- Aug 10, 2024
- 526
- 82
In this case, you weren't "randomly rejected," but rather your lead form violated Meta's personal data policy.
The gambling industry is scrutinized quite closely by Meta, especially when the form has:
Inquiries too deeply about finances, income, or loan capacity
Content that is "personally evaluative"
Or wording that Meta interprets as exploiting sensitive information
Many people think that just changing a few words is enough, but in reality, you have to modify the entire form structure and ad content to comply with the policy.
A safer approach:
The form only collects essential basic information
Direct customers to the inbox/landing page before further qualification
Content avoids wording that gives the impression of "financial vetting"
If you don't understand the nature of the policy, the more you modify, the more likely you are to be rejected.
The gambling industry is scrutinized quite closely by Meta, especially when the form has:
Inquiries too deeply about finances, income, or loan capacity
Content that is "personally evaluative"
Or wording that Meta interprets as exploiting sensitive information
Many people think that just changing a few words is enough, but in reality, you have to modify the entire form structure and ad content to comply with the policy.
A safer approach:
The form only collects essential basic information
Direct customers to the inbox/landing page before further qualification
Content avoids wording that gives the impression of "financial vetting"
If you don't understand the nature of the policy, the more you modify, the more likely you are to be rejected.
