential fraud and business impersonation. All these examples are covered by the platform's policies and fully reviewable by User Rights.

Snapchat

Snapchat prohibits scams and deceptive practices under the Harmful, False or Deceptive Practices section of its Community Guidelines, which covers fraudulent and spammy behaviour including impersonation of individuals, brands and organisations. This policy is fully within User Rights' scope: both a failure to act on reported scam content and a wrongful removal of legitimate material are reviewable.

Pinterest's Community Guidelines prohibit content promoting fraudulent schemes, misleading financial opportunities and deceptive practices. Scam content on Pinterest typically takes the form of pins linking to fraudulent investment platforms, fake giveaways or phishing websites, so the harmful element usually sits on a different website than in the content on the platform. Enforcement can extend to whole boards and accounts, and Pinterest may limit distribution of content. All these measures are reviewable by User Rights.

What Can You Do if You Are Affected?

There are two situations in which User Rights can help: you reported a scam account or fraudulent content and the platform did not act consistently with its own policy, or your own legitimate content was wrongly removed or restricted as fraudulent.

Scenario A: You reported a scam and the platform did not act

Document the evidence: Screenshot the account profile, the specific content or messages that constitute the scam, and any communications you received. Note the profile name, URL and date. For romance fraud, document the progression of contact if possible, as this will help demonstrate the pattern. Please note: User Rights can only review public-facing content. For this reason, we suggest taking screenshot of any content that supports ongoing fraudulent activity, for example, fake images used to build up a persona, story posts soliciting payment, and fake personal details.
Report to the platform: Use the in-built reporting function and select the most specific fraud category available. For romance fraud, report both the account and any specific posts or publicly visible content that is part of the scam. Keep a record of your report and any reference number provided.
(Optional) Appeal if dismissed: If the platform dismisses your report, use the appeal mechanism via the help centre or the dismissal notification. Keep a record of the response. Please note: After a waiting period of seven days expired, you do not have to wait for a response. You can submit a case with User Rights using only the proof of submission with the platform's internal complaint mechanism.
Submit to User Rights: If the platform's inaction was inconsistent with its own fraud or deception policy, submit a complaint. User Rights will assess whether the platform applied its policy correctly.
Report to other authorities in parallel: For financial fraud, contact your bank, payment provider or national consumer protection authority as soon as possible. Platform moderation and the User Rights procedure complement but do not replace these remedies. User Rights is not able to support in the recovery of any financial losses incurred.

Scenario B: Your legitimate content was removed or restricted as fraud

Check the reason: Under Art. 17 DSA platforms must give a specific reason for every moderation action. Identify whether your content was removed under a fraud, deception or spam category and whether the reason actually applies to what you posted.
Appeal internally: Use the platform's appeal mechanism. Provide context that demonstrates the legitimate nature of your content, such as your professional credentials, regulatory authorisation or the factual basis for any financial information you shared. You do not have to wait for a response by the platform after seven days from the date of your internal complaint. Please always provide evidence of your internal complaint case when you submit a case with User Rights.
Submit to User Rights: If the internal appeal was unsuccessful or unanswered, submit your case. User Rights will assess whether the removal was consistent with the platform's own policy.

Did a platform fail to act on a scam or romance fraud you reported – or was your legitimate content wrongly removed?

Submit your case to User Rights. Our certified dispute settlement procedure is free of charge for users.

SUBMIT A CASE

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

No. User Rights reviews platform moderation decisions, i.e. whether a platform correctly applied its own fraud policy. We do not handle financial disputes, compensation claims or proceedings against the scammer. For financial recovery, contact your bank, payment provider or national consumer protection authority as soon as possible.

Impersonation for fraudulent purposes is covered under the fraud and deception policies of all platforms reviewed by User Rights. See also our article on Fake Profiles and Impersonation, which covers the broader range of impersonation cases beyond those involving financial fraud.

Account takeovers are treated as cybersecurity or platform security incidents by all platforms covered by User Rights, and fall outside User Rights' scope of review. Contact the platform's account recovery service directly and as soon as possible. If the hacker used your account to post fraudulent content and the platform has not removed that content despite your report, the moderation of that specific content may be separately reviewable.

User Rights does not review the content of direct messages. However, if the scammer also maintained a public profile or posted public content as part of the scam, the moderation of those public elements is reviewable. Where the account exists only to send private messages and its public side is empty or unremarkable, we will be unable to review the case. When reporting to the platform, report the account itself alongside any publicly accessible content that was part of the scam, for example fake photographs, postings building the persona, and fake professional details. Screenshot each of them before the account disappears.

No. User Rights accepts cases from users across the EU regardless of country of residence. The DSA applies uniformly across the EU and grants equal rights to all users on covered platforms.

The procedure is free of charge for users. The platform bears the costs of the dispute settlement process.

No. When you report content you believe breaches a platform's rules, we assess it against all of the platform's policies, not only the one you cited. If several apply, the decision will name each of them. If only one applies, the decision names that one. You do not need to identify the correct policy for your case to be reviewed properly.

The decisions of User Rights are formally non-binding. However, platforms are required under the DSA to cooperate with certified dispute settlement bodies in good faith and to implement decisions in practice. Non-compliance can be escalated to the competent Digital Services Coordinator.