Former Safety Leader Alleges Meta Used 17-Strike Policy for Sex Trafficking Violations

Unredacted Court Filing Reveals Allegations of Lax Enforcement on Severe Harm

A former high-ranking safety leader at Meta has claimed, in an unredacted court filing, that the company maintained an internal policy requiring accounts engaged in sex trafficking to accumulate 17 strikes before facing permanent removal. This explosive allegation suggests that, for a period, Meta prioritized user retention and engagement metrics over the immediate removal of accounts involved in one of the most severe crimes on its platforms.

The claim, which surfaced in litigation against the tech giant, provides a rare and concerning glimpse into the internal mechanisms of content moderation at Meta (formerly Facebook). If accurate, the 17-strike threshold contrasts sharply with the zero-tolerance policies typically expected for illegal activities like human trafficking, raising serious questions about the company’s commitment to platform safety and human rights.

The Mechanics of the Alleged 17-Strike System

The testimony from the former safety leader detailed a moderation system where even severe violations, including those related to the exploitation and trafficking of individuals, were treated through a graduated ‘strike’ system rather than immediate account termination. While many platforms utilize strike systems for minor infractions (like posting spam or mild harassment), applying such a high threshold to sex trafficking is highly unusual and potentially negligent.

Why a Strike Policy for Severe Crimes?

According to the court filing, the alleged policy was part of a broader framework that seemed designed to minimize the impact of enforcement actions on user numbers. The former leader suggested that the high strike threshold was a symptom of a corporate culture that consistently favored growth and user engagement over proactive safety measures. This tension between business metrics and platform safety has been a recurring theme in criticisms leveled against Meta and other large social media companies.

“The existence of a 17-strike policy for sex trafficking demonstrates a fundamental failure in prioritizing human safety. It suggests that the company was willing to tolerate repeated, severe criminal activity before taking definitive action.”

The Role of Internal Review

Under the alleged system, an account flagged for sex trafficking would receive a strike. Only upon reaching the 17th strike would the account be eligible for permanent removal. This process allowed the account to remain active, potentially for months or longer, continuing to facilitate illegal activity while accumulating warnings. For comparison, many platforms enforce immediate, permanent bans for single instances of child sexual abuse material (CSAM) or terrorism promotion.

Legal Context and Corporate Accountability

These claims were revealed as part of ongoing legal action against Meta, which often involves allegations that the company’s algorithms and moderation practices have contributed to real-world harm. Unredacted filings, like the one containing this testimony, are critical in providing transparency into internal corporate decision-making processes that are usually shielded from public view.

The Broader Lawsuit

The specific lawsuit where this testimony emerged is typically centered on Meta’s alleged failure to adequately protect vulnerable users, particularly minors, from exploitation and harmful content. The 17-strike policy allegation serves as powerful evidence for plaintiffs seeking to demonstrate that Meta’s safety protocols were intentionally weak or ineffective in critical areas.

Key Areas of Concern Highlighted by the Allegation:

• Prioritization of Metrics: The claim reinforces the narrative that Meta’s internal incentive structure rewards user retention, even at the expense of enforcing policies against severe criminal conduct.
• Inconsistent Enforcement: It suggests a lack of uniform, immediate enforcement for violations that should warrant zero tolerance.
• Regulatory Risk: The revelation significantly increases regulatory and legislative pressure on Meta in jurisdictions worldwide, particularly in the United States and the European Union, where platform safety laws are becoming stricter.

Meta’s Response and Industry Standards

In response to such claims, Meta typically defends its overall safety investments, often citing the billions of dollars spent on moderation teams and AI technology. When confronted with specific allegations regarding past policies, the company often asserts that the claims are either outdated, taken out of context, or misrepresent the complexity of content moderation.

While Meta’s specific official response to the 17-strike allegation must be noted, the incident forces a wider discussion on what constitutes acceptable platform governance in the fight against human trafficking.

The Challenge of Moderation at Scale

Social media platforms face the immense challenge of moderating billions of pieces of content daily. However, critics argue that the resources dedicated to enforcement should be disproportionately focused on the most harmful and illegal content, such as sex trafficking, rather than relying on graduated strike systems that allow criminal activity to persist.

Industry standards generally dictate that content facilitating illegal activities, especially those involving the exploitation of vulnerable populations, should be removed immediately upon detection, and the associated accounts should be permanently banned.

Key Takeaways for Users and Regulators

This unredacted testimony provides critical insight into the internal struggles and priorities of one of the world’s largest communication platforms. For the public and policymakers, the key takeaways are clear:

• Severity of the Claim: A former safety leader alleged that accounts involved in sex trafficking required 17 violations before permanent removal, indicating a policy failure in severe crime enforcement.
• Source Credibility: The information comes from an unredacted court filing, lending significant weight and legal context to the claims.
• Corporate Culture: The allegation supports the argument that Meta’s internal structure may have historically prioritized metrics (user retention) over immediate safety actions.
• Ongoing Scrutiny: This revelation will intensify existing legal and regulatory pressure on Meta to demonstrate robust and immediate enforcement against human trafficking and other severe harms.

Conclusion: The Cost of Delayed Enforcement

The allegation of a 17-strike policy for sex trafficking is more than just a procedural detail; it represents a potential ethical and operational failure where the cost of delayed enforcement is measured in human lives and exploitation. While Meta continues to update and defend its current safety policies, this testimony serves as a stark reminder of the difficult balance between maintaining an open platform and ensuring absolute safety for its most vulnerable users.

As legal proceedings continue, the public and regulators will demand greater transparency and accountability from Meta regarding the specific policies currently in place to combat human trafficking and other severe crimes, ensuring that zero tolerance truly means zero tolerance, without a high threshold of strikes.