The Tech Transparency Project dropped a report Wednesday. It claims Meta paid moms, doctors, and psychologists. The goal? Promote Instagram’s new “Teen Accounts.” Timing is key. The company was facing a wall of legal fire over its impact on kids’ mental health.
“Meta’s influencer strategy sheds new new light on its efforts to spin public discourse.” The TTP says this wasn’t an accident. It was a calculated move.
March was bad for Meta.
A New Mexico jury called them out for violating state unfair practices laws on March 24. Predators were slipping through to underage users. Meta said it was downplaying the risks. Then on March 25? A LA jury found them liable for negligence. Again.
The argument from the plaintiffs was brutal: these products are built to lure young users in. Safety? Secondary.
So what does Meta do? PR. Big, loud, sponsored PR. They want everyone to think Teen Accounts are legally bulletproof. Legal experts disagree.
“This is a mind-warp situation.”
Danielle Bass, a lawyer at Honigman LLP, put it to HuffPost like this:
“The FTC was created to protect consumers from brands… but we’re talking about the platform. We aren’t just talking about the content.”
Two Fronts, One War
Nikolas Guggenberger teaches at the University of Houston Law center. He sees Meta fighting on two fronts.
Front one? Courtrooms. Soften the image. Get judges less mad.
Front two? The public. Win the opinion game.
Meta also wanted laws that would make Apple and Google verify user ages. “Momfluencers” helped push that agenda.
Here is the real issue: Disclosure.
The FTC has rules. You must be clear. If someone is paid, it needs to be obvious.
The standard Instagram banner? Often not enough.
Hashtags buried under “more”? Hidden.
No overlay text on videos? Missed.
“If a regular user doesn’t immediately recognize it is an ad,” Bass said, “it fails.”
Laura Smith from Truth in Advertising was blunt:
“If Meta paid creators and they didn’t disclose… that is a textbook violation.”
Did they disclose? TTP says mostly no.
Dr. Sheryl Ziegler promoted the accounts in April. Her language matched Meta’s official press release exactly. She didn’t mention being paid. She didn’t tag them. Just pure endorsement.
One of Meta’s top advocates was Dr. Hina Talib. Director of adolescent medicine. Over 90,0k followers.
She told TTP she was given talking points in 2024 but refused them.
She said what she believed to be true.
Her video got 5 million views. It did say “Paid Partnership with Instagram.”
Her previous videos? Ninety thousand views max.
Meta boosted the hit. Meta denies doing that without labels, but TTP saw otherwise.
The Tobacco Playbook
This isn’t new. Not really.
Since 2021 and the Frances Haugen leaks, we known Meta knew. Their own data said Instagram hurt young people, especially girls. Yet they pushed for them to join anyway.
Teen Accounts launched in September 202. Privacy by default. Less screen time.
On paper? Looks safe.
But Guggenberger sees a darker pattern.
“It is the Big Tobacco playbook.”
Industries with dangerous products use multipliers. They buy trust.
TTP found these influencers wrote op-eds too. Advocating for the laws Meta wanted.
Still no mention of who wrote their checks.
Meta says they don’t pay for op-eds. Only specific posts.
Bass isn’t buying it fully.
“Funding studies isn’t scary on its own. But fudging results? Claiming safety when independent data disagrees? That’s murky.”
Transparency would help. But Meta isn’t exactly flooding us with it. They prefer the message land quietly. Or at all.
What happens next remains unclear, the courts are packed, and the feeds keep scrolling.
