Meta’s Oversight Board, the independent governing body that makes policy recommendations to the tech company, said Thursday that Meta’s account deactivations lack due process, violations are doled out without clarity, and there’s little customer support for appeals.
The board, which recently received increased funding to continue its work through 2028, launched the investigation into Meta’s account violations policy earlier this year to review a case involving threats of violence against a journalist. The board agreed that Meta was right to permanently disable the account due to the severity of the threats.
However, in looking into the matter, the board found what it described as “systemic human rights concerns,” and a “lack of transparency and consistency” when it came to Meta’s two-system approach to disabling accounts.
That’s a reference to the two different ways accounts can be actioned against: one that involves strikes, some that can be severe, and another for “egregious” violations that merit permanently disabling an account. The board said the difference between what leads to one type of violation or the other isn’t clear or well-documented.
The board also called out the social media giant for charging users for Meta Verified access, which is supposed to include “24/7 access to email or chat agent support,” but failing to provide users with disabled accounts any sort of “meaningful assistance.”
Meta users across Facebook, Instagram, and other Meta apps have dealt with this problem for years. As Meta’s moderation systems became more automated over the years, there has been little recourse when they make mistakes to get any sort of help from the company. This has been devastating to users who have lost their personal accounts, or even those belonging to their business, over false accusations. Some have even filed lawsuits over the matter or are in the process of doing so.
The board took up the matter of permanent bans in a landmark case after a wave of recent bans that affected Facebook and Instagram
No support, no appeal process
After covering the bans, TechCrunch received a constant stream of reports from impacted users, begging us to bring their cases to Meta’s attention
For instance, retired L.A. County firefighter and paramedic, Richard Pauwels, who was building a wellness brand on Meta’s platforms, claimed his personal account was banned without any specific post being identified and without human review.
Automated alleged child sexual exploitation (CSE) violations are another common occurrence leading to bans, which are devastating to innocent parties.
For instance, a PR professional reached out to us, asking to remain anonymous because their account was banned for false accusations of CSE, despite no content being cited in their ban and no new posts from them in weeks. Meta’s allegation was “evil and vile,” they told us, and filed a case with the Oversight Board.
Another person, Manomi Jayakody, said their account was also banned for CSE, again without any specific content, action, or violation being flagged.
“I fully understand and support the critical importance of CSE enforcement and online safety. However, when accounts are flagged under such serious categories without due process, transparency, or consistent human oversight … the consequences for innocent users are severe,” they wrote to TechCrunch and other reporters in an email. “In my case, I received no explanation, no evidence, and no opportunity to clarify or correct any alleged issue.”
In another example, a bird rescue operation, of all things, was banned for CSE material. “It’s an account about our rescue pigeons. It has over 60K followers, and we regularly use that account to contact other volunteers who rescue birds and find adopters or medical assistance for all the birds that we help,” they pleaded in an email to TechCrunch.
Another content creator, Albert Olgaard, with 325,000 Instagram followers, said his Meta accounts for his business were shut down overnight for allegations of “fraud,” with no citations of what he did wrong. When he tried to appeal, a message on the screen stated, “You cannot request another review of this decision.” The move financially impacted him, he said.
Designer Alex Smola also woke up one day to find his account permanently disabled.
“The account was tied to legitimate business activity, including page access, client communication, marketing, advertising, and lead generation,” Smola wrote in an email to TechCrunch. “Since the deletion, I have suffered ongoing business disruption, reputational harm, and significant stress, while being unable to obtain any meaningful human review through Meta’s support channels.”
That mirrors many other complaints TechCrunch fielded from Meta Verified subscribers who said they didn’t get the support they paid for through the subscription. One person even said the Meta agent ended their chat when they referenced the EU regulation, GDPR.
These are just a smattering of the reports we’ve received since covering the topic, and the inbound emails continue from people desperate for help.
As exemplified by these examples and others, there are due process concerns around account bans. As a result, the board is recommending that Meta offer users a dashboard where they can easily review their account stats, past violations, and information on appeal options, along with clear notifications about the violations at the time they are imposed.
These warnings or violation reports should include the time they were imposed, the specific rule that was violated, the sanction imposed, and appeal options.
Additionally, the board says Meta should provide users with information on the role AI plays in content review and the imposition of warnings or penalties, among other things.
In response to the board’s report, Meta shared the following statement: “We welcome the Oversight Board’s decision on this case. The Board upheld Meta’s decision to permanently disable an account. After conducting a review of the recommendations provided by the Board, we will update this post with initial responses to those recommendations.”
When you purchase through links in our articles, we may earn a small commission. This doesn’t affect our editorial independence.
