A new FTC inquiry asks whether online platforms should do more to prevent fraudulent ads from reaching customers. For legitimate businesses, the issue is also one of trust.
A customer searches for a company, clicks what appears to be its ad, and lands on a convincing imitation of its website. The customer may lose money or disclose personal information. The real company may not learn what happened until the customer calls to complain.
The Federal Trade Commission is examining whether the online platforms that distribute such ads should have a greater role in stopping them.
On September 24, the FTC announced that it is seeking public comment on whether to update its rule on impersonation of government agencies and businesses—or take another approach—to address scam ads distributed through search engines, social media, and other digital platforms.
This is an inquiry, not a new rule. The FTC has not imposed new requirements on platforms through this announcement.
Why This Matters Beyond the Fraud Victim
The immediate loss falls on the person who responds to the fake ad. The impersonated business can also suffer.
Customers may blame it for an order that never arrived, a payment sent to a scammer, or a website that collected their information. Staff must then spend time explaining what happened, responding to complaints, and helping customers find the genuine business.
The problem is particularly difficult for a smaller company. It may depend on search or social media advertising to reach customers but has limited capacity to monitor every fake account, website, and sponsored result using its name.
The FTC says consumers reported losing nearly $3.5 billion to impersonation scams in 2025. That figure describes reported consumer losses from impersonation scams broadly; it is not an estimate of losses caused solely by fraudulent online ads.
What the FTC Is Asking
The agency wants information about how platforms’ advertising tools may help fraudulent ads reach people. Its inquiry asks how ads are targeted and optimized, how platforms screen advertisers, and what happens when a suspicious ad is reported.
The FTC is also asking whether it should consider measures such as stronger advertiser vetting, monitoring, investigation, and removal of confirmed impersonation ads.
Those are possibilities under consideration, not requirements that businesses or platforms must follow today. The agency could later propose changes to its existing impersonation rule, propose a separate rule, or pursue another response.
That distinction matters. A legitimate business should not assume this inquiry will immediately remove a fake ad using its name. Platforms also deserve scrutiny based on evidence about which safeguards work, how quickly they can be applied, and whether they interfere with legitimate advertisers.
What Businesses Can Do Now
Businesses that advertise online should check how their name appears in search results and on the platforms where customers find them. They should make their official website and contact channels easy to identify, set up a way for customers to report suspected impersonation, and keep records of fraudulent ads they find, including the ad, destination page, platform, and dates.
Those records may help when reporting an ad to a platform or describing the problem to regulators. They can also help a business warn customers clearly without suggesting that every unfamiliar ad is fraudulent.
The FTC’s comment process gives businesses that have dealt with impersonation a chance to describe the real cost: lost customers, diverted payments, staff time, and damage to trust. Comments are due 60 days after the advance notice is published in the Federal Register; the publication date, rather than the FTC’s September 24 announcement date, controls that deadline.
For US City Pulse readers, the question is practical: If a business can show that someone is paying to impersonate it, how quickly can the ad be stopped—and who is responsible for making that happen?