You must never forget that if a product or service is free, you are not the customer, you are the commodity. In that equation, protection is not guaranteed – in fact, it’s rarely even a consideration.
This uncomfortable truth is central to the increasing scandal surrounding ‘ghost stores’ – endless waves of shady online retailers exploiting the infrastructure of social media platforms to deceive consumers and undermine legitimate jewellery businesses.
Reputable Australian jewellers have reported seeing product photos and descriptions stolen by faceless imitators, and some are left feeling helpless as their reputations are diluted and degraded.
These scammers lie without hesitation, and it’s not just about where they’re based or how their products are made. They flood the internet with fake imagery and backgrounds, fraudulent testimonials and reviews, and stolen or repurposed content from hardworking local businesses.
These are just the dropshippers, who at least have products to sell, even if it’s just mass-produced rubbish. Others don’t even bother with that step; they’re only in the game to harvest credit card numbers and personal information.
Naturally, when the ‘ghost stores’ scam became a talking point in the mainstream media, some clever minds began to trace these operations to the platforms that host the scams – Facebook, Instagram, and Shopify, among others.
With billions of users, Meta’s global reach is staggering, and its revenue is equally impressive. All of its platforms – Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp – are free to join. So how does the company earn so much money? The answer, of course, is targeted data-driven advertising.
Targeted advertising is powerful. It delivers promotional material to specific users based on their behaviour, interests, location, and demographics. This information can be immensely valuable to legitimate jewellery businesses; however, it also enables scammers to target potential victims with frightening precision.
People aren’t stumbling upon these scams by chance; they’re delivered to them. In public statements, Meta insists that it takes this issue seriously. When questioned by the ABC, the company said it was ‘investigating’ the problem and ‘investing in tools’ to stop fraud.
Tired platitudes about 'user safety' are as readily available as the scam websites themselves.
In the same article, a woman in her seventies from Sydney revealed that after being scammed by an online retailer, she reported the issue to Meta. The result? It was her account that was suspended, not the scammers.
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) has publicly acknowledged that platforms such as Facebook and Instagram are facilitating these scams. Unfortunately, these statements offer little confidence that the issue will be resolved anytime soon.
The ACCC said that when it comes to preventing scams, the “ball is in their court”.
Enforcement is unlikely, as the time and resources required to bring action against an overseas business would be exhaustive.
This brings us to the heart of the matter. Facebook and Instagram have no incentive to stop these scammers. Dodgy online retailers are the paying customers, not the users falling victim to scams.
Meta doesn’t generate billions of dollars in revenue by banning advertisers. The attention of users on the platform is the product being sold. The user is the commodity, and ghost stores are paying for direct access to the user.
It’s been suggested that unless there’s a sharp decline in user trust, regulatory threats, or a reputational crisis, there is no compelling reason for Meta to address this issue. Facebook has operated since 2004, and Instagram since 2010. Scams have existed on both platforms for an entire generation.
Yes, the complexity and scale of the problem are also issues from Meta’s perspective.
There are technical and operational challenges, and it could be argued that, since the advertising is submitted by third parties, the responsibilities lie with the scammers, not the platform.
Hiring moderators, building scam-detection systems, or tightening the advertising approval process would cost Meta money. It would also slow down the process for legitimate advertisers, including local jewellery businesses, that rely on the platform to reach new customers.
However, while these legitimate businesses are busy playing by the rules, scammers are outmaneuvering them.
What are the odds of users abandoning these platforms en masse? Slim. Most victims blame the scammer — not the infrastructure.
Ghost stores are only a small part of a larger story. Cryptocurrency investment schemes, romance scams, tech support fraud, real estate cons – they all advertise.
I’m aware of one particularly sinister evolution that’s worth briefly highlighting – ‘fake lawyer’ accounts that offer to help the victims of scams recover lost money, for a fee. These scammers target people who self-identify as victims by engaging.
If it weren’t so unbelievably evil, it would almost be admirable in how clever that system is. These scammers don’t need to waste time blasting thousands of emails into inboxes around the world, hoping for a single catch. The victims are approaching them directly and asking for help.
This is the chicken knocking on the fox's door and asking to come inside.
And so, when all is said and done, never forget that if a product or service is free, you’re not the customer, you are the commodity. Don’t expect protection from a system not built to serve you.
Legitimate jewellery businesses pay the price – their content is stolen, advertising is crowded out, and the consumer trust in the industry is eroded. These businesses play by the rules, and the scammers don’t. Either way, Meta makes a profit.
It’s a depressing reality; however, there may be one silver lining. Perhaps, eventually, when these scams become so overwhelmingly effective that genuine and the fake are indistinguishable, consumers will remember the value of a traditional jewellery store.
READ EMAG