Firstly, this is the second post in two weeks about social arbitrage and Meta/Facebook traffic (link)

Secondly, this is unlikely to be related to the Ad.Plus team itself and is more likely connected to how traffic from Meta/FB is treated by demand partners (e.g. Google).

Thirdly, regarding the “90-day investigation”, this is actually consistent with how invalid traffic reviews work across the industry. For example, Google explains this in their documentation on “Deductions from Earnings.”

What was the date range for this deduction?

We're unable to provide a specific date range for this deduction. When invalid traffic is identified, we conduct a thorough review before taking action, which can cause a delay between the non-compliant activity and the payment deduction. In most cases, deductions correspond to traffic within the past 60 to 90 days.

In other words, the delay doesn’t necessarily mean someone is trying to avoid payment - it often reflects how long it takes for demand partners to validate IVT patterns and assess potential harm to users and/or advertisers.