The Instagram accounts for the Obama White House and the Chief Master Sergeant of the U.S. Space Force were briefly defaced with pro-Iranian images and messages over the weekend, after instructions began circulating on Telegram showing how to trick Meta’s “AI support assistant” bot into resetting account passwords.
A screenshot from a video released on Telegram claiming to show how Meta’s AI customer support bot could be tricked into resetting a target’s password.
On May 31, word began to spread on several Telegram instant message channels that Meta’s AI bot would happily add an email address to an existing account as part of the bot’s standard password reset flow.
A video released on Telegram by pro-Iran hackers claimed to document a remarkably simple exploit that appears to have involved using a VPN connection with an IP address that is in or near the target’s usual hometown, requesting a password reset for the account, and then choosing to chat with Meta’s AI support assistant. From there, the video shows the attacker told the bot to link the account in question to a new email address, after which the bot dutifully sent that address a one-time code that allowed a password reset.
The Telegram account that posted the video also linked to screenshots of pro-Iran images, videos and messages that defaced the hacked Instagram accounts, saying hackers had used the exploit to hijack a number of valuable (read: short) Instagram account names that allegedly have a resale value of more than a half million dollars.
Meta has not responded to requests for comment on the video’s claims, but Meta’s Andy Stone said on Twitter/X that the issue had been resolved and that they were securing impacted accounts. The security blog thecybersecguru.com reports that Meta pushed an emergency patch over the weekend, and clarified that no back end database was breached.
“Instagram has notoriously poor human support infrastructure,” Cybersecguru wrote. “Recovering a locked account – especially a high-value one can take weeks of back-and-forth with an automated ticketing system. Meta’s solution was to deploy a conversational AI layer to handle common recovery workflows: relinking a lost email address, triggering a password reset, verifying account ownership. The assistant, presumably, was supposed to reduce friction for legitimate users stuck in account-access hell.”
Ian Goldin, a threat researcher at Lumen’s Black Lotus Labs, said we’re entering unchartered security territory as more large online platforms start allowing AI chatbots to handle sensitive account recovery requests. Just like human customer support employees can be social engineered into providing unauthorized access to someone’s account, AI bots are equally eager to help and vulnerable to persuasion and trickery, he said.
“AI chatbots create interesting new attack surface, and we’re likely going to see a lot more of these kinds of attacks,” Goldin said.
Securing your various online accounts means taking full advantage of the most secure form of multi-factor authentication (MFA) offered (such as a passkey or security key). In this case, even using the least robust form of MFA that Instagram offers — a one-time code sent via SMS — likely would have blocked the exploit: The hackers who released the video on Telegram said their exploit failed to work against any accounts that had MFA enabled.
It starts with the familiar: a short message, a trusted name, a routine tone. Delivery updates, work pings, brand alerts hum in the background, rarely attracting scrutiny. You check, you answer… — until minutes later you’ve slipped into a trap built to lower your guard and hijack your trust.
That’s why messaging scams cut deep: they exploit everyday habits where instinct, not caution, leads. Communication once moved slowly, leaving room for doubt. Now it’s instant — and that speed is a weapon in criminal hands.
On our blog, we’ve already examined numerous scam schemes in messaging apps — from pig butchering, where the victim is groomed for a very long time, or catfishing, where the scammer creates a fake identity, to phishing via chatbots or through gift-giving campaigns in messaging apps.
Now, for the first time, Kaspersky has set out to capture the full end-to-end reality of messaging-based scams to understand how quickly harm occurs, how they impact trust and what remains after the interaction ends. What emerges is a highly organized and industrialized scam ecosystem embedded within everyday messaging channels such as SMS, WhatsApp, and email.
Kaspersky experts have prepared a report on targeted scams in messaging apps, detailing not only the financial but also the emotional damage caused by such attacks, as well as providing tips on how to protect yourself and avoid them. In this post, we explore the most interesting facts, but you can find more details in the full report.
The damage is underestimated
How much do you think a single successful attack via a messaging app costs the average victim? Ten dollars? Or maybe 50? You’re underestimating the scammers. Although more than a third (36%) of victims incur losses of less than $135, on average a victim loses… $733!
Country
Average loss per victim
Senegal
$392.94
Serbia
$493.32
Morocco
$504.28
Greece
$609.32
United Kingdom
$617.38
Côte d’Ivoire
$654.11
Spain
$672.67
United States
$724.73
Portugal
$868.20
Italy
$896.02
France
$1,193.58
Germany
$1,369.35
The average amount lost by a victim in a successful attack via a messaging app
On the one hand, the financial hit doesn’t look catastrophic in isolation. These are micro-losses by design. Small enough that some never report them to the police. Small enough that banks don’t always investigate. Small enough to be dismissed as bad luck rather than organized crime.
But $733 is not nothing. It’s enough to cover a month’s worth of groceries, school or daycare fees, or utility bills. Against the backdrop of the global cost-of-living crisis, a single such loss can seriously dent a family’s budget.
In 11% of cases, losses exceed $1,350, and more than a quarter of victims (28%) report having been scammed three or more times in the past six months. Once scammers discover that a phone number responds, that contact becomes an asset, circulating from one database to another.
Now imagine the scale of the problem: if just 10% of the three billion messaging‑app users worldwide fell victim with the average loss, the total damage would amount to… nearly $220 billion! This is comparable to the GDP of Greece, and exceeds that of Morocco, Serbia, or Côte d’Ivoire.
It becomes clear that behind the daily flood of fraudulent schemes lie large scam cartels operating on an industrial scale, using AI to personalize messages that mimic those of family members, friends, and familiar brands. This, in essence, forms the basis of a full-fledged economy built on digital identity theft.
Speed beats scrutiny
More than half of successful messaging scams (52%) unfold in under 30 minutes — from first contact to the moment money or personal data changes hands — or even faster, before the victim begins to doubt the legitimacy of the sender. In fact, one in seven scams takes less than five minutes — quicker than boiling an egg!
The speed isn’t accidental. It’s the method. Scammers structure their schemes to deny the victim a chance to come to their senses. Every element is engineered to compress the decision-making window: the urgency of the scenario, the familiarity of the format, the plausibility of the request.
They rush you — faster, faster, don’t tell anyone, you only have a few minutes, solve the problem, don’t ask questions. Click the link, fill in the details, approve the transaction, or else… Or else what? The scammers’ imagination knows no bounds here, but if you don’t do something right now, you’ll definitely regret it.
Alas, the realization of what has happened usually comes when the damage is already irreversible. More than half of victims (51%) lose money; another 43% hand over their personal data — most commonly phone numbers, names, and email addresses — to scammers, and often the victim loses both.
Where and how attacks occur
A delivery notification, a bank alert, a message from a merchant you ordered from last week — messaging apps permeate every aspect of everyday life, making such interactions completely normal. An attack shouldn’t feel like an attack. It should feel like the same message you’ve received hundreds of times.
It’s no surprise that scammers focus their attention on this method of communication first and foremost. The most popular platforms for scams are predictable: WhatsApp (43%), SMS/iMessage (40%), Facebook (27%), Telegram (22%), and Instagram (19%) — these are the ones that people trust most.
A wide variety of schemes is used. Brand impersonation is now one of the three most common types of messaging scam worldwide — accounting for 31% of cases. Fake delivery notifications top the list at 38%, followed by investment scams at 37%.
At the same time, nearly two-thirds (63%) of fraudulent schemes span multiple platforms, moving from SMS to WhatsApp, from WhatsApp to Telegram, etc. In this way, scammers achieve two goals: they mimic organic messaging and evade moderation algorithms.
AI has taken scams to a new level
Just a couple of years ago, fraudulent messages gave themselves away with bad grammar, awkward phrasing, illogical requests, and an obsessive sense of urgency. Today, a phishing message looks, sounds, and reads just like the real thing.
Scam cartels want to catch people in motion — between meetings, on a commute, or during everyday tasks — when your attention is already fragmented. They mimic your mother’s turn of phrase. They match your bank’s tone of voice. They copy your courier’s format exactly. They mirror the rhythm, structure, and style of authentic brand communications across messaging platforms. And AI is accelerating all of it.
What this creates is overlap. Legitimate and fraudulent messages appear in the same environment, using the same formats, language, and triggers. The difference between them is no longer obvious.
The data shows that two-thirds of victims (66%) believe AI was used in the scam against them, 42% cite messages written by AI, 31% report generated or cloned voices, and 25% encountered deepfake images or videos.
That’s why mere awareness and “tech-savviness” may no longer be enough to protect oneself. From Gen Z to Gen X, messaging scams cut across every generation.
And what about the emotional toll?
But money is far from the only problem a victim is left with after an attack. After what they’ve been through, people develop distrust toward incoming messages, unfamiliar numbers, and any requests for action. As a result, 99% of fraud victims say they no longer trust incoming notifications in messaging apps.
This creates a crisis of trust in all digital channels in general. Every legitimate message can now be perceived as a scam. Brands, banks, and delivery services are forced to operate in an environment where the customer is, by default, in a state of distrust.
Dr. Elizabeth Carter, a forensic linguist and criminologist at Kingston University in London, notes that scammers use familiar contexts, common social settings and embedded linguistic norms to create the illusion for the victim that their decision-making is rational and reasonable in the moment. However, what is actually happening is that they construct false realities in which those decisions end up causing financial and psychological harm. She also notes that it is very hard to identify a false reality while you are in it.
After realizing they had been deceived, more than half of victims felt anger — the kind that comes from having trusted something and discovering it was used against you. 42% of victims report frustration, 38% — feeling upset. Moreover, several months later, these feelings haven’t gone away: nearly half of all victims (48%) are still angry, a third (33%) remain frustrated, and 30% are upset.
And nearly one in 10 victims don’t tell anyone what happened. They feel shame, a sense of having fallen for something so obvious. This leaves a significant portion of the actual damage unreported: only 24% of victims contact the police, and only 23% report it to their bank.
So what can be done?
The crisis of trust — and even a touch of paranoia — that has arisen due to widespread attacks on users can linger in victims’ minds for a long time, affecting their quality of life. To prevent this, follow these guidelines:
Pause before you act. The sense of urgency you feel is almost always artificial. A legitimate bank, retailer, or delivery service won’t penalize you for taking 30 seconds to verify before clicking a link or confirming details. It’s precisely this instinct to resolve the situation quickly that scammers are counting on.
Verify through another channel. If a message appears to be from a relative, colleague, or company you trust — contact them through another channel before taking any action. Use secure verification methods, and cross-check identities when something doesn’t feel right. For families, agreeing on a “safe word” in advance can defeat even the most convincing voice clones.
Use a password manager. It will not only help you generate strong, unique passwords for all your accounts and store them securely, syncing them across all your devices, but also protect you from spoofed sites. Even if you click a phishing link and land on such a site, our password manager will notify you about the domain mismatch and refuse to autofill your username and password.
Use protection that works in real time. Modern security solutions, such as Kaspersky Premium, provide real-time protection against malicious links and phishing attempts in the apps and websites you use every day. On Android devices, a dedicated layer of anti-phishing security scans and neutralizes suspicious links as they appear, even within notifications, before you even have a chance to click them.
We’ve covered other threats in messaging apps in similar articles:
Recent news had us wondering whether Meta actually knows what it wants.
On one platform, Meta is promoting AI chats that it says even it cannot read. On another, it has removed one of the few features that genuinely prevented Meta from accessing private conversations.
At the moment, Meta is heavily promoting a new Incognito Chat mode for its Meta AI assistant in WhatsApp, built on top of a system it calls Private Processing. According to WhatsApp’s own announcement, Incognito Chat is:
“Truly private — no one can read your conversation, not even us.”
When you start an Incognito chat with Meta AI, you get a temporary conversation where messages aren’t saved and disappear by default, which Meta pitches as “a space to think and explore ideas without anyone watching.”
BBC News and others report that these AI chats are text‑only for now, run in a sandboxed environment, and are separate from your regular end‑to‑end encrypted (E2EE) messaging with other people on WhatsApp.
Meta is also preparing “Side Chat,” which will let you invoke Meta AI inside other WhatsApp chats, again using this Private Processing infrastructure to claim AI assistance without breaking the underlying encryption.
On paper, that’s an impressive technical and marketing story: powerful AI, wrapped in layers of privacy‑preserving infrastructure, added to an app that already has a strong reputation for end‑to‑end encryption by default.
Meanwhile, on Instagram…
Now contrast that with what’s happening on Instagram. On 8 May 2026, Meta removed optional end‑to‑end encryption for Instagram Direct Messages (DMs) entirely. Users who had previously turned the feature on were shown notices that “end‑to‑end encrypted messaging on Instagram is no longer supported as of 8 May 2026,” and were urged to download backups of their encrypted conversations before the cutoff.
End‑to‑end encryption ensures that only the sender and recipient can read their conversations. Instagram offered this as an opt‑in feature since late 2023, but it was buried several taps deep inside individual conversation settings and never turned on by default. Meta’s explanation for shutting it down is that “very few people” used encrypted DMs and that maintaining a separate encrypted system added complexity. Critics have pointed out the circular logic. The company hid the feature, did not advertise it, and is now using low adoption as the reason to kill it rather than, say, making it easier to find or turning it on by default.
What all this means
From a user’s perspective, the result is confusing: one Meta product introduces stronger privacy than ever for AI chats, while another removes the one feature that truly stopped Meta from reading your conversations.
The key point to remember here is that “incognito” and “private” are marketing words, while end‑to‑end encryption is a technical guarantee.
For security‑conscious users, this split personality means you can no longer treat all Meta chats the same. WhatsApp remains end‑to‑end encrypted for person‑to‑person messages and adds optional privacy features around its AI, while Instagram DMs should now be assumed readable by Meta and potentially accessible to law enforcement, advertisers, or attackers who gain access to Meta’s systems.
We also know there have been lawsuits against chatbot providers in cases where the outcome of an AI conversation led to very undesirable results. But how would you be able to provide evidence when messages auto-disappear?
How to proceed
Meta’s recent moves show that strong privacy features can be added where they support a strategic narrative and removed where they conflict with business or regulatory priorities. Users can’t control those decisions, but they can respond by choosing where they hold their most sensitive conversations and by assuming that if a chat isn’t end‑to‑end encrypted by default, it is ultimately readable by someone other than the people in it.
So, what’s a safe way to move forward?
Treat Instagram DMs as postcard-level privacy. Now that E2EE is gone, assume Meta can read and scan your messages and that content could be accessed under legal orders or in a breach. Do not send passwords, recovery codes, banking details, or compromising photos over Instagram.
When someone asks you to move a conversation to Signal, WhatsApp, or another E2EE messenger, ask them why. It does make sense when you’re sharing financial details, personal images, health information, or anything you would not want a platform provider to read. But sometimes scammers prefer encrypted platforms too, because they’re harder to monitor.
Do not confuse “incognito” AI chats with full encryption. WhatsApp’s Incognito mode for Meta AI may be a privacy improvement over standard cloud AI chats, but it is still a conversation with a large language model owned by the same company that runs the platform. Share only what you’re comfortable entrusting to Meta.
Regularly review your privacy and security settings. Check which devices are logged in, enable two‑factor authentication, and verify which of your chat apps are actually end‑to‑end encrypted by default.
Scammers know more about you than you think.
Malwarebytes Mobile Security protects you from phishing, scam texts, malicious sites, and more. With real-time AI-powered Scam Guard built right in.
Recent news had us wondering whether Meta actually knows what it wants.
On one platform, Meta is promoting AI chats that it says even it cannot read. On another, it has removed one of the few features that genuinely prevented Meta from accessing private conversations.
At the moment, Meta is heavily promoting a new Incognito Chat mode for its Meta AI assistant in WhatsApp, built on top of a system it calls Private Processing. According to WhatsApp’s own announcement, Incognito Chat is:
“Truly private — no one can read your conversation, not even us.”
When you start an Incognito chat with Meta AI, you get a temporary conversation where messages aren’t saved and disappear by default, which Meta pitches as “a space to think and explore ideas without anyone watching.”
BBC News and others report that these AI chats are text‑only for now, run in a sandboxed environment, and are separate from your regular end‑to‑end encrypted (E2EE) messaging with other people on WhatsApp.
Meta is also preparing “Side Chat,” which will let you invoke Meta AI inside other WhatsApp chats, again using this Private Processing infrastructure to claim AI assistance without breaking the underlying encryption.
On paper, that’s an impressive technical and marketing story: powerful AI, wrapped in layers of privacy‑preserving infrastructure, added to an app that already has a strong reputation for end‑to‑end encryption by default.
Meanwhile, on Instagram…
Now contrast that with what’s happening on Instagram. On 8 May 2026, Meta removed optional end‑to‑end encryption for Instagram Direct Messages (DMs) entirely. Users who had previously turned the feature on were shown notices that “end‑to‑end encrypted messaging on Instagram is no longer supported as of 8 May 2026,” and were urged to download backups of their encrypted conversations before the cutoff.
End‑to‑end encryption ensures that only the sender and recipient can read their conversations. Instagram offered this as an opt‑in feature since late 2023, but it was buried several taps deep inside individual conversation settings and never turned on by default. Meta’s explanation for shutting it down is that “very few people” used encrypted DMs and that maintaining a separate encrypted system added complexity. Critics have pointed out the circular logic. The company hid the feature, did not advertise it, and is now using low adoption as the reason to kill it rather than, say, making it easier to find or turning it on by default.
What all this means
From a user’s perspective, the result is confusing: one Meta product introduces stronger privacy than ever for AI chats, while another removes the one feature that truly stopped Meta from reading your conversations.
The key point to remember here is that “incognito” and “private” are marketing words, while end‑to‑end encryption is a technical guarantee.
For security‑conscious users, this split personality means you can no longer treat all Meta chats the same. WhatsApp remains end‑to‑end encrypted for person‑to‑person messages and adds optional privacy features around its AI, while Instagram DMs should now be assumed readable by Meta and potentially accessible to law enforcement, advertisers, or attackers who gain access to Meta’s systems.
We also know there have been lawsuits against chatbot providers in cases where the outcome of an AI conversation led to very undesirable results. But how would you be able to provide evidence when messages auto-disappear?
How to proceed
Meta’s recent moves show that strong privacy features can be added where they support a strategic narrative and removed where they conflict with business or regulatory priorities. Users can’t control those decisions, but they can respond by choosing where they hold their most sensitive conversations and by assuming that if a chat isn’t end‑to‑end encrypted by default, it is ultimately readable by someone other than the people in it.
So, what’s a safe way to move forward?
Treat Instagram DMs as postcard-level privacy. Now that E2EE is gone, assume Meta can read and scan your messages and that content could be accessed under legal orders or in a breach. Do not send passwords, recovery codes, banking details, or compromising photos over Instagram.
When someone asks you to move a conversation to Signal, WhatsApp, or another E2EE messenger, ask them why. It does make sense when you’re sharing financial details, personal images, health information, or anything you would not want a platform provider to read. But sometimes scammers prefer encrypted platforms too, because they’re harder to monitor.
Do not confuse “incognito” AI chats with full encryption. WhatsApp’s Incognito mode for Meta AI may be a privacy improvement over standard cloud AI chats, but it is still a conversation with a large language model owned by the same company that runs the platform. Share only what you’re comfortable entrusting to Meta.
Regularly review your privacy and security settings. Check which devices are logged in, enable two‑factor authentication, and verify which of your chat apps are actually end‑to‑end encrypted by default.
Scammers know more about you than you think.
Malwarebytes Mobile Security protects you from phishing, scam texts, malicious sites, and more. With real-time AI-powered Scam Guard built right in.
Meta is facing two trials over child safety allegations in California and New Mexico. The lawsuits are landmark cases, marking the first time that any such accusations have reached a jury. Although over 40 state attorneys general have filed suits about child safety issues with social media, none had gone to trial until now.
The New Mexico case, filed by Attorney General Raúl Torrez in December 2023, centers on child sexual exploitation. Torrez’s team built their evidence by posing as children online and documenting what happened next, in the form of sexual solicitations. The team brought the suit under New Mexico’s Unfair Trade Practices Act, a consumer protection statute that prosecutors argue sidesteps Section 230 protections.
The most damaging material in the trial, which is expected to run seven weeks, may be Meta’s own paperwork. Newly unsealed internal documents revealed that a company safety researcher had warned about the sheer scale of the problem, claiming that around half a million cases of child exploitation are happening daily. Torrez did not mince words about what he believes the platform has become, calling it an online marketplace for human trafficking. From the complaint:
“Meta’s platforms Facebook and Instagram are a breeding ground for predators who target children for human trafficking, the distribution of sexual images, grooming, and solicitation.”
The complaint’s emphasis on weak age verification touches on a broader issue regulators around the world are now grappling with: how platforms verify the age of their youngest users—and how easily those systems can be bypassed.
In our own research into children’s social media accounts, we found that creating underage profiles can be surprisingly straightforward. In some cases, minimal checks or self-declared birthdates were enough to access full accounts. We also identified loopholes that could allow children to encounter content they shouldn’t or make it easier for adults with bad intentions to find them.
The social media and VR giant has pushed back hard, calling the state’s investigation ethically compromised and accusing prosecutors of cherry-picking data. Defence attorney Kevin Huff argued that the company disclosed its risks rather than concealing them.
Yesterday, Stanford psychiatrist Dr. Anna Lembke told the court she believes Meta’s design features are addictive and that the company has been using the term “Problematic Internet Use” internally to avoid acknowledging addiction.
Meanwhile in Los Angeles, a separate bellwether case against Meta and Google opened on Monday. A 20-year-old woman identified only as KGM is at the center of the case. She alleges that YouTube and Instagram hooked her from childhood. She testified that she was watching YouTube at six, on Instagram by nine, and suffered from worsening depression and body dysmorphia. Her case, which TikTok and Snap settled before trial, is the first of more than 2,400 personal injury filings consolidated in the proceeding. Plaintiffs’ attorney Mark Lanier called it a case about:
“two of the richest corporations in history, who have engineered addiction in children’s brains.”
A litany of allegations
None of this appeared from nowhere. In 2021, whistleblower Frances Haugen leaked internal Facebook documents showing the company knew its platforms damaged teenage mental health. In 2023, Meta whistleblower Arturo Béjar testified before the Senate that the company ignored sexual endangerment of children.
Unredacted documents unsealed in the New Mexico case in early 2024 suggested something uglier still: that the company had actively marketed messaging platforms to children while suppressing safety features that weren’t considered profitable. Internal employees sounded alarms for years but executives reportedly chose growth, according to New Mexico AG Raúl Torrez. Last September, whistleblowers said that the company had ignored child sexual abuse in virtual reality environments.
Outside the courtroom, governments around the world are moving faster than the US Congress. Australia banned under 16s from social media in December 2025, becoming the first country to do so. France’s National Assembly followed, approving a ban on social media for under 15s in January by 130 votes to 21. Spain announced its own under 16 ban this month. By last count, at least 15 European governments were considering similar measures. Whether any of these bans will actually work is uncertain, particularly as young users openly discuss ways to bypass controls.
The United States, by contrast, has passed exactly one major federal child online safety law: the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), in 1998. The Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA), introduced in 2022, passed the Senate 91-3 in mid-2024 then stalled in the House. It was reintroduced last May and has yet to reach a floor vote. States have tried to fill the gap, with 18 proposed similar legislation in 2025, but only one of those was enacted (in Nebraska). A comprehensive federal framework remains nowhere in sight.
On its most recent earnings call, Meta acknowledged it could face material financial losses this year. The pressure is no longer theoretical. The juries in Santa Fe and Los Angeles will now weigh whether the company’s design choices and safety measures crossed legal lines.
If you want to understand how social media platforms can expose children to harmful content—and what parents can realistically do about it—check out our research project on social media safety.
We don’t just report on threats – we help protect your social media
Meta is facing two trials over child safety allegations in California and New Mexico. The lawsuits are landmark cases, marking the first time that any such accusations have reached a jury. Although over 40 state attorneys general have filed suits about child safety issues with social media, none had gone to trial until now.
The New Mexico case, filed by Attorney General Raúl Torrez in December 2023, centers on child sexual exploitation. Torrez’s team built their evidence by posing as children online and documenting what happened next, in the form of sexual solicitations. The team brought the suit under New Mexico’s Unfair Trade Practices Act, a consumer protection statute that prosecutors argue sidesteps Section 230 protections.
The most damaging material in the trial, which is expected to run seven weeks, may be Meta’s own paperwork. Newly unsealed internal documents revealed that a company safety researcher had warned about the sheer scale of the problem, claiming that around half a million cases of child exploitation are happening daily. Torrez did not mince words about what he believes the platform has become, calling it an online marketplace for human trafficking. From the complaint:
“Meta’s platforms Facebook and Instagram are a breeding ground for predators who target children for human trafficking, the distribution of sexual images, grooming, and solicitation.”
The complaint’s emphasis on weak age verification touches on a broader issue regulators around the world are now grappling with: how platforms verify the age of their youngest users—and how easily those systems can be bypassed.
In our own research into children’s social media accounts, we found that creating underage profiles can be surprisingly straightforward. In some cases, minimal checks or self-declared birthdates were enough to access full accounts. We also identified loopholes that could allow children to encounter content they shouldn’t or make it easier for adults with bad intentions to find them.
The social media and VR giant has pushed back hard, calling the state’s investigation ethically compromised and accusing prosecutors of cherry-picking data. Defence attorney Kevin Huff argued that the company disclosed its risks rather than concealing them.
Yesterday, Stanford psychiatrist Dr. Anna Lembke told the court she believes Meta’s design features are addictive and that the company has been using the term “Problematic Internet Use” internally to avoid acknowledging addiction.
Meanwhile in Los Angeles, a separate bellwether case against Meta and Google opened on Monday. A 20-year-old woman identified only as KGM is at the center of the case. She alleges that YouTube and Instagram hooked her from childhood. She testified that she was watching YouTube at six, on Instagram by nine, and suffered from worsening depression and body dysmorphia. Her case, which TikTok and Snap settled before trial, is the first of more than 2,400 personal injury filings consolidated in the proceeding. Plaintiffs’ attorney Mark Lanier called it a case about:
“two of the richest corporations in history, who have engineered addiction in children’s brains.”
A litany of allegations
None of this appeared from nowhere. In 2021, whistleblower Frances Haugen leaked internal Facebook documents showing the company knew its platforms damaged teenage mental health. In 2023, Meta whistleblower Arturo Béjar testified before the Senate that the company ignored sexual endangerment of children.
Unredacted documents unsealed in the New Mexico case in early 2024 suggested something uglier still: that the company had actively marketed messaging platforms to children while suppressing safety features that weren’t considered profitable. Internal employees sounded alarms for years but executives reportedly chose growth, according to New Mexico AG Raúl Torrez. Last September, whistleblowers said that the company had ignored child sexual abuse in virtual reality environments.
Outside the courtroom, governments around the world are moving faster than the US Congress. Australia banned under 16s from social media in December 2025, becoming the first country to do so. France’s National Assembly followed, approving a ban on social media for under 15s in January by 130 votes to 21. Spain announced its own under 16 ban this month. By last count, at least 15 European governments were considering similar measures. Whether any of these bans will actually work is uncertain, particularly as young users openly discuss ways to bypass controls.
The United States, by contrast, has passed exactly one major federal child online safety law: the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), in 1998. The Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA), introduced in 2022, passed the Senate 91-3 in mid-2024 then stalled in the House. It was reintroduced last May and has yet to reach a floor vote. States have tried to fill the gap, with 18 proposed similar legislation in 2025, but only one of those was enacted (in Nebraska). A comprehensive federal framework remains nowhere in sight.
On its most recent earnings call, Meta acknowledged it could face material financial losses this year. The pressure is no longer theoretical. The juries in Santa Fe and Los Angeles will now weigh whether the company’s design choices and safety measures crossed legal lines.
If you want to understand how social media platforms can expose children to harmful content—and what parents can realistically do about it—check out our research project on social media safety.
We don’t just report on threats – we help protect your social media
Meta plans to test exclusive features that will be incorporated in paid versions of Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp. It confirmed these plans to TechCrunch.
But these plans are not to be confused with the ad-free subscription options that Meta introduced for Facebook and Instagram in the EU, the European Economic Area, and Switzerland in late 2023 and framed as a way to comply with General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and Digital Markets Act requirements.
From November 2023, users in those regions could either keep using the services for free with personalized ads or pay a monthly fee for an ad‑free experience. European rules require Meta to get users’ consent in order to show them targeted ads, so this was an obvious attempt to recoup advertising revenue when users declined to give that consent.
This year, users in the UK were given the same choice: use Meta’s products for free or subscribe to use them without ads. But only grudgingly, judging by the tone in the offer… “As part of laws in your region, you have a choice.”
The ad-free option that has been rolling out coincides with the announcement of Meta’s premium subscriptions.
That ad-free option, however, is not what Meta is talking about now.
The newly announced plans are not about ads, and they are also separate from Meta Verified, which starts at around $15 a month and focuses on creators and businesses, offering a verification badge, better support, and anti‑impersonation protection.
Instead, these new subscriptions are likely to focus on additional features—more control over how users share and connect, and possibly tools such as expanded AI capabilities, unlimited audience lists, seeing who you follow that doesn’t follow you back, or viewing stories without the poster knowing it was you.
These examples are unconfirmed. All we know for sure is that Meta plans to test new paid features to see which ones users are willing to pay for and how much they can charge.
Meta has said these features will focus on productivity, creativity, and expanded AI.
My opinion
Unfortunately, this feels like another refusal to listen.
Most of us aren’t asking for more AI in our feeds. We’re asking for a basic sense of control: control over who sees us, what’s tracked about us, and how our data is used to feed an algorithm designed to keep us scrolling.
Users shouldn’t have to choose between being mined for behavioral data or paying a monthly fee just to be left alone. The message baked into “pay or be profiled” is that privacy is now a luxury good, not a default right. But while regulators keep saying the model is unlawful, the experience on the ground still nudges people toward the path of least resistance: accept the tracking and move on.
Even then, this level of choice is only available to users in Europe.
Why not offer the same option to users in the US? Or will it take stronger US privacy regulation to make that happen?
We don’t just report on threats – we help protect your social media
Meta plans to test exclusive features that will be incorporated in paid versions of Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp. It confirmed these plans to TechCrunch.
But these plans are not to be confused with the ad-free subscription options that Meta introduced for Facebook and Instagram in the EU, the European Economic Area, and Switzerland in late 2023 and framed as a way to comply with General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and Digital Markets Act requirements.
From November 2023, users in those regions could either keep using the services for free with personalized ads or pay a monthly fee for an ad‑free experience. European rules require Meta to get users’ consent in order to show them targeted ads, so this was an obvious attempt to recoup advertising revenue when users declined to give that consent.
This year, users in the UK were given the same choice: use Meta’s products for free or subscribe to use them without ads. But only grudgingly, judging by the tone in the offer… “As part of laws in your region, you have a choice.”
The ad-free option that has been rolling out coincides with the announcement of Meta’s premium subscriptions.
That ad-free option, however, is not what Meta is talking about now.
The newly announced plans are not about ads, and they are also separate from Meta Verified, which starts at around $15 a month and focuses on creators and businesses, offering a verification badge, better support, and anti‑impersonation protection.
Instead, these new subscriptions are likely to focus on additional features—more control over how users share and connect, and possibly tools such as expanded AI capabilities, unlimited audience lists, seeing who you follow that doesn’t follow you back, or viewing stories without the poster knowing it was you.
These examples are unconfirmed. All we know for sure is that Meta plans to test new paid features to see which ones users are willing to pay for and how much they can charge.
Meta has said these features will focus on productivity, creativity, and expanded AI.
My opinion
Unfortunately, this feels like another refusal to listen.
Most of us aren’t asking for more AI in our feeds. We’re asking for a basic sense of control: control over who sees us, what’s tracked about us, and how our data is used to feed an algorithm designed to keep us scrolling.
Users shouldn’t have to choose between being mined for behavioral data or paying a monthly fee just to be left alone. The message baked into “pay or be profiled” is that privacy is now a luxury good, not a default right. But while regulators keep saying the model is unlawful, the experience on the ground still nudges people toward the path of least resistance: accept the tracking and move on.
Even then, this level of choice is only available to users in Europe.
Why not offer the same option to users in the US? Or will it take stronger US privacy regulation to make that happen?
We don’t just report on threats – we help protect your social media
Last week, many Instagram users began receiving unsolicited emails from the platform that warned about a password reset request.
The message said:
“Hi {username}, We got a request to reset your Instagram password. If you ignore this message, your password will not be changed. If you didn’t request a password reset, let us know.”
Around the same time that users began receiving these emails, a cybercriminal using the handle “Solonik” offered data that alleged contains information about 17 million Instagram users for sale on a Dark Web forum.
These 17 million or so records include:
Usernames
Full names
User IDs
Email addresses
Phone numbers
Countries
Partial locations
Please note that there are no passwords listed in the data.
Despite the timing of the two events, Instagram denied this weekend that these events are related. On the platform X, the company stated they fixed an issue that allowed an external party to request password reset emails for “some people.”
So, what’s happening?
Regarding the data found on the dark web last week, Shahak Shalev, global head of scam and AI research at Malwarebytes, shared that “there are some indications that the Instagram data dump includes data from other, older, alleged Instagram breaches, and is a sort of compilation.” As Shalev’s team investigates the data, he also said that the earliest password reset requests reported by users came days before the data was first posted on the dark web, which might mean that “the data may have been circulating in more private groups before being made public.”
However, another possibility, Shalev said, is that “another vulnerability/data leak was happening as some bad actor tried spraying for [Instagram] accounts. Instagram’s announcement seems to reference that spraying. Besides the suspicious timing, there’s no clear connection between the two at this time.”
But, importantly, scammers will not care whether these incidents are related or not. They will try to take advantage of the situation by sending out fake emails.
“We felt it was important to alert people about the data availability so that everyone could reset their passwords, directly from the app, and be on alert for other phishing communications,” Shalev said.
If and when we find out more, we’ll keep you posted, so stay tuned.
Should you want to err on the safe side and decide to change your password, make sure to do so in the app and not click any links in the email, to avoid the risk that you have received a fake email. Or you might end up providing scammers with your password.
Another thing to keep in mind is that these are Meta-data. Which means some users may have reused or linked them to their Facebook or WhatsApp accounts. So, as a precaution, you can check recent logins and active sessions on Instagram, WhatsApp, and Facebook, and log out from any devices or locations you do not recognize.
If you want to find out whether your data was included in an Instagram data breach, or any other for that matter, try our free Digital Footprint scan.
Your Facebook or Instagram account can be your link to friends, a profile for your work or a key to other services, so losing access can be very worrying. Here’s what to do if the worst happens.
If you have access to the phone number or email account associated with your Facebook or Instagram account, try to reset your password by clicking on the “Forgot password?” link on the main Facebook or Instagram login screen. Follow the instructions in the email or text message you receive.
If you no longer have access to the email account linked to your Facebook account, use a device with which you have previously logged into Facebook and go to facebook.com/login/identify. Enter any email address or phone number you might have associated with your account, or find your username which is the string of characters after Facebook.com/ on your page. Click on “No longer have access to these?”, “Forgotten account?” or “Recover” and follow the instructions to prove your identity and reset your password.
If your account was hacked, visit facebook.com/hacked or instagram.com/hacked/ on a device you have previously used to log in and follow the instructions. Visit the help with a hacked accountpage for Facebook or Instagram.
Turn on two-step verification in the “password and security” section of the Accounts Centre. Use an authentication app or security key for this, not SMS codes. Save your recovery codes somewhere safe in case you lose access to your two-step authentication method.
Turn on “unrecognised login” alerts in the “password and security” section of the Accounts Centre, which will alert you to any suspicious login activity.
Remove any suspicious “friends” from your account – these could be fake accounts or scammers.
If you are eligible, turn on “advanced protection for Facebook” in the “password and security” section of the Accounts Centre.
Login
