US lawsuit claims Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg ignored expert advice on Instagram beauty filters
Mark Zuckerberg once vetoed a proposal to ban filters simulating cosmetic surgery on Instagram and Facebook despite warnings about the harmful impact on teens’ mental health, according to a lawsuit.
National
Don't miss out on the headlines from National. Followed categories will be added to My News.
Mark Zuckerberg once vetoed a proposal to ban filters simulating cosmetic surgery on Instagram and Facebook despite warnings about the harmful impact on teens’ mental health, according to a lawsuit.
The billionaire founder and CEO of Meta overruled several of his own top executives who had “significant concerns” about the damaging consequences – particularly for girls and young women – of augmented reality (AR) selfie effects that gave users the appearance of lip injections, fillers and facelifts, unsealed documents in a class action launched by more than 30 US states allege.
After public outcry prompted Meta to instigate a temporary ban on the filters in October 2019, extracts of internal company emails cited in the court filings expose how Mr Zuckerberg appeared to personally intervene to reinstate the effects six months later.
The lawsuit claims Meta’s leadership came to understand it was “actively encouraging young girls into body dysmorphia” with the filters, but when the “severe impacts” were communicated to Mr Zuckerberg, he “dismissed” them.
Former Meta employee Frances Haugen, who in 2021 exposed the dangers of the platform, told News Corp the incident was an example of Mr Zuckerberg’s power over the day-to-day running of Facebook and Instagram.
“He is the chairman, he is the CEO, no one can vote him out,” she said.
Ms Haugen said this was a problem when the billionaire was either “intentionally wilfully ignorant” or could not “internalise the idea that something he built hurts people”.
Despite the allegations in the lawsuit, a Meta spokesman on Wednesday said filters that “directly promote cosmetic surgery, changes in skin colour or extreme weight loss” had been banned since 2019, and new effects were “proactively” reviewed before they go live.
But mental health and body image advocates say any ban must be extended to cover a broader range of effects that alter the appearance of the user to promote unrealistic beauty standards.
Parent and executive director of Eating Disorders Families Australia Jane Rowan said selfie filters on top of a platform where people are already trying to present perfect images were a danger for vulnerable young people.
“I would like to see them completely banned, and I think there’s a lot of people in the sector and families who would agree,” she said.
“I think it comes down to the platforms taking greater responsibility for the content they’re allowing.”
Butterfly Foundation head of communication and engagement Melissa Wilton said there was a clear distinction between “fun filters” and those promoting a seemingly attainable body image or facial ideal.
“We know there is a correlation between social media use and body dissatisfaction,” she said.
“Anything that represents beauty ideals that are unattainable for the vast majority of people can start to make users feel bad about themselves and lead to harmful behaviours like disordered eating.”
The US court documents allege in November 2019, Margaret Gould Stewart, Meta’s then-Vice President of Product Design and Responsible Innovation contacted several high-level colleagues, including the then-heads of Facebook and Instagram about the issue in an email.
Ms Gould Stewart described the “PR fire” caused by the filters and recommended the temporary ban be made permanent.
In a separate briefing memo she also noted academic researchers had demonstrated that “Facebook and Instagram use is associated with body images issues and anxiety among users and particularly among women and teenage girls”.
The memo warned that long term studies of the effects of cosmetic surgery filters “likely will not be available before the potentially damaging impact to user wellbeing manifests”.
Instagram’s former Head of Policy Karina Newton agreed with the recommendation to extend the ban, noting “outside academics and experts consulted were nearly unanimous on the harm here”.
A meeting with Mr Zuckerberg to discuss the matter was ultimately scheduled for April 2 2020, and a “Cosmetic Surgery Effects Pre-Read” document was prepared and circulated in advance.
But according the lawsuit, one day before the scheduled talks Mr Zuckerberg cancelled the meeting and vetoed the proposal to make the ban permanent.
Mr Zuckerberg is quoted in the documents as allegedly dismissing concerns about the filters as “paternalistic”.
He also said there was a “clear demand” for the effects and asserted he had seen “no data” suggesting they were harmful.
After Mr Zuckerberg rejected the proposal to ban the filters, court documents allege Ms Gould Stewart wrote to the CEO and said while she respected his call she did not think it was right.
“I just hope that years from now we will look back and feel good about the decision we made here,” Ms Gould Stewart said in the email referenced by lawsuit.
Butterfly Foundation: 1800 33 4673
Lifeline: 13 11 14
More Coverage
Originally published as US lawsuit claims Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg ignored expert advice on Instagram beauty filters
The Killers new Aussie tour: How to get tickets
The Killers are coming to Australia again and have a very popular John Farnham song in their sights to sing in our stadiums. See how to get best tickets and watch the video.
New laws to stop Mafia and bikies’ dirty cash ops
Dodgy real estate agents, accountants and lawyers will be hit with tough new laws to stop them working with bikies, drug traffickers and the Mafia. See what’s afoot.