Meta repeatedly snubs EU body over Facebook and Instagram user bans

Source: BBC Technology

Meta’s handling of account‑ban appeals

Meta virtually never replies when it raises cases of people who say they have been wrongly banned from their accounts, an independent EU dispute‑settlement body reports.

Appeals Centre Europe examined 4,600 cases involving Facebook, Instagram and Threads users who claimed wrongful bans. Meta provided evidence in fewer than 100 of those cases.

“In the vast majority of cases related to account suspensions, platforms are unable or unwilling to provide the content which allows us to independently review their decisions,” the body wrote in its transparency report.

Meta supplied relevant content for fewer than 100 of the more than 4,600 account‑ban cases, “causing significant frustration among users.” Some users described the profound personal toll, including fears of police involvement and impacts on their online businesses. Meta repeatedly refused comment, although it often overturned bans when the BBC raised individual cases.

Alleged hate‑speech not removed

The Appeals Centre also reviewed more than 1,400 cases of content flagged as hate speech. In over two‑thirds of its decisions, it found that platforms failed to enforce their own policies, leaving hateful material online.

• TikTok: 83 % of potential hate‑speech not taken down
• Instagram: 74 %
• Facebook: 61 %
• YouTube: 58 %

Examples cited include:

• Racist comments comparing Black footballers to monkeys that remained on Instagram after a Champions League match.
• Antisemitic videos shared by prominent figures in Poland that stayed on YouTube, contradicting the platform’s hate‑speech policy.
• An AI‑generated video about the Russia‑Ukraine war that remained on TikTok, which the body believed breached TikTok’s misinformation rules.

However, social‑media companies did not provide relevant content for review in 72 % of the more than 10,000 reports. In the nearly 3,000 decisions where content could be examined, the dispute body disagreed with the platform 59 % of the time.

Platform responses

YouTube said it was committed to engaging with bodies such as Appeals Centre Europe.

TikTok did not give an on‑the‑record response, but indicated it had engaged with the Appeals Centre through meetings and emails. In its sixth transparency report under the Digital Services Act, TikTok reported removing 112 million pieces of content that breached its terms of service.

YouTube reiterated that its hate‑speech policy “outlines clear guidelines prohibiting content that promotes violence or hatred against individuals or groups based on certain attributes” and that it enforces the policy rigorously. The company also confirmed its commitment to working with out‑of‑court dispute bodies like Appeals Centre Europe and had reached an agreement to share disputed content with them.

Reference: Under EU law – Digital Services Act, Article 21

Related report: TikTok Transparency Report – Content Moderation in Europe