Apply AML/CFT obligations to major online advertising platforms

Open 38 official signatures 📡 RSS feed

Petition request

That the House of Representatives extend anti-money laundering / countering financing of terrorism (AML/CFT) obligations to major online advertising platforms including advertiser identity verification, due diligence, and suspicious activity reporting where scam or fraud indicators are identified.

Why this petition

Major online advertising platforms—such as Meta, Google, TikTok, or Snapchat—can receive payment from advertisers later identified as scams or fraud while not necessarily facing equivalent AML/CFT obligations. We believe requiring advertiser verification, due diligence, and suspicious activity reporting would help identify repeat operators, trace linked accounts and payments, and reduce the ability of scammers to return through new advertising accounts.

📖 Background

Click to see details

What the Topic Is

This petition asks the New Zealand Parliament to require major online advertising platforms (like Meta, Google, and TikTok) to follow AML/CFT rules. AML stands for Anti-Money Laundering, and CFT stands for Countering the Financing of Terrorism. In plain English, these are laws designed to stop criminals from using the financial system to hide illegal money or fund violent acts. Currently, banks and casinos must check who their customers are and report suspicious payments. This petition suggests that ad platforms should do the same: verify the identity of anyone paying to run an ad and report patterns that look like fraud or scams.

Current Situation in New Zealand

New Zealand already has strict AML/CFT laws under the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Act 2009. However, these laws primarily target financial institutions, not tech companies. Recently, there has been a significant rise in online scams in New Zealand, with many victims losing money to fake ads for non-existent goods or services. Scammers often use disposable accounts to buy ads, making it hard for authorities to trace them. This petition is a response to the gap where platforms can process payments from fraudulent advertisers without the same legal duty to investigate or report them as banks do.

Arguments in Favour

Breaking Scam Cycles: Verifying advertiser identities would make it harder for scammers to create new accounts after being banned, as they would need real, traceable identity documents.
Better Data for Police: Mandatory reporting of suspicious activity would give the New Zealand Police and the Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) more data to link different scam accounts to the same individuals.
Consumer Protection: Reducing the volume of scam ads would protect vulnerable New Zealanders from financial loss.

Arguments Against

Privacy Concerns: Critics argue that requiring platforms to hold and verify identity documents for millions of users creates a massive database of personal information, increasing the risk of data breaches.
Administrative Burden: Small businesses and individuals might find the verification process complex and costly, potentially limiting their ability to advertise online.
Platform Responsibility: Some argue that platforms are already required to remove illegal content and that adding financial compliance duties exceeds their role as a technology provider.

Relevant Context

The New Zealand Government has been actively tackling online scams, with the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) and the Police frequently issuing warnings. While existing laws allow police to seek court orders to compel platforms to provide data, this petition proposes a proactive, statutory obligation. The debate touches on broader global discussions about whether tech giants should be regulated more like financial institutions due to their role in moving money and influencing consumer behaviour.

⚡ Cached from a previous visit

Sign on parliament.nz →

Community verdict

1 support · 3 oppose

⚔ Battles (7 days each)

winner: Jade F.

👍 ForCaleb Nielsen

We made banks install cameras and hire compliance officers, then handed the advertising market to two companies whose entire business model is selling attention to anyone who pays. It's like regulating the bank but leaving the getaway car unlicensed.

3 votes

3 : 4

👎 AgainstJade F.

The getaway car analogy falls apart when you realise the bank and the car are owned by the same two companies. AML rules exist because banks hold your money — ad platforms hold your eyeballs. You can't launder a dollar through a banner ad, and stretching the definition until it covers everything makes it cover nothing.

4 votes

winner: Jade F.

👍 ForCaleb Nielsen

2 votes

2 : 3

👎 AgainstJade F.

3 votes

Community arguments

👍 For Caleb Nielsen 2 Oct 2026

If your business model depends on not knowing who's paying you, that's not a business model, that's a money laundering strategy.

👎 Against Jade F. 2 Oct 2026

Small businesses will spend thousands on compliance. The big platforms will just absorb it.

👎 Against Jade F. 29 Sept 2026

This would crush small businesses that rely on targeted ads. The compliance costs alone would be enormous.

👎 Against Hara Yomiko 25 Sept 2026

Companies rarely launch political campaigns out of pure altruism; there is almost always a commercial, strategic, or competitive motive behind it. Alien Algorithms' very name suggests they specialize in data processing, cybersecurity, or algorithmic software.If the government actually passes a law forcing Google and Meta to screen every single person who buys an ad in New Zealand, those tech giants will need highly specialized, automated software to handle compliance locally. A company like Alien Algorithms could be building the exact "regulatory tech" (RegTech) or algorithmic identity-verification software needed to solve this problem. By changing the law, they would literally legislate their own market into existence. I might be wrong though 😏

👎 Against Jade F. 23 Sept 2026

👍 For Caleb Nielsen 23 Sept 2026