Meta's answer to teen social-media bans is a creator marketing budget

The Tech Transparency Project published a report on Tuesday saying Meta is running a global campaign against laws that would bar teenagers from social media, built on paid influencers and funded parent groups ^[1][2]. The watchdog says the tactics were developed in the United States and then exported to more than a dozen countries weighing similar restrictions ^[3], which relocates a regulatory fight from submissions and hearings into parenting feeds. The template, according to the report, started in Australia, five months before the country's under-16 ban took effect ^[4]. In July 2025 Meta invited parenting influencers to an "Instagram Safety Camp" at a waterfront venue overlooking Sydney Harbour, and handed out branded swag and snacks ^[5]. The pitch was that blanket bans do not work and that Instagram's parental supervision tools are the better route ^[6]. Meta's head of child safety, Ravi Sinha, told the group bans risk "pushing teens into places that are less safe," the report says ^[7]. Attendees then repeated those points to their followers, often tagged only as #instagrampartner rather than with a plain advertising label ^[8]. The report describes the same structure elsewhere: branded events named Instagram Safety Camp or Screen Smart, with actors, radio hosts, psychologists and parent influencers recruited to present Teen Accounts as proof that bans are unnecessary ^[9]. It cites the Indonesian actor Darius Sinathrya telling his 1.8 million followers to try the safety features, the Indian actress Juhi Parmar reassuring parents their teens were in a "safer space," and the Brazilian actor Douglas Silva, who has three million followers, carrying a similar message ^[10][11][12]. Those two disclosed follower counts alone total at least 4.8 million ^[13]. All the posts were paid and labelled with small tags, the watchdog says ^[14]. That is where the exposure sits. Australia's consumer regulator has warned influencers against burying advertising labels in a list of hashtags and has said misleading endorsements can draw fines ^[15]. Meta's position is that tags such as #instagrampartner are standard marketing practice and a clear disclosure ^[16]. The company says it has held more than 40 events globally since 2024 to promote its teen safety tools, that all paid partnerships are clearly disclosed and comply with local advertising rules, and that it uses influencers "because they are local voices trusted by parents in their communities" ^[17][18]. Against a footprint of more than a dozen countries, 40 events averages more than three per market ^[19]: a standing programme, not a reaction to one bill. The second layer is funded intermediaries. The report names the Australian service ReachOut, the New Zealand group Netsafe and the Brussels nonprofit ThinkYoung as recipients of Meta money that have echoed its anti-ban arguments, in some cases without disclosing the funding ^[20]. All three told the watchdog they set their own positions and that Meta does not approve what they say ^[21]. The report also says Meta helped fund a youth advisory panel and a parents' network run through ThinkYoung whose members argued against bans in Brussels ^[22]; Meta says it works with a range of organisations on teen safety and does not disclose the terms of individual partnerships ^[23]. The product claim underneath all of it is contested. The Washington Post reported last year that Teen Accounts "fail spectacularly" to shield minors from harmful content, and the Tech Transparency Project says its own testing found similar gaps ^[24]. Meta spokesperson Edward Patterson told The Guardian that blanket bans push teens toward less safe, unregulated parts of the internet, and the company says it has "never directed a partner to advocate a particular point of view" ^[25][26]. Katie Paul, the watchdog's director, told The Guardian that the reliance on paid messengers shows Meta knows "the brand has become a problem," a reading the company rejects ^[27].