Meta and Account Bans: For the First Time, the Supervisory Board Intervenes
For the first time, the Supervisory Board of Meta has ruled on the disabling of an entire account. However, the verdict has two sides: the company did the right thing in shutting down the profile under examination, but the way it prohibits users from accessing the service raises "serious concerns" regarding human rights and procedural guarantees.
The decision, published on Thursday, closes the first case in which the Board applies its mandate to choices that affect the account in its entirety, an extension that we had followed when the test was announced.
The case originates from a report by Meta itself. In 2025, the company permanently disabled an Instagram account with over 70,000 followers: two posts showed a crosshair over a journalist's face, and a third insulted her without evidence. The Board confirms that the closure was correct and in line with the company’s responsibilities regarding human rights, given the severity of the threats.
Where the System Falls Short
The problem, for the Board, lies both before and after that correct decision. On one hand, Meta did not review the two credible threats promptly at the time of publication, leaving the journalist exposed to a risk deemed "intolerable" for an extended period. On the other hand, the guarantees for those who see their accounts closed remain weak.
The harshest judgment concerns the confusion of rules. Facebook and Instagram apply different sanctions: on Facebook, a profile can receive temporary suspensions before a final ban, while on Instagram, this intermediate step does not exist. Instead, Meta limits live streaming or excludes the account from recommended content, the so-called shadowban. The Board points out how contradictory it is that the restriction on live streaming is one of the main intermediate penalties on Instagram, given that the feature requires at least 1,000 followers and is not available to everyone.
Moreover, there is a lack of an intermediate option between permanent disabling and simply letting the system run its course regarding appeals: where there are mitigating circumstances, the Board notes, a long but time-limited suspension would be more proportionate.
The role of automation also weighs heavily. Many bans occur without the indication of specific content and without human review, even regarding appeals related to historic and very followed accounts. The Board criticized Meta for charging for the Meta Verified subscription, which promises assistance via email or chat, but does not offer real support to those with disabled accounts. Just on this case, the Board reports, there have been over 750 public comments.
Recommendations to Meta
As this is a pilot case, the Board does not make binding recommendations related to the specific incident but indicates a series of principles directed at Meta and other platforms. Among these: a dashboard where users can consult the status of their account, past violations, and options for appeal; detailed reasons at the time of the measure, including the rule breached and the sanction applied; fair appeals where written explanations are possible; explicit notification when it is AI that penalizes a profile; transparency reports on bans and a dedicated channel for high-risk violence targets.
Meta welcomed the decision, noting that the Board confirmed the account's closure, and deferred specific responses to the individual recommendations to a later time. The Board, for its part, announced that it would accept other cases regarding the disabling of accounts: it is there, more than in this first ruling, that it will be understood whether its observations will genuinely weigh on the company’s choices.