Elon Musk Calls Out Meta After Reports Instagram Allowed 17 Strikes for Solicitation, Banned Immediate Misgendering

Elon Musk on Monday publicly criticised Meta after newly unsealed court documents from a major lawsuit suggested that Instagram treated some severe policy breaches far more leniently than comparatively minor violations, reigniting scrutiny of the social network’s content-safety practices.

The unsealed papers, filed in the US District Court for the Northern District of California, include testimony from Vaishnavi Jayakumar, a former Instagram head of safety and well-being, describing a strike-based enforcement system. Plaintiffs’ lawyers say the testimony shows some accounts tied to prostitution or sexual solicitation could accumulate numerous infractions before removal, while other behaviours, such as misgendering a transgender person, could prompt immediate suspensions.

Musk highlighted those contrasts on X, pointing to what he described as troubling priorities.

Replying to an X post criticising Meta for tolerating sex trafficking content, Musk said, “On Instagram or Facebook, misgendering a trans person resulted in an immediate ban, but trafficking child prostitution allowed 17 strikes!”

The Charges

The litigation now lists more than 1,800 plaintiffs, including school districts, state attorneys-general and individuals, who allege Meta knew its platforms exposed children to risk but repeatedly sidelined fixes that would reduce harm because those changes might suppress engagement.

Plaintiffs say internal reviews identified systemic problems, including adults messaging minors and recommendation features that surfaced potentially unsafe accounts to teenagers.

Court documents contend Meta executives repeatedly rejected or watered down proposals intended to protect young users and curb addictive or harmful interactions. Plaintiffs assert those decisions reflect a pattern of prioritising business metrics over safety and amount to a “failure of oversight” that contributed to ongoing harms.

Meta’s Response

Meta has pushed back, saying the filings have been selectively quoted and do not portray the company’s broader safety efforts.

In public statements the company characterised the disclosures as misleading and emphasised investments in moderation tools, parental controls and other protections designed to safeguard minors. Meta denies the implication that it tolerated trafficking-related conduct.

The dispute touches on a wider debate over platform responsibility, content moderation and how social networks balance growth with user safety. If plaintiffs’ claims are borne out, the case could increase pressure on regulators and amplify demands for tougher oversight, internal governance changes, or larger civil remedies. For now, both the factual record in the unsealed filings and Meta’s conduct will be weighed in ongoing court proceedings.