Meta is running a global campaign to push back against laws that would ban teenagers from social media, according to a new investigation by the Tech Transparency Project.

The effort relies on paid influencers and funded parent groups, the watchdog said. Meta developed the tactics in the United States, the watchdog said. It has since exported them to more than a dozen countries weighing similar restrictions. The findings are set out in a report published on Tuesday.

The template, the group said, began in Australia. The company acted five months before the country’s under-16 ban took effect. In July 2025, it invited parenting influencers to an “Instagram Safety Camp” at a waterfront venue overlooking Sydney Harbour. The company handed attendees branded swag and snacks, the report said.

Meta then told them that blanket bans do not work, and that Instagram’s parental supervision tools are a better way to keep children safe.

Meta’s head of child safety, Ravi Sinha, told the group that bans do not work, according to the report. He said they risk “pushing teens into places that are less safe.”

The influencers then repeated those talking points to their followers, the group found. Many used a vague tag such as #instagrampartner rather than a clear advertising label.

The same playbook, country by country

The pattern recurs almost identically elsewhere, according to the report. Meta stages branded events, often called Instagram Safety Camp or Screen Smart, the group said. It then recruits actors, radio hosts, psychologists and parent influencers to promote its Teen Accounts as evidence that bans are unnecessary.

The report gives examples across several markets. In Indonesia, it said, the actor Darius Sinathrya told his 1.8 million followers to try the safety features. In India, the actress Juhi Parmar reassured parents their teens were in a “safer space” on Instagram. In Brazil, the actor Douglas Silva, who has three million followers, carried a similar message.

All of the posts were paid, the group said, and disclosed with small tags rather than plain labels.

The disclosures may not meet local rules. In Australia, the report noted, the consumer regulator warns influencers against burying advertising labels in a long list of hashtags. It has said misleading endorsements can draw fines. Meta said the use of tags such as #instagrampartner is standard marketing practice and a clear disclosure of the relationship.

Funded allies

Meta also works through funded intermediaries, the report said. It named the Australian youth service ReachOut, the New Zealand group Netsafe and the Brussels-based nonprofit ThinkYoung as recipients of Meta money. All three have echoed the company’s anti-ban arguments, the report said, in some cases without disclosing the funding. All three groups told the Tech Transparency Project they set their own positions and that Meta does not approve what they say.

The report describes a wider network at the European level. Meta has helped fund a youth advisory panel and a parents’ network run through ThinkYoung, the group said, whose members have argued against bans in Brussels. Meta said it works with a range of organisations to advance teen safety and does not disclose the terms of individual partnerships.

The dispute over Teen Accounts

Meta’s case rests on its Teen Accounts, the supervised settings it says protect young users. Independent testing has questioned how well they work. The Washington Post reported last year that the accounts “fail spectacularly” to shield minors from harmful content. The Tech Transparency Project said its own tests found similar gaps.

Meta rejected the framing. In a statement, the company said it had held more than 40 events globally since 2024 to promote its teen safety tools. All paid partnerships are clearly disclosed and comply with advertising rules in each market, it added. It works with influencers, the company said, “because they are local voices trusted by parents in their communities.”

A Meta spokesperson, Edward Patterson, disputed that the influence effort is misleading. He told The Guardian that blanket bans push teens toward less safe, unregulated parts of the internet. Meta added that it has “never directed a partner to advocate a particular point of view.”

The watchdog took a different view. Katie Paul, the group’s director, told The Guardian that Meta’s reliance on paid messengers shows the company knows “the brand has become a problem,” a reading Meta rejects.

Why it lands now

The report arrives at a fraught moment for Meta. The company is on trial in California, where four states accuse it of designing features that addict children. It is also adjusting to Australia’s under-16 ban, the first of its kind, which took effect in December.

Governments elsewhere are moving in the same direction, with mixed results. Meta has said it removed access to about 750,000 Australian accounts it judged to belong to under-16s, though a regulator found most affected teenagers were still online. In Europe, France’s under-15 ban passed parliament before the country’s top court struck it down on free-expression grounds. The United Kingdom, Canada, Spain and several Asian and Middle Eastern governments are at earlier stages, the report said, and Meta has run its playbook in each.

The Tech Transparency Project said its findings are not exhaustive, and that it saw signs of the same tactics in other countries, from Ireland to Turkey. It urged governments to be aware that Meta is working to create an impression of parental support for its safety tools as bans spread. Meta says its partnerships are standard practice and openly disclosed.

Get the TNW newsletter

Get the most important tech news in your inbox each week.