Ask Onix
Meta accused of ignoring EU user appeals over account bans
An independent EU dispute body revealed Meta provided evidence in fewer than 100 of 4,600 cases where users claimed they were wrongly locked out of Facebook, Instagram, or Threads accounts. The lack of response has left thousands without recourse, sparking frustration among affected users.
Scope of the problem
Appeals Centre Europe, one of several EU-approved dispute resolution bodies, examined 4,600 complaints from users who said their accounts were suspended without justification. Meta's failure to engage in most cases highlights broader issues in how social media platforms handle user disputes under EU regulations.
Under EU law, platforms are required to cooperate in good faith with such bodies, though their rulings are not legally binding. The report covers the year leading up to March 2026, when account bans were the most common issue raised.
User frustration and personal impact
Last year, over 500 users contacted the BBC to report wrongful bans on Instagram and Facebook, with many describing severe personal and professional consequences. Some feared police involvement, while others said the bans disrupted their online businesses.
Meta has not publicly addressed these complaints but has overturned bans in individual cases when the BBC intervened. The company has yet to comment on the Appeals Centre's findings.
Hate speech enforcement gaps
The report also highlighted failures in content moderation, particularly regarding hate speech. In over two-thirds of cases reviewed, platforms left up content that violated their own policies, including misogynistic, racist, homophobic, and transphobic posts.
TikTok had the highest rate of unaddressed hate speech (83%), followed by Instagram (74%), Facebook (61%), and YouTube (58%). One example involved racist comments comparing Black footballers to monkeys on Instagram after a Champions League match, which remained online despite violating platform rules.
Platforms' inconsistent cooperation
Social media companies provided relevant content for review in only 28% of the 10,000+ reports filed. In cases where content was reviewed, the Appeals Centre disagreed with the platforms' decisions 59% of the time.
The body also noted a lack of transparency about whether its rulings were implemented, calling for better data-sharing from platforms. TikTok, for instance, engaged with the Appeals Centre through meetings and emails but did not provide an official response to the BBC's inquiries.
YouTube stated it enforces its hate speech policies rigorously and has agreed to share disputed content with the Appeals Centre. Google's transparency report for late 2025 showed over 150,000 videos and 32,000 channels removed globally for policy violations.
Broader implications
The report underscores ongoing challenges in holding social media platforms accountable for content moderation and user disputes. While EU regulations encourage cooperation, the lack of binding enforcement leaves users with limited options when appealing wrongful actions.
Appeals Centre Europe continues to push for greater transparency and compliance from platforms to ensure fairer outcomes for users.
