Meta, the parent company of Facebook, has been accused of failing to act promptly on accounts involved in sex trafficking, allowing illicit content to remain on its platforms despite repeated violations. A recently unsealed court filing reveals that Meta had a policy of allowing 16 violations, such as adults soliciting minors, before suspending accounts. This policy has been criticized as overly lenient, with former Instagram safety chief Vaishnavi Jayakumar testifying that it was “very, very high” by industry standards.

The accusation is part of a lawsuit filed in California by over 1,800 plaintiffs, including school districts, children, parents, and state attorneys general. The lawsuit alleges that social media giants, including Meta, Google’s YouTube, ByteDance’s TikTok, and Snap’s Snapchat, “relentlessly pursued a strategy of growth at all costs, recklessly ignoring the impact of their products on children’s mental and physical health.”

The lawsuit claims that Meta was aware of serious harms on its platforms, including millions of adult strangers contacting minors, products that worsened teen mental health issues, and frequent detection but rare removal of content related to suicide, eating disorders, and child sexual abuse.

In response to the allegations, Meta has stated that it now enforces a “one strike” policy and immediately removes accounts involved in human exploitation. The company has also come under scrutiny in the US and globally, with Russia designating it an “extremist organization” in 2022 for refusing to remove prohibited content. Meta is facing multiple legal and regulatory challenges in the EU, including a €797 million antitrust fine tied to Facebook Marketplace.

The allegations against Meta highlight the ongoing concerns about the company’s handling of illicit content and its impact on children’s safety and well-being. As the lawsuit progresses, it is likely to have significant implications for Meta and the broader social media industry. The company’s new “one strike” policy may be seen as a step in the right direction, but it remains to be seen whether it will be enough to address the concerns raised by the lawsuit and regulatory bodies.