STATEMENT
What Meta Said, and What We’re Saying Back
Our research shows Meta may be channeling money to EU-sanctioned entities. Meta’s response raises more questions than answers.
Published: 1 July 2025
In a report released 20 June 2025, WHAT TO FIX raised concerns that Meta Platforms Ireland Ltd. may be channeling money to EU-sanctioned entities via Facebook's revenue redistribution programs.
Our investigation found that Facebook pages affiliated with RT, Sputnik, and other EU-sanctioned entities — including Russian singer Polina Gagarina and pro-Russian French-Togolese activist Sylvain Afoua (aka Egountchi Behanzin) — remained among Facebook’s active partner-publishers for months after being subject to EU sanctions. Some pages were still monetizing as of June 2025.
Our research draws on data from Meta’s own partner-publisher disclosures, which reflect the accounts active in Facebook’s different revenue redistribution programs.
We shared our findings with Meta and solicited a response on 10 June 2025, ten days prior to publishing. Meta ignored our request. We also shared the full report, upon its release, with Meta’s leadership.
As of 1 July 2025, Meta has yet to meaningfully comment on our findings.
In response to inquiries from Le Monde, Süddeutsche Zeitung, and Politico — each of whom were provided with an advanced copy of the report — Meta issued the following statement:
Being listed on our partner-publisher list is not itself evidence that an account has received payout, and any party that's on that list is still subject to our sanctions controls. Meta is committed to complying with applicable sanctions laws including EU sanctions and continuously takes steps to meet our legal obligations. When we identify accounts that appear to be run by or on behalf of sanctioned parties, we enforce against them.- Meta’s Spokesperson
Meta did not dispute WHAT TO FIX’s findings nor explicitly deny making ‘funds’ or ‘economic resources’ available to EU-sanctioned entities, which could be a criminal offense under EU sanctions laws.
On 15 June 2025, Meta removed the pages ‘RT Arabic روسيا اليوم - مصر’, ‘Egountchi Behanzin’, ‘Russian Today’ and 'Скабеева' — which our research found were still listed as monetized despite EU sanctions — from its partner-publisher lists. The company did not comment on the removals, acknowledge any wrongdoing, or provide any additional information on its sanctions controls, business due diligence process and monetization systems.
Meta’s statement also raises important questions regarding its payout, revenue accrual and advertisers’ brand safety processes, which we would like to address.
Registration of Payout Accounts
According to the ‘How to set up payouts on Facebook’ help center page, Meta’s partner-publishers are required to register a payout account in order to get paid.
In order for payments to be processed and finalized, the help center page specifies that the name associated with the partner-publisher’s tax ID or social security number must match the name they provided during the program onboarding.
It also specifies that it is possible for users to register more than one payout account, as well as to adjust their payout method at any time.
→ What processes does Meta have in place to review payout accounts and determine beneficial ownership?
→ Did Meta provide page admins with the option to rejoin under a new legal name after the introduction of sanctions? Were admins able to adjust the payout account(s) associated with their page?
→ Did Meta approve any of these payout accounts, despite having access to data pointing to sanctioned entities being the ultimate owners of the Facebook pages?
Accrual of Revenue
According to the ‘How to set up payouts on Facebook’ help center page, it is possible for partner-publishers to accrue revenue immediately after being onboarded into a revenue redistribution program.
Without a payout account, partner-publishers can earn up to $500 per monetization tool, with a maximum of $1500 across monetization tools.
Meta clarifies that partner-publishers have up to six months to register a payout account before these accrued earnings are forfeited.
The ‘Sputnik’, ‘Sputnik France’, ‘Sputnik Italia’, ‘SNA’, ‘RT Arabic روسيا اليوم - مصر’ and ‘Polina Gagarina’ pages were all listed as partner-publishers for more than six months after the introduction of sanctions.
→ How were sanctioned actors able to retain membership to revenue redistribution programs?
If they did not provide a payout account within the required six-month window, why did Meta maintain its contractual relationship with these actors?
If Meta correctly identified the provided payout account as benefiting an EU-sanctioned entity, why did it maintain its contractual relationship?
If they did not provide a payout account within the required six-month window, why did Meta maintain its contractual relationship with these actors?
If Meta correctly identified the provided payout account as benefiting an EU-sanctioned entity, why did it maintain its contractual relationship?
→ If these actors did not receive payments as part of their participation in Facebook’s revenue redistribution programs, did they accrue revenue?
If so, what did Meta do with that revenue? Did it report it as a frozen asset to relevant sanctions authorities?
If so, what did Meta do with that revenue? Did it report it as a frozen asset to relevant sanctions authorities?
Sale of Ad Placements on Pages Affiliated with Sanctioned Entities
According to Meta’s business help center, the partner-publisher lists detail the “places where […] ads could appear on Facebook in-stream videos, Meta Audience Network and Facebook Reels”.
As part of our research, we were able to confirm that ads were running on the ‘Egountchi Behanzin’ page affiliated with Sylvain Afoua as recently as 26 June 2025.
This suggests that Meta sold ad placements on the pages of sanctioned entities and generated revenue from advertisers.
This should be of particular concern to advertisers, who may have their brand associated with — and potentially financing — sanctioned entities.
Not only would this be a violation of Meta’s brand safety commitment, but it also points to a broader failure of Meta’s brand safety approach. Meta’s partner-publisher lists are presented as a brand safety and suitability tool, purportedly reflecting the inventory of publishers that have been verified as satisfying Facebook’s monetization requirements and following its monetization policies. This is in contrast to non partner-publishers, the inventory of which advertisers can chose to opt out of using Meta’s content exclusion controls.
→ Were Meta’s sanctions controls assessed as part of Meta’s brand safety audit conducted by the Media Rating Council? If so, what was the scope of that audit? If not, why not?
→ Did Meta notify the advertisers whose ads ran on the page of Sylvain Afoua? If yes, what reparations did it offer? If not, why not?
Continued violations…?
On 20 June 2025, we formally notified the Meta leadership that sanctioned actors, including Sylvain Afoua (aka Egountchi Behanzin), were continuing to make use of its services.
Meta removed the page ‘Egountchi Behanzin’ from its partner-publisher lists on 15 June 2025, following our and the media’s original inquiries.
As of 1 July 2025, however, the ‘Egountchi Behanzin’ page remains visible in the EU, continues to display access to Facebook’s Subscriber Hub tool, broadcasting channels, and a connected WhatsApp account.
We will continue to track developments and update this page with additional comments or clarifications received from Meta.
SEO
How Meta Platforms Ireland Ltd. May Have Violated EU Sanctions And Channeled Money To RT, Sputnik And Other EU-Sanctioned Entities Via Facebook’s Revenue Redistribution Programs
New Analysis Shows Meta Platforms Ireland Ltd. May Have Violated EU Sanctions and Channeled Money to RT, Sputnik and Other EU-sanctioned Entities via Facebook Revenue Redistribution Programs
Explainer: Social Media Monetization