The author's words were that the sale of fake data was "like a Ponzi scheme" in the sense that it is a crime. The author makes no mention of any factual simila

The author's words were that the sale of fake data was "like a Ponzi scheme" in the sense that it is a crime. The author makes no mention of any factual similarities. The author is suggesting there are legal similarities: both are criminal fraud. He suggests that those committing fraud on investors are "locked up" and insinuates those committing fraud on advertisers are not. The author were "[i]f this happened in the financial industry..." If what happened? Sales of ad data? No. Fraud. The author is not suggesting that deceiving purchasers of location data is factually similar to deceiving purchasers of investments. The author is suggesting they are both fraud, i.e. legally similar. Both are intentional deception by a seller on which a purchaser relies. Fraud. The difference the author sees is that those who commit fraud on investors are incarcerated and those who commit fraud on advertisers are not. Maybe the author was just trying to cite a well-known, real world example of fraud (intentional deception by seller upon which buyer relies) where the perpetrator was incarcerated. In that case, the example he picked makes sense.