Summary

  • The FTC’s 1 October advance notice asks whether platform ad-optimization conduct that furthers government or business impersonation scams warrants an amended rule, a new rule or another response.
  • The notice is a request for evidence, not a proposed final rule or a finding against a platform; comments are due 30 November 2026.

In its Federal Register notice, the Federal Trade Commission has opened a rulemaking inquiry into a question that sits between a scam advertiser and the service that distributes its message: when does a platform’s optimisation of an ad become conduct that furthers an impersonation scam? The 1 October notice is an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM). It asks whether a rulemaking should begin; it does not impose a new screening, removal or liability obligation.

The existing Impersonation Rule, in force since March 2024, prohibits impersonating governments, businesses and their officers or agents. The FTC says it does not expressly cover platform conduct. The new inquiry therefore turns toward tools that create or adjust ad content, select audiences and optimise delivery. The notice defines a digital marketplace platform as a public-facing website or app where third parties offer goods, services or opportunities through paid ads or other listings. It seeks evidence about advertising operations and incentives, how those systems intersect with impersonation scams, and whether the conduct is prevalent.

The FTC’s public-comment announcement and notice cite more than one million imposter reports and nearly US$3.5 billion in reported losses in 2025. It also says nearly 30% of consumers who reported losing money to scams said contact began on social media, with reported losses of US$2.1 billion. These are reported-loss figures, not a finding that platforms caused every loss or that each scam was amplified by an optimisation tool.

The agency is weighing several routes: amend the existing rule, adopt a new one, or use non-regulatory measures such as education or voluntary industry action. It asks about possible controls including pre-publication review, detection, consumer reporting, investigation, removal, ending optimisation for confirmed scam ads and advertiser discipline. Those are questions and examples, not requirements already in force; the notice also asks whether a compliance safe harbour could be appropriate.

Comments are due 30 November 2026. The pivotal evidence is likely to be a traceable connection among an impersonating ad, a particular optimisation practice and consumer harm. The FTC has framed that as an open question. A public record of reported losses can establish the scale of concern, but deciding where platform conduct begins requires operational and economic evidence.