Puppies Cases to Assess Impact of Restricted Goods Policy on Small Businesses
13 de Agosto de 2025
Today, the Board is announcing new cases for consideration. As part of this, we invite people and organizations to submit public comments by using the button below.
Case Selection
As we cannot hear every appeal, the Board prioritizes cases that have the potential to affect lots of users around the world, are of critical importance to public discourse or raise important questions about Meta’s policies.
The cases that we are announcing today are:
Posts With Puppies Seemingly for Sale
2025-054-FB-UA, 2025-055-FB-UA
User appeals to restore content
Submit a public comment using the button below
To read this announcement in Filipino, click here
Para basahin ang anunsiyong ito sa wikang Filipino, i-click ito
The Oversight Board will address the two cases below together, choosing either to uphold or overturn Meta’s decisions on a case-by-case basis.
The Board has selected two cases involving advertising pets on Facebook. In the first case, an administrator of a Facebook page posted a short video in March 2025 showing two puppies in a pen with a caption stating the breed of the puppies. The same words are repeated in text overlaying the video together with an Instagram handle. The public page where the content was shared states that the user is a specialist dog breeder. The post was viewed fewer than 10 times.
In the second case, a Facebook user, who describes themselves as a “digital creator” on their profile, in March 2025 made a post containing six videos of puppies for sale on their public profile timeline. The post states that the user is “looking for furparents” and states that they have six pure-breed puppies “open for reservation.” The user lists some medical information about the puppies, their date of birth, their location, and when they are available. There is no mention of price or money changing hands, but users are invited to message for more details. The six videos each show one of the puppies, introducing them by name. The post was viewed fewer than 5,000 times.
Both posts were identified by Meta’s classifiers and removed from the platform for violating Meta’s Restricted Goods and Services Community Standard. That policy prohibits content “that attempts to buy, sell or trade live non-endangered animals” unless it falls into a number of stated exceptions. One of those exceptions allows content “posted by a Page, group or Instagram profile representing legitimate brick-and-mortar entities, including retail businesses, legitimate websites, brands or rehoming shelters, or a private individual sharing content on behalf of legitimate brick-and-mortar entities.” The users in both cases appealed Meta’s removal of their content and, after Meta upheld its decisions, both users appealed to the Board.
After the Board selected the first case, Meta determined that it should not have removed the content and restored it to the platform as the post did not indicate a sale and, even if it did, there were signs that the page is associated with a brick and mortar entity. Meta identified those signs as the page providing “a business name and address for a physical location, a link to a business website, a business email address, and the business's opening and closing hours.”
Meta maintained the removal of the content in the second case. The company explained that the statement that the puppies were “open for reservation” and the call to “reserve yours now” explicitly advertised that the puppies were for sale and an analysis of the user’s profile showed no affiliation to a breeder or legitimate pet store. Meta noted that it distinguishes between sales by brick-and-mortar entities and peer-to-peer sales by individuals “to strike a balance between enabling legitimate commerce and protecting both animals and users from potential harm associated with unregulated sales.”
In their statement to the Board the user in the first case noted that posts advertising puppies for sale were very common on Facebook. The user in the second case acknowledged that that they were trying to sell the puppies outside of Facebook. They explained that they were trying to do so in a safe and responsible manner, and their post attempted to share relevant information. The user noted that sharing this sort of information on Facebook is valuable to people trying to facilitate the ethical adoption of pets.
The Board would appreciate public comments that address:
- Animal welfare concerns arising from the sale of pets on social media platforms, especially animals that appear to be bred for sale.
- The impact on small businesses of Meta’s requirement that animal sales are linked to “legitimate brick-and-mortar entities, including retail businesses, legitimate websites, brands or rehoming shelters, or a private individual sharing content on behalf of legitimate brick-and-mortar entities.”
- The prevalence of scams involving the sale of animals on social media.
- How Meta’s Restricted Goods and Services policy impacts small businesses.
In its decisions, the Board can issue policy recommendations to Meta. While recommendations are not binding, Meta must respond to them within 60 days. As such, the Board welcomes public comments proposing recommendations that are relevant to these cases.
Public Comments
If you or your organization feel you can contribute valuable perspectives that can help with reaching a decision on the cases announced today, you can submit your contributions using the button below. Please note that public comments can be provided anonymously. The public comment window is open for 14 days, closing at 23.59 Pacific Standard Time (PST) on Wednesday 27 August.
What’s Next
Over the next few weeks, Board Members will be deliberating these cases. Once they have reached their decision, we will post it on the Decisions page.
