An independent EU dispute body reported that Meta virtually never replies when it raises cases from users who say they were wrongly banned. The body reviewed 4,600 cases involving Facebook, Instagram, and Threads users and found Meta provided evidence in fewer than 100 cases. Under EU rules, platforms should engage in good faith with such bodies, but the body’s decisions are not legally binding. Account suspensions were the biggest issue in the year leading up to March 2026. The body said platforms often fail to provide content needed for independent review, causing significant frustration. Users described personal and business impacts and concerns about police involvement. Meta did not comment, though it sometimes overturned bans when individual cases were raised.
"Appeals Centre Europe looked at 4,600 cases of Facebook, Instagram and Threads users who said they had been wrongly banned, but Meta provided evidence in fewer than 100 of these cases. Under EU law, online platforms should “engage in good faith” with the body, but its decision is not legally binding. Account bans were the biggest issue reported to it in the year leading up to March 2026."
"“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,” it said in its transparency report. Meta provided relevant content for fewer than 100 out of more than 4,600 account ban cases, the report said, “causing significant frustration among users”."
"Some spoke of the profound personal toll it has taken on them, including concerns that the police could become involved, and the effect bans could have on their online businesses. Meta repeatedly refused to comment on the problems its users faced - though it frequently overturned bans when the BBC raised individual cases with it."
Read at www.bbc.com
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]