Board Upholds Ban in First Accounts Case But Calls Out Systemic Human Rights Concerns

June 4, 2026

The Oversight Board has due process concerns relating to how Meta disables user accounts and to the company’s approach to account governance more broadly. In this case, the Board finds that the company was correct to permanently disable an account because of severe threats of violence it posted against a journalist. However, the Board has serious questions regarding the effectiveness of Meta’s responses to such threats that the company must address to ensure respect for human rights.

The Board outlines key principles to guide Meta and other social media platforms in their approach to account governance, including respecting users’ rights to transparency on account enforcement rules and providing a fair appeals process.

This Meta referral is the Board’s first case assessing the permanent disabling of a user’s account, piloting an extension of its mandate beyond individual content decisions.

Why This Matters

The Board is addressing an urgent concern for users – the disabling of accounts. It received more than 750 public comments meeting the terms for submission on this case. Those are added to the innumerable complaints it has received since the Board started taking cases in 2020 from users who have lost access to their accounts. 

The Board highlights the importance of ensuring due process and protecting the free expression rights of people whose accounts are disabled and those targeted with abusive content. This case illustrates the disproportionate online abuse against women in the public sphere and its connections to physical violence. Such online attacks take place across all forms of social media.

About the Case

In 2025, Meta permanently disabled an Instagram account with more than 70,000 followers for violating the company’s Community Standards.

In its referral, Meta included five of the account’s posts. Two posts included visual threats of violence against a female journalist, showing a bullseye over her face. A third post used the abusive term “whore” against the same journalist, accusing her without evidence of engaging in sexual activity with a public figure. The journalist complained to Meta employees she knew, leading to escalated review. Meta initially removed the “whore” accusation post. On a second review, it identified the posts threatening violence and permanently disabled the account under the Account Integrity and Violence and Incitement policies due to the safety risks to the journalist.

Meta referred two other posts it said were illustrative of the account’s broader behavior. One featured the anti-gay slur “fag” directed against prominent politicians. Another showed a photograph of a couple on public transportation who appeared to be engaged in oral sex, alleging they were from a religious minority and calling for their deportation. Meta removed each post shortly after their posting. The company cited these violations among numerous other strikes the account received in the 12 months prior to the permanent disablement as additionally justifying the account’s removal under its policies.

Key Findings

The Board concludes that Meta was correct to permanently disable the account because of the severe threats of violence in two posts and to remove the three other posts that violated its policies. These actions were consistent with Meta’s human rights responsibilities. The company must communicate a robust and deterrent position against threats of violence on its platforms.

Yet, the case raises concerns over due process and proportionality regarding account governance and the clarity of Meta’s rules on permanent account disablement. The case raises serious questions about the efficacy of Meta’s response to credible threats of severe violence against people, including journalists and human rights defenders, that the company must address. Improving safety can improve people’s right to freedom of expression.

This account’s substantial following was seemingly gained through spreading conspiratorial posts and harassment of prominent people. For some Board Members, there are questions about how Meta’s platform design rewards provocateurs’ behavior and increases the risk of broadly spreading violent threats. Meta should review how its design choices promote the very behavior its policies prohibit.

Upholding this account disablement is not a blanket endorsement of the company’s approach to banning and restricting accounts.

The case highlights the following human rights concerns at the systemic level:

• Due process for the targets of violent threats – The Board is seriously concerned that Meta did not review either of the two clear and credible threats swiftly when posted, delaying removal and exposing the targeted journalist to intolerable risk for a prolonged period.
• Due process for users whose accounts are disabled – Delays in providing justice undermined due process for the account holder, which could have provided more opportunities to correct his behavior.
• Unclear account suspensions and disablement policies – Accessible, consistent and comprehensive information about Meta’s approaches must be ensured for users. Meta’s expansion of AI assistants’ role may help. Coherence between the policies and assistants’ responses is important. The restrictions Meta applies to Instagram accounts prior to disabling are not public.
• Lack of a clear framework guiding decisions to permanently disable an account for “egregious” safety concerns – A more detailed but still flexible framework than currently available is needed for reviewers. This could improve consistency and avoid missing credible threats.
• No intermediate options between permanent disablement and leaving the strikes system to run its course for egregious policy violations – Where mitigating factors are present, a significant but time-bound suspension may be more proportionate.

The Board outlined the following principles to guide Meta and other social media platforms in their approach to account disablement:

1. Respect users’ right to access clear and comprehensive guidance on the rules governing decisions to permanently disable social media accounts.
2. Respect users’ right to detailed reasons for account disablement, including providing: easily accessible, reliable information and appeal options; information on the role of any government request for either the review or disabling of an account, and of automation in the reviews.
3. Social media companies should coordinate to create a program sharing information about accounts that credibly threaten serious violence.
4. Allow effective and fair appeals, including the opportunity for users to provide written reasons for their appeal and prioritizing human review in edge cases.
5. Provide detailed transparency reports with meaningful information about account disablement enforcement trends.

Further Information

To read public comments for this case, click here.

Return to Blogs