A sponsored search result appears to lead to a bank, travel company, or government agency. Instead, it leads to an impersonator. The Federal Trade Commission is asking whether the platforms that create, target, and deliver such ads should have greater responsibility for preventing them.
On Sept. 24, 2026, the FTC announced an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) seeking comment on whether to address the role of ad-optimization tools and search engines, social media services, and other digital marketplace platforms in promoting ads that impersonate businesses or government agencies. The FTC is considering an amendment to its existing Rule on Impersonation of Government and Businesses, a separate rule, or other measures. It has not proposed rule text or imposed new platform obligations.
The ANPRM describes the scale of the problem. Across all types of imposter scams — a broader category than the government and business impersonation covered by the existing Impersonation Rule — the FTC received more than one million imposter reports in 2025, with consumers reporting nearly $3.5 billion in losses. The notice also describes lost revenue and reputational damage to impersonated businesses, as well as resources government agencies expend warning the public and responding to scams.
In a press release announcing the ANPRM, Christopher Mufarrige, director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, described today’s impersonation scams as “sophisticated, highly engineered operations powered by the same advertising and targeting tools that platforms sell to legitimate businesses.” Mufarrige said the ANPRM asks whether platforms should be required “to take concrete steps to prevent impersonation ads from ever reaching consumers.” He also raised the concern, reiterated in the ANPRM, that platforms profit from optimizing and distributing those ads while fraudsters exploit consumers’ trust in the platforms.
From Impersonators to Platforms
The existing Impersonation Rule prohibits materially and falsely posing as a government entity or business, or materially misrepresenting an affiliation with one. It does not expressly address platform practices that further impersonation scams. The ANPRM asks whether a platform’s own conduct in developing ad content, targeting audiences, or determining where and to whom an ad appears can constitute an unfair or deceptive practice.
During an earlier rulemaking, the FTC proposed a broad prohibition on providing the “means and instrumentalities” used in impersonation scams but decided not to proceed with that provision at the time. The new inquiry focuses more specifically on digital platforms’ ad-optimization practices.
What the FTC Is Asking
The ANPRM defines platforms as “public facing websites or apps on which third parties offer goods, services, or opportunities through paid advertisements or other listings,” but also broadly references and discusses “ad-optimization tools and services.”
The ANPRM seeks evidence on four central topics, asking detailed questions specific to each:
- How do platforms’ ad tools and incentives work? The FTC asks how platforms create or modify ads, choose who sees them, earn revenue, and verify advertisers or detect impersonation ads.
- Which practices, if any, are unfair or deceptive? The FTC seeks evidence that particular platform practices further government or business impersonation, how widespread those practices are, and what harm they cause. It also asks whether non-advertising posts, such as sham profiles, support impersonation scams.
- Is further action needed? Options include amending the existing rule, adopting a separate rule, or pursuing education and voluntary industry efforts.
- What would an effective requirement look like? The FTC asks about advertiser verification, ad screening, complaint investigations, removing confirmed ads, and stopping services to offending advertisers. It seeks input on the costs to platforms and legitimate advertisers, whether compliance could provide a safe harbor, and whether liability should depend on a platform’s knowledge or participation.
The FTC invites market studies, economic data, and other evidence to support comments.
The ANPRM also discusses Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. The FTC states that Section 230 does not categorically shield a platform’s own ad-related conduct, while acknowledging that its application to particular practices requires a fact-specific analysis.
Takeaways
Platforms may wish to assess how their ad tools generate content, target users, verify advertisers, and respond to reports of impersonation. Businesses whose identities are misused may provide evidence about the ads they encounter, responses to their reports, and resulting harm. Legitimate advertisers may also have data on the costs or delays that potential screening requirements could create.
The FTC specifically invites empirical evidence, including market studies and economic data. Comments will be due 60 days after the ANPRM is published in the Federal Register and will generally become part of the public record. The ANPRM seeks to determine whether the FTC can identify platform practices warranting action and, if so, what obligations would address them while accounting for effects on legitimate advertising.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
