An independent EU dispute resolution body has accused Meta of routinely failing to respond to cases involving users who say they were wrongly banned from Facebook, Instagram and Threads.
According to a new transparency report by Appeals Centre Europe, the organisation reviewed more than 4,600 account suspension complaints from Meta users, but received supporting evidence from the company in fewer than 100 cases.
Meta has been contacted for comment.
Appeals Centre Europe is one of several independent bodies set up under EU rules to help users challenge decisions made by social media platforms, including account suspensions and content moderation actions.
While the organisation’s rulings are not legally binding, EU law requires online platforms to engage with the process “in good faith”.
The report offers a snapshot of the wider challenges surrounding content moderation across Europe, where social media companies remove hundreds of millions of posts and accounts each year.
Account suspensions emerged as the most common complaint handled by the body in the year leading up to March 2026.
“In the vast majority of cases related to account suspensions, platforms are unable or unwilling to provide the content which allows us to independently review their decisions,” the report stated.
It added that Meta’s failure to provide relevant information in most cases had caused “significant frustration among users”.
The findings mirror complaints previously raised by users worldwide. Last year, more than 500 people contacted the BBC claiming their Facebook or Instagram accounts had been suspended without warning, with little or no opportunity to appeal or speak directly to Meta representatives.
Several users described the emotional and financial impact of the bans, including fears of police involvement and damage to businesses that relied heavily on social media platforms.
Although Meta repeatedly declined to publicly address the complaints, the company often restored accounts after the BBC escalated individual cases.
The report also raised concerns over how major social media platforms handle hate speech and harmful content.
Appeals Centre Europe reviewed more than 1,400 complaints involving alleged hate speech and said platforms frequently failed to enforce their own policies.
Chief Executive Thomas Hughes said the body found that hateful content remained online in more than two-thirds of the hate speech cases it reviewed.
The examples cited included racist, misogynistic, homophobic and transphobic content.
According to the report, TikTok failed to remove 83% of the potential hate speech cases reviewed by the body, followed by Instagram at 74%, Facebook at 61% and YouTube at 58%.
One case involved racist comments comparing Black footballers to monkeys following a UEFA Champions League match, which remained visible on Instagram despite violating the platform’s policies.
In another example, the body said antisemitic videos shared by prominent figures in Poland were allowed to stay on YouTube, despite conflicting with the platform’s hate speech rules.
The report also highlighted an AI-generated video about the Russia-Ukraine war that remained online on TikTok, which Appeals Centre Europe believed breached the platform’s misinformation policies.
However, the organisation noted that social media companies failed to provide relevant material for review in 72% of more than 10,000 complaints submitted.
“In the nearly 3,000 decisions where we were able to review the content, we disagreed with the platform 59% of the time,” the body said.
Appeals Centre Europe added that platforms had not consistently shared information on whether its decisions were eventually implemented, saying it was continuing to push for greater transparency and cooperation.
TikTok declined to provide the BBC with an on-the-record response, but the company said it had engaged with the Appeals Centre through meetings and email correspondence.
According to TikTok’s transparency report for the second half of 2025, the platform received 56,549 user reports related to illegal hate speech content within the European Union, with 88.7% of those reports reviewed within 24 hours. During the same reporting period, TikTok said it removed 112 million pieces of content — including videos, comments and advertisements — for violating its terms of service.
YouTube also defended its moderation policies, saying its hate speech rules “outline clear guidelines prohibiting content that promotes violence or hatred against individuals or groups based on certain attributes,” adding that the policy is enforced rigorously.
The platform said it remains committed to working with out-of-court dispute resolution bodies such as Appeals Centre Europe and confirmed that an agreement had been reached to share disputed content for review.
Meanwhile, in a global transparency report covering October to December 2025, YouTube’s parent company, Google, disclosed that more than 150,000 videos and 32,000 channels were removed from the platform for policy violations.