Meta turns to creators as governments tighten teen social media rules

Meta has been using influencers and allied organizations to make its case for teen safety tools at the same time governments move toward age limits and bans on social media use by children. Reporting from The Guardian Technology and a new Tech Transparency Project report says the company has repeatedly responded to regulatory pressure by putting creators in front of parents, and by highlighting features it says can help families manage teen accounts.

A waterfront event in Sydney became part of Meta’s defense

In July 2025, Meta gathered parenting influencers at a waterfront venue in Sydney overlooking the Opera House. The setting was built to resemble a branded social-media experience: there were Instagram tents for photos, an Instagram step-and-repeat, a tote-making station, and even snacks and coffee cups with Instagram branding. The event had a camping theme, but its purpose was clear. Meta was preparing for an Australian law set to bar children under 16 from social media, and the company wanted creators to tell their followers that parental tools already existed.

According to the report, Meta told the influencers that blanket bans on teens were not effective. The company instead pointed to its own controls, including teen accounts for users ages 13 to 17, which include more restrictions than standard accounts. Some of the creators later posted praise for those tools, and at least some of the advocacy was paid through sponsored content.

The same playbook followed regulation discussions in multiple countries

The Tech Transparency Project says this pattern appeared wherever governments began talking about age-based regulation. Since 2024, Meta has recruited lifestyle, parenting and mental health creators to highlight parental supervision tools, content filters and other features meant to present Instagram and Facebook as safer spaces for younger users.

The report says Meta did this not only through events, but also by working with parent, advocacy and research groups that it financially supports. That strategy mattered because governments in several large markets were weighing restrictions or bans. Australia led the way by passing the world’s first under-16 social media ban in November 2024, with enforcement beginning in December 2025. Indonesia followed with a blanket teen ban in March 2026, while some Indian states adopted blanket bans and the national government continued debating restrictions. Brazil also introduced broader child online protections in March 2026, including strict age checks and parent-linked children’s accounts.

Meta’s response was not limited to one market. The report says the company launched some version of its influencer campaign in each of those places. That included promotional events in Indonesia after officials there began considering age restrictions, and paid posts in India once age-based restrictions became part of government discussion.

Why the campaign matters for Meta and for regulators

Katie Paul, who leads the Tech Transparency Project, told the report that the company’s strategy suggests Meta knows it cannot defeat these measures on its own. In her view, the company relies on creators because the public does not trust Meta to speak for itself. She said the brand has become a problem.

Meta disputes that criticism. In a statement, the company said it works to build strong protections for teens and effective controls for parents. Edward Patterson, a Meta spokesperson, said blanket bans do not protect young people and can drive them toward less regulated corners of the internet. He also said that in Australia, where 16- and 17-year-olds are placed by default into Teen Accounts, Meta would keep working with parents and experts so families understand the safety tools available.

The company has also argued that it is already acting against underage use. Meta says it has taken down 756,000 accounts it suspected belonged to teens since Australia’s ban began. Reuters reported that detail in a separate account of the enforcement effort, including the company’s removal of suspected teen accounts Meta says it has taken down 756,000 Australian teen accounts.

The debate over whether bans actually work

Australia’s rules were designed after the government commissioned a study showing 96 percent of children ages 10 to 15 used social media, and 71 percent of that group had seen harmful content such as fight videos, unhealthy diet and exercise content, and sexist or hateful posts. But the enforcement results have been mixed. The country’s internet regulator found that more than 80 percent of teens were still using social media three months after the ban, and many said they had not even been asked for their age. Officials had intended to double penalties for companies that fail to comply, but Andrew Leigh, an assistant minister, said at a conference that full compliance was never expected.

That enforcement gap has fed a wider argument over whether blanket bans are practical or even the best option. In the US and UK, groups including the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Fight for the Future have argued that age-based bans can block young people’s rights to access information and speak online. David Greene, senior counsel at the EFF, said some advocates see government intervention as a last resort and prefer non-governmental tools such as parental controls.

Meta’s safety message meets skepticism from former insiders

The report also shows that Meta’s messaging has drawn criticism from people who once worked on safety inside the company. Frances Haugen and Arturo Bejar, both whistleblowers who highlighted internal concerns about teen exposure to harmful material, helped fuel public pressure on Meta years before these laws were passed. Bejar said the company’s teen account features can still be bypassed, pointing to search results for suicide, self-harm and eating-disorder content. In his view, influencer campaigns create a misleading impression of safety.

He argued that Meta has a conflict of interest when it uses its own platform, and creators who depend on it, to promote a safer image than the product delivers. Paul, of the Tech Transparency Project, reached a similar conclusion: after two decades and repeated controversy, she said governments have concluded that Meta has not shown it can reliably regulate itself.

That is the broader significance of the campaign documented in the report. It is not just a marketing effort. It is part of a larger battle over whether companies, parents or governments should decide how children use social media, and whether the tools platforms advertise are enough to satisfy regulators who now believe stronger intervention is necessary.