Case Description
In September 2025, an Instagram user posted a short video of a woman in a form-fitting dress. In the video, the woman is adjusting her dress and moving her body, with her underwear visible in a few frames.
The next day, Meta’s automated system that detects and prioritizes content that may pose harm to individuals, especially content with a high likelihood of virality, identified the post. However, the report was not prioritized for human review.
A few days later, two users reported the content for pornography, but their reports were not prioritized for human review either, and the content remained on Instagram. One of the users who had reported the content appealed to Meta to take the content down, but once again the post was not prioritized for human review. The user then appealed to the Board.
When the Board brought the case to Meta’s attention, Meta’s subject matter experts reviewed the post and concluded that it did not violate the company’s Adult Nudity and Sexual Activity Community Standard, as it did not contain any “visual representations of a sexual encounter” or “language that facilitates or encourages sexual encounter.” The company therefore did not remove the content but determined it should only be visible to adults. Meta highlighted that under this policy, the company restricts visibility of “photorealistic or digital imagery of persons where crotch, buttock or female breast(s) are the focus of the image” to users aged 18 and up. It further stated that the individual featured in the video, whom Meta does not consider a public figure, draws attention to her crotch area and underwear by moving her legs and adjusting the clothing. The company added that keeping the content on the platform with age restrictions reflects their fundamental commitment to expression, while preventing younger audiences from material that may be inappropriate for their age.
The Board selected this case to assess Meta’s moderation practices in enforcing its Adult Nudity and Sexual Activity and related Community Standards, particularly in the context where a person’s image or likeness is used in a sexually explicit or suggestive manner without their consent. This case falls within the Board’s Automated Enforcement of Policies and Curation of Content and Gender strategic priorities.
The Board would appreciate public comments that address:
- Contextual information about the use and prevalence of AI-generated sexually explicit or suggestive imagery that is created without the consent of the person that is depicted.
- Views on protection of image or likeness in the context of AI-generated sexually explicit or suggestive imagery, while preserving, e.g., artistic expression.
- Best practices and recommendations for enforcing policies on AI-generated non-consensual intimate explicit or suggestive imagery, including approaches to determining non-public figures’ consent on image use.
- Views on the effectiveness of age-gating approaches to AI-generated non-consensual intimate explicit or suggestive
- Approaches to designing effective mechanisms to report AI-generated content where a person’s image or likeness is used in a sexually explicit or suggestive manner without their consent
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 this case.
Public Comments
If you or your organization feel you can contribute valuable perspectives that can help with reaching a decision on the case 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 Thursday 26 February.
What’s Next
Over the next few weeks, Board Members will be deliberating this case. Once they have reached their decision, we will post it on the Decisions page.
Comments
Meta should not allow users to share intimate or sexually explicit images or videos of a person, or the *likeness* of a person, without their informed consent.
If informed consent from the subject cannot be obtained, then the image or video should not be published. This applies to both AI generated and non-AI generated material.
I understand it will be difficult for Meta to obtain informed consent in many or all instances, particularly if the material is AI generated and the person is not a public figure. Perhaps a system could be developed by Meta to (a) locate and obtain informed consent from the subject/s of the material, and (b) verify the identify the poster. This must occur before the material is published.
In South Sudan, AI-generated non-consensual sexualized imagery causes serious harm beyond the online space. Women, particularly those in public or professional roles, already face strong social stigma, gender discrimination, and weak legal protection. When their image or likeness is sexualized without consent, it often leads to reputational damage, public shaming, harassment, and, in some cases, offline threats.
Such content is widely perceived as real, even when later clarified as fabricated. This creates lasting harm in a society where women’s morality is closely scrutinized, forcing many victims to withdraw from public life to protect their safety and dignity.
Age-gating is not effective in this context. Restricting access to users aged 18 and above does not prevent harm, as the core issue is the non-consensual use of a person’s image. Once left online, this content is easily reshared across platforms and private channels without controls.
Platforms should treat AI-generated sexualized content reported as non-consensual as inherently harmful, especially for non-public figures who lack the means or safety to contest abuse. Rapid removal, human review, and accessible reporting mechanisms are essential to prevent escalation and protect women from further harm.