July 23, 2026
Today, the Board is announcing a new case for consideration. As part of this, we invite people and organizations to submit public comments by using the button below.
Case Selection
As we cannot hear every appeal, the Board prioritizes cases that have the potential to affect lots of users around the world, are of critical importance to public discourse or raise important questions about Meta’s policies.
The case that we are announcing today is:
Potentially Misleading AI Donation Campaign Video2026-044-FB-UAUser Appeal****Submit a public comment using the button below
The Board has selected a case involving an AI-generated video of a monk who appears to be part of the Walk for Peace march asking for support, with a link to a page on the subscription-based platform Patreon. The post describes the monks as “we” and “us,” and the page bio states, “not official.” In recent years, scams on social media have become a global issue. This case will allow the Board to examine how manipulated media can be used in potentially misleading donation campaigns.
The Walk for Peace was a nonpartisan peace march held by Buddhist monks from October 2025 through February 2026. The monks travelled across the U.S. on foot to spread “harmony and well-being for all living beings.”
In January 2026, a Facebook page, which also lists “AI narrator” in its bio, posted an AI-generated video of a Buddhist monk who is seemingly part of the Walk for Peace. In the video, he stands in front of a welcome sign for the U.S. state of North Carolina and says it is “brutally cold” and “our fingers are going numb within minutes.” He then goes on to say “we are walking step by step but today is hard,” and asks people for their “warmth, love and prayers.” The video’s caption asks for support to “share this journey, and help carry peace forward,” with the hashtags “#WalkForPeace” and “#Compassion,” and a link to a Patreon page. If a user clicks the external Patreon link, the Patreon page is described as an “Unofficial fan project” with “no real affiliations.” The Patreon page offers paid subscription tiers for content. The post was viewed over 100,000 times.
Three users reported the content four times, all indicating it was a scam. A moderator reviewed the first report and determined the content did not violate Meta’s Community Standards, including the Fraud, Scams and Deceptive Practices policy. Automated review of the second report decided the same. Human and automated review of the third user’s report determined that the post was not violating. The second reporter appealed Meta’s decision to keep the content up on platform, but the report was not prioritized for human review. As a result, the content remained on Facebook. Following this, the second reporter further appealed Meta’s decision to the Board.
The user who appealed to the Board states that “the account is scamming people into believing” that the depicted individual, “is one of the vulnerable monks walking to DC,” and that “Facebook users are donating money on Patreon, thinking it goes to the monks on their Walk for Peace”, while “it doesn’t”, and “it is all a scam.”
Meta told the Board that the content does not violate its Misinformation and Fraud, Scams and Deceptive Practices policies. It said the post does not violate the Misinformation policy that requires removal because it does not pose a risk of “imminent physical harm” nor interfere with the functioning of democratic processes. Meta also did not apply a manipulated media informative label to the post because it was not connected to a “time-sensitive event, such as an election or crisis,” and therefore had “no indication of urgency”, which is necessary for the company to apply such a label. It further stated that the posting user affirmatively discloses the artificial nature of the content in the profile bio and the linked Patreon account.
Meta also found that the post did not violate its Fraud, Scams and Deceptive Practices policy because the content did not satisfy the criteria for purposefully deceiving users for financial gain as required by the policy. The inauthentic identity fraud rules prohibit “misrepresenting the identity of the poster or nature of a request.” The specific relevant rules require that content urgently requests donations with payment information or falsely claims to represent an established business or entity. Among other considerations, the company noted the request is not urgent, money is not mentioned, and there are no payment details in the post. Meta further highlighted information on the Patreon website that disclaims official affiliation. The company also noted the Walk for Peace was not an established business or entity. Meta also highlighted the posting user did not represent that the depicted individual is a real monk, that the money sent would support an actual monk or that the account had any official connection to the Walk for Peace. To the contrary, the company considered that the user disclosed the content’s artificial nature and creative purpose across the profile bio, video page and Patreon landing page. For the company, the content is a request to subscribe for “ongoing production of AI-narrated content – not as a fundraising appeal based on false affiliation or other misrepresentation.”
The Board selected this case to examine how Meta’s content policies address potential scams on its platforms while protecting users’ freedom of expression, especially with respect to content involving current events.
The Board would appreciate public comments that address:
- The effectiveness of Meta’s scam policies in addressing potentially misleading donation campaigns.
- The prevalence of scams linked to religious, social or charitable causes across platforms, how they are typically facilitated and their impact on users.
- The use of manipulated media to facilitate online scams.
- Best practices and recommendations for moderating scams facilitated by AI-generated content.
In its decisions, the Board can issue policy recommendations to Meta. While recommendations are not binding, Meta must respond to them within 60 days. As such, the Board welcomes public comments proposing recommendations that are relevant to this case.
Public Comments
If you or your organization feel you can contribute valuable perspectives that can help with reaching a decision on the case announced today, you can submit your contributions using the button below. Please note that public comments can be provided anonymously. The public comment window is open for 14 days, closing at 23:59 Pacific Standard Time (PST) on Thursday 6 August. What’s Next
Over the next few weeks, Board Members will be deliberating this case. Once they have reached their decision, we will post it on the Decisions page.