A Fake Account Is Advertising in My Name: How to Fight the Scam That Uses Your Brand

This page is a translation of the original Portuguese text, provided for convenience. It deals with Brazilian law. If there is any discrepancy, the Portuguese version prevails. Read the original in Portuguese

Businesses and independent professionals are watching their names, logos, and photographs turn into bait for fraud. Scammers clone profiles, run sponsored ads, and open fake accounts to sell products that do not exist, collect deposits, and divert customers. The direct victim is the deceived consumer, but the hijacked reputation belongs to the person whose identity was stolen, and that person needs to respond with a legal strategy.

Anatomy of a Scam That Borrows Someone Else’s Brand

The scheme usually follows a predictable script. The fraudster copies the visual identity of a well-known business, builds a profile nearly identical to the original, and starts boosting paid posts on social media and search engines. The goal is to borrow the trust the legitimate brand has already earned and lower the final victim’s guard.

From there, the scam takes many forms. There is the fake customer service agent who asks for a transfer to a random payment key, the phantom store that advertises a clearance sale that does not exist, and the cloned profile that approaches followers by private message offering freebies or consulting. In every case, the real owner’s reputation suffers immediately, even though he or she gained nothing from the fraud.

Recognizing the pattern matters for a practical reason. The sooner the owner realizes that his or her identity is being exploited, the sooner containment measures can start, and the fewer consumers are likely to be harmed and later direct their complaints and frustration at the honest business.

Preserving Evidence: The First Move

The most common mistake people make when they discover the fraud is acting only to make the problem disappear, reporting the fake profile before documenting it. When the platform removes the content, the evidence disappears with it. That is why preservation comes before reporting, not after.

The most robust tool is the ata notarial (a notary’s official record of a fact), provided for in Article 384 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In it, the notary attests to what exists in the digital environment at a given moment: the profile address, the posts, the ads, the messages exchanged, and the advertiser’s visible data. This document carries the force of an official public record and holds up far better against challenges than a simple screenshot.

Screenshots remain useful as an immediate record, as long as they capture the date, the time, and the full URL. The ideal approach is to combine the quick collection done by the victim with an ata notarial drawn up afterward, building a body of evidence that supports both the removal of the content and any later action for damages.

It is also wise to keep proof of every contact from deceived consumers. Accounts from other people who fell for the scam help show the extent of the harm and strengthen a request for urgent relief from the platform and the courts.

With the evidence secured, the next step is to take action on the platforms where the scam is circulating.

Notifying Platforms and Removing Content

With the evidence secured, the next step is to take action on the platforms where the scam is circulating. Social networks, marketplaces, and advertising services maintain their own channels for reporting fake accounts and misuse of a brand. The notice should be direct, identify the legitimate profile, point to the clone, and attach documents proving original ownership.

The Marco Civil da Internet (Brazil’s Internet Civil Framework), Law 12.965 of 2014, set up the liability regime for providers. As a general rule, an application provider is civilly liable for third-party content when it fails to take steps to remove it after a specific court order. This design has been revisited by the Supremo Tribunal Federal (Brazil’s Supreme Federal Court), which reexamined how far platforms are liable for manifestly unlawful content.

In practice, this means an out-of-court notice does not always suffice to force removal, although it is an important step and is often enough in obvious cloning cases. When the platform does nothing, going to court allows you to obtain a removal order with a deadline and a daily fine, as well as an order requiring the platform to preserve and hand over the connection and access logs of the person responsible.

The protection of name and image rests on solid ground in the Civil Code. Articles 18 to 20 prohibit using another person’s name in advertising without authorization and protect a person’s image against improper exploitation. For legal entities, there is also protection for the trademark and the business name, which prevents third parties from presenting themselves under a distinctive sign that does not belong to them.

Holding Accountable Those Who Profit From the Fraud

Identifying the person directly behind the scam is difficult, because fraudsters use false data and disposable accounts. Even so, the legal strategy does not end with the search for an anonymous author. It reaches every link in the chain that profits from the operation, from the person behind the fake account to the intermediaries that process payments and run the ads.

On the civil side, you can bring an action for material and moral damages against anyone who is identified, together with a request for production of the records needed to trace who financially benefited from the fraud. Institutions that handle incoming payments can be ordered to disclose where the money went, which helps reconstruct the chain of the scam.

On the criminal side, the conduct tends to amount to estelionato (fraud for financial gain), defined in Article 171 of the Penal Code, and false identity, provided for in Article 307. Filing a police report and a criminal complaint opens the way to an investigation of who is responsible and to a possible freeze of accounts and funds. Pursuing the civil and criminal tracks together increases the pressure on the structure that sustains the fraud.

There is also a preventive and reputational dimension. Telling the public clearly that a scam is under way, guiding customers to your official channels, and reinforcing signs of authenticity all reduce the number of victims and show diligence. This approach protects the brand and, if the case reaches court, demonstrates good faith and an effort to mitigate the harm.

An owner who builds the response in layers (preservation, removal, communication, and accountability) turns a moment of vulnerability into a case handled with control. Fraud that uses someone else’s identity is serious, but an organized response gives the business back authorship of its own story and limits the reach of those who tried to exploit it.

Frequently Asked Questions

Should I report the fake profile as soon as I find it?

Before you report it, you need to document it. A successful report leads the platform to remove the content, and the evidence disappears along with it. The recommended path is to record everything first, preferably through an ata notarial, which carries the force of an official public record, and only then use the removal channels. That way, the owner keeps the material needed for a possible action for damages and for the criminal investigation.

Is the business whose identity was used liable for the losses of the deceived consumers?

As a rule, no, when it is shown that the business was also a victim and had no part in the scam. Liability falls on those who committed the fraud and those who profited from it. Even so, acting transparently, warning the public, and announcing your official channels is decisive for dispelling doubts about involvement and for showing diligence if the matter is taken to court.

Is it possible to find out who is behind the fake account?

Often it is, through the courts. The Marco Civil da Internet allows you to ask the court to order the preservation and disclosure of the access and connection logs associated with the fraudulent profile. Combined with the criminal investigation and with data produced by the institutions that processed payments, this measure helps identify the perpetrators and beneficiaries, even when the scammer hid behind false registrations.

As informações deste artigo são de caráter informativo e não substituem consulta jurídica individualizada. Cada caso possui particularidades que exigem análise específica.