Provide Clearer Policy on Peer-To-Peer Selling of Animals
December 2, 2025
The Oversight Board has reviewed two Facebook posts with videos of puppies that appeared to be for sale, noting that the company correctly applied policies designed to enable legitimate commerce on the platform while protecting users from fraud. However, the Board finds that Meta should be clearer to users that the policy on restricted goods and services is intended to ban peer-to-peer selling of animals specifically. The Board has overturned Meta’s original decision to remove the content in one case and has upheld Meta’s decision to remove it in the other.
About the Cases
In March 2025, two Facebook users posted videos of puppies. The first post, from Australia, has a video showing two puppies in a pen with a caption stating their breed. The caption is repeated in text overlaying the video, along with an Instagram handle. The page where the videos were posted says the user is a specialist dog breeder and includes a business name and address, and other details.
The second post, from the Philippines, has videos of six puppies, with a caption saying the user is “looking for furparents” and that six pure-breed puppies are “open for reservation,” along with medical information, dates of birth and when they are available. There is an invitation to contact the user for more details.
The first post was online for four days and had fewer than 10 views before Meta’s classifiers removed it for violating Meta’s Restricted Goods and Services Community Standard, which prohibits selling non-endangered animals. The second post was online for six days and had fewer than 5,000 views, when Meta’s classifiers removed it for violating the same policy.
In the first case, the user appealed to Meta and after the company upheld its decision, the user appealed to the Board. When the Board selected the case, Meta reviewed its original decision and restored the post. In the second case, the user also appealed to Meta. The appeal was closed without being reviewed and the user appealed to the Board.
Key Findings
Meta was right to restore the first post after the Board selected the case because it does not violate the company’s policy on selling non-endangered animals. The post is allowed under an exception that permits sales by established “brick-and-mortar” businesses, while prohibiting peer-to-peer selling, which is a significant source of online fraud.
The second post did violate the policy, however. While there were no signs of attempted fraud, it was an attempt to make peer-to-peer sales and there was nothing to indicate that the user was operating a legitimate business. Meta was justified in removing the post as part of the company’s attempts to protect users from potential scams.
The Board finds that Meta should clarify the way it describes the exception to the policy. “Brick-and-mortar” is an outdated phrase that is not understood everywhere. It would be clearer for users, including the legitimate businesses operating responsibly on Meta’s platforms, if the policy simply stated that peer-to-peer sales are prohibited. Meta should also review the speed at which the relevant classifiers operate to ensure that delays in reviewing content do not undermine the policy’s goals.
The Oversight Board’s Decision
The Board overturns Meta’s original decision to remove the content in the first case and upholds the company’s decision to remove the content in the second case.
The Board also recommends that Meta:
- Should clarify that peer-to-peer trade in non-endangered animals is prohibited and remove references to “brick-and-mortar entities” from this part of the policy. The policy should instead state that Meta applies a multi-factor test to determine what constitutes an established business permitted to sell non-endangered animals on the platform, and list several of the relevant factors.
Further Information
To read public comments for this case, click here.
