The European Union has found that both Meta and TikTok failed to adequately protect children. One of the most significant concerns has to do with the material child sexual abuse (CSAM) on their apps.
Meta, TikTok: Obstacles for researchers
Both companies are said to have illegally placed obstacles to researchers seeking data on whether children are exposed to illegal or harmful content. The European Commission found that both TikTok and Meta violated the regulation, which requires them to provide researchers with adequate access to public data (under the Digital Services Act – DSA).
See also: Iraq blocks Roblox over concerns for children
The Commission’s preliminary findings suggest that Facebook, Instagram (owned by Meta) and TikTok may have implemented complex processes and tools for requesting access to public data. As a result, researchers often find partial or unreliable data. This affects their ability to conduct research into whether users, including minors, are being exposed to illegal or harmful content.
Difficulty reporting illegal content
Meta was also found to be making it difficult for users to report illegal content, such as CSAM. Neither Facebook nor Instagram provide a user-friendly and easily accessible 'Notice and Action' mechanism for reporting illegal content. Meta was accused of using so-called dark patterns to intentionally make the submission of such reports complicated and confusing.
Now, both companies will have the opportunity to review the report and submit responses. If the responses are deemed inappropriate, the companies could face fines of up to 6% of their total annual global turnover.
See also: Florida: Charges against Roblox over child safety
Meta: Previous problems
In 2021, Meta was accused of obstructing an internal investigation that showed Instagram was toxic for teenage girls. When the reports were made public, following a Wall Street Journal investigation, the company claimed the findings were taken out of context.
Several US states filed lawsuits against the company, accusing it of intentionally making its apps addictive, even though it knew they were harmful to teenagers.
It was reported that the company’s lawyers advised Meta to keep the findings secret, and the social network argued that this advice could not be heard in court due to “attorney-client privilege.” However, Judge Yvonne Williams ruled that Meta cannot use attorney-client privilege to block the D.C. attorney general from using the internal documents in the District’s lawsuit over the teen’s mental health injuries.
Williams found that the communication in the documents fell under the crime-fraudbecause Meta sought legal advice to conceal potential liability or engage in fraud.
See also: Google challenges Australia's law banning social media for children
“The Court notes that Meta’s lawyers expressly advised Meta’s investigators to ‘remove,’ ‘block,’ ‘close,’ ‘limit,’ and ‘update’ their investigation,” Williams said. “Meta’s lawyers provided such legal advice to specifically limit Meta’s potential liability.”
The first of the lawsuits is expected to be heard next year.
