Consumer8/18/2026

Bank Leumi Demanded NIS 26 Million From Meta Over Fraudulent Advertisements

Bank Leumi filed a lawsuit against Meta, alleging that paid fraudulent advertisements bearing the bank’s name, trademarks, and elements of its visual identity were published on Meta’s platforms. No judgment has yet been issued, and the case number, court, and filing date are not specified in the source.

Key facts

•Amount demanded: NIS 26 million
•Detected in July 2026: 243 advertisements
•Damage prevented: NIS 9.2 million
•Case number and court: Not specified
•Decision in the lawsuit: Not yet issued

What Meta Is Accused Of

According to Leumi, the advertisements falsely appeared to have been issued by the bank and promised benefits, payments, quick income, or investment opportunities. Their purpose, the bank alleges, was to obtain personal, banking, and identifying information in order to access accounts, conduct unauthorized transactions, and withdraw funds. The bank also claims that Meta generated revenue from publishing these advertisements while knowing their nature or turning a blind eye to it.

Why the Bank Is Seeking Intervention

Leumi claims that Meta possesses information and technical means that make it possible to identify a significant portion of the suspicious advertisements before they are published. According to the bank, the signs of fraud are clear in many cases, but Meta limited itself to partial, isolated, and belated measures. The specific statutory provisions on which the lawsuit is based are not specified in the source.

The Scale of the Alleged Problem

The bank states that the impetus for filing the lawsuit was a sharp deterioration in the situation in July 2026. According to Leumi’s data, 243 fraudulent advertisements were detected during that month—more than 100 cases beyond the number detected throughout the first half of 2026. The bank also claims that it prevented damage totaling NIS 9.2 million.

Meta’s Position and the Status of the Proceedings

Meta did not provide the media with a response specifically addressing Leumi’s lawsuit. The company has previously stated that malicious actors are refining their methods of circumventing detection systems, and that Meta itself is developing new protective tools and removing advertisements brought to its attention that violate the prohibition on impersonating public figures. The outcome of the proceedings in the lawsuit is not specified in the source.

What this means for you

The lawsuit raises the question of a digital platform’s responsibility for paid advertising that impersonates messages from a bank and is used to steal information. For ordinary users, it underscores that branded design and paid promotion do not prove an advertisement’s authenticity; the outcome of the proceedings has not yet established any new binding rules.

Find a lawyer for this topic

Case analysis based on court rulings