Igaming ads continue to target Indonesian Meta users despite ban

Dig Deeper

Related stories

2025/07/22: Indian authorities issue new summons to Google and Meta over illegal igaming 2025/09/17: Philippine lawmakers demand explanation after Meta failed to attend Senate gambling hearing 2025/10/02: Apple, Google, Meta face lawsuits over casino-style apps 2025/05/05: Indonesian authorities suspend over 5,000 bank accounts linked to online gambling

The Backstory

How a regional crackdown meets a borderless ad machine

Indonesia’s latest revelations about gambling ads masked as innocuous content on Meta’s platforms sit at the intersection of two hard truths: law enforcement is escalating pressure, and digital advertising systems remain easy to game at scale. Officials in Jakarta have spent years issuing takedown orders and arrests, yet paid promotions continue to appear as wellness tips, gaming chatter or clickbait that redirects users to betting hubs. The pattern echoes a global dynamic in which platform detection tools, ad review queues and reseller networks struggle to match the pace of agile promoters who quickly rebrand, reroute traffic and test fresh creative after each purge.

The evasion tactics alleged in Indonesia mirror user behavior elsewhere. A University of Mississippi study found that students routinely bypass geofenced prohibitions via virtual private networks and other workarounds, reporting online wagers with “legal” brands despite mobile betting being off-limits statewide. That research underscores how easily technical and jurisdictional lines blur for consumers who are motivated to bet or are simply nudged there by ubiquitous promos seen on social feeds. The survey’s findings—elevated problem gambling risks among young men and widespread use of intermediaries or offshore sites—point to a policy challenge that extends far beyond one country’s enforcement drive. The study is detailed in Mississippi students bet online despite ban.

For Indonesia, the core tension is familiar: a booming, largely underground betting economy collides with a sweeping ban and a family of global platforms whose ad tools remain open to manipulation. That tension is also playing out across the region and beyond, where lawmakers are weighing whether tougher restrictions curb harm—or simply push activity further into the shadows and out of tax reach.

Platforms in the crosshairs from New Delhi to Manila

Authorities in India are expanding a probe into illegal betting networks that use tech and media channels to draw users. After top executives did not appear as scheduled, the Enforcement Directorate resummoned Google and Meta for statements under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. Investigators say promoters repeatedly relaunch under new identities, with celebrities and influencers amplifying reach even after warnings from the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. The widening scrutiny signals a shift from ad-by-ad moderation to potential liability questions for distribution pipes and those who profit from them. See Indian authorities issue new summons to Google and Meta over illegal igaming.

In the Philippines, lawmakers are pressing platform accountability from a different angle: attendance and transparency. A Senate panel moved to issue a show cause order to Meta after the company declined to appear at a hearing focused on the spread of online gambling promotions. Senators said they intended to ask why ads persist despite efforts by payments firms to disconnect gambling sites. The escalation hints at potential subpoenas and highlights gaps between platform policies and local enforcement priorities. The committee’s stance is outlined in Philippine lawmakers demand explanation after Meta failed to attend Senate gambling hearing.

Taken together, New Delhi’s probe and Manila’s pressure campaign show governments testing new levers—legal compulsion, reputational risk and the threat of penalties—to force faster responses from Big Tech. The common thread is an attempt to close the latency between policy intent and platform action.

Revenue realities complicate hard bans

Even as regulators target illegal ads, finance officials warn that blanket prohibitions carry fiscal costs. In Manila, the Bureau of Internal Revenue said a potential online gambling ban would undermine the government’s PHP3.2 trillion revenue target for 2025, given the sector’s growing tax contribution. The BIR’s chief said lawmakers ultimately decide policy, but he urged them to weigh the hit to collections and the difficulty of replacing lost receipts. The agency is counting on measures such as taxing foreign digital service providers and tighter controls on illicit tobacco to help bridge any gap. More context is available in Philippine Bureau of Internal Revenue warns gambling ban could undermine PHP3.2 trillion revenue target.

This fiscal lens complicates enforcement-first narratives. If illicit operators are already penetrating social feeds at scale, an outright ban may shift activity toward even less transparent channels while eroding tax bases that fund public services, including problem gambling treatment. Policymakers are weighing whether targeted regulation—age gates, ad restrictions, data-sharing mandates for platforms, ringfenced tax revenue for addiction services—can deliver better outcomes than prohibition.

U.S. debates highlight trade-offs on harm, jobs and tax

Statehouses in the United States are wrestling with similar trade-offs. In Virginia, lawmakers paused a bill to legalize online casinos and convened a study committee to examine benefits and risks. Proponents argue that regulated igaming could yield billions in taxable revenue over five years and modernize consumer access, while opponents cite elevated addiction risks for young men, potential job impacts at brick-and-mortar casinos and broader mental health concerns, including links to credit card debt. The deliberations are outlined in Virginia lawmakers continue debate on igaming regulation.

Mississippi’s campus survey offers a cautionary datapoint relevant to Virginia’s study: legality may be less determinative of behavior than access and promotion. Students reported betting via friends, offshore sites and in-casino apps, underscoring how demand finds avenues regardless of policy status. For legislators, the question becomes whether regulation can channel that demand into monitored, taxable frameworks with stronger consumer protections, or whether legalization accelerates harm by normalizing high-speed, high-frequency betting products.

What’s next for Indonesia—and why it matters beyond its borders

Indonesia’s experience underscores three strategic challenges. First, platform accountability: governments are moving beyond notice-and-takedown to demand faster, systemic interventions that curb ad spoofing and influencer-led funnels. As seen in India and the Philippines, the willingness to use subpoenas, money-laundering statutes and public hearings is rising. Second, fiscal calculus: the Philippines’ revenue warning illustrates the budget stakes of sweeping bans and the pressure to find offsetting sources if prohibitions expand. Third, consumer behavior: Mississippi’s data shows that users can and do route around restrictions, especially when promotions saturate social media.

For platforms, the risk profile is expanding from reputational blowback to regulatory exposure. Expect calls for mandatory data-sharing on ad buyers, tighter verification of advertiser identities, proactive blocks on known evasion patterns and clearer accountability for resellers and influencers. For governments, the policy menu is shifting toward blended approaches: narrower advertising rules, payments interdiction, targeted prosecutions and earmarked taxes to fund treatment and research.

If Indonesia intensifies enforcement while promoters keep retooling campaigns, the outcome will shape how other countries calibrate their mix of bans, regulation and platform mandates. The stakes are not just about who sees an ad. They are about whether public policy, tax planning and platform governance can align quickly enough to keep harm in check without ceding the field to illicit operators who thrive in the gaps.