Case Summary and Outcome

The Oversight Board overturned Meta’s decisions in three out of four cases involving images of bare-chested Indigenous women (posted on Instagram and Facebook), finding that the company’s enforcement of its Adult Nudity and Sexual Activity Policy disproportionately restricted freedom of expression. Two Instagram posts featuring Himba women in Namibia were taken down after automated and human reviews upheld the removals. In contrast, a post by a Brazilian political party showing Yanomami women was restored under the newsworthiness allowance, and a German newspaper’s Facebook post of a Karo woman was allowed under a “spirit of the policy” exception. Of the four cases, Meta referred two to the Board after deciding to keep the content online despite finding it violated the company’s policy on nudity, while the remaining two arose from users’ appeals against content removals. The Board held that Meta failed to account for the cultural significance of non-sexual nudity in Indigenous traditions, particularly among the Himba and Yanomami peoples, and that the removal of such content was neither necessary nor proportionate under Article 19 of the ICCPR. While it upheld Meta’s decision to retain a post under the newsworthiness allowance, it considered that default removals and opaque internal exceptions failed to provide sufficient protection for Indigenous users’ rights to cultural expression and self-representation. The Board recommended that Meta publicly include a clear exception to allow depictions of bare-chested Indigenous women in contexts where such nudity reflects socially accepted customs and beliefs, does not misrepresent the individuals or communities depicted, and poses no safety risks.

*The Oversight Board is a separate entity from Meta and will provide its independent judgment on both individual cases and questions of policy. Both the Board and its administration are funded by an independent trust. The Board has the authority to decide whether Facebook and Instagram should allow or remove content. These decisions are binding, unless implementing them could violate the law. The Board can also choose to issue recommendations on the company’s content policies.

Facts

The Oversight Board (OSB) reviewed four related cases concerning imagery of bare-chested Indigenous women that Meta removed under its Adult Nudity and Sexual Activity Policy.

The first case concerned a July 2024 Instagram post showing two women from the Himba community in Namibia. In the pictures, the women appeared bare-chested and wearing traditional clothing, accompanied by an English-language quote and a caption referencing the Himba. The user did not appear to be Himba, but rather a visitor or tourist. Meta’s automated nudity and pornography classifier deleted the post, considering it violated the company’s nudity policy. A human reviewer upheld this decision following the user’s appeal.

The second case involved a short video posted on Instagram in July 2024 showing a Himba man dancing, with bare-chested Himba women in the background wearing traditional attire. The caption, written in English, French, and Arabic, referenced African culture and Himba traditions. Meta’s automated classifier flagged the video, though it was not initially prioritized for review. As views increased, the post was reviewed and removed by a human moderator. The user appealed, but Meta confirmed the removal upon further human review.

In the third case, the official Instagram account of a Brazilian political party posted an image in March 2023 of bare-chested Yanomami women, accompanied by Portuguese text praising government action to protect Indigenous lands. A user report triggered Meta’s classifier to flag the image as “potential graphic violence.” Because the account was in Meta’s “cross-check” system—designed to provide extra review layers for certain accounts—the post was escalated for further review. A human reviewer removed the post under the nudity policy. However, after the account appealed via a personal contact, Meta’s policy team reversed the decision on newsworthiness grounds, restoring the post with a newsworthiness label. Meta subsequently referred this case to the Board in September 2024.

The fourth case involved a May 2023 Facebook post by a German newspaper showing a bare-chested Indigenous woman holding a child, alongside an article discussing parenting perspectives in a Mayan village. The woman did not appear to be Mayan; the image, likely from a photo agency, resembled images of the Karo people of Ethiopia. The post was reported, and two human reviewers found it violated Meta’s nudity policy. As the account was in the cross-check program, the post underwent further review, and Meta ultimately applied a “spirit of the policy” allowance—keeping the post online, despite it technically violating the rules. The “spirit of the policy” allows for flexibility in enforcing policies to uphold the meaning and values behind the policy when strict adherence might lead to an unnecessary restriction.

This case was referred to the Board alongside the Yanomami case.

In all four instances, Meta’s removal or retention decisions were based on its rule prohibiting “visible female nipples.” Two cases were referred to the Board by Meta after allowing the content to remain online despite policy violations, while the other two were appeals by users whose content had been removed.

Decision Overview

The Oversight Board issued a decision where it analyzed the compatibility of Meta’s Adult Nudity and Sexual Activity Policy, which prohibited the display of “uncovered female nipples” to prevent the sharing of non-consensual or underage sexual content, with Meta’s responsibilities to uphold human rights. The OSB analyzed whether the exceptions allowed under the policy in certain contexts—such as breastfeeding, protest, education, or medical or health-related reasons—were compatible with the right to freedom of expression.

The decision allowed the Board to assess recent changes Meta made to the policy. On May 14, 2025, just before the Board issued the decision in this case, the company updated its policy to include photorealistic/digital imagery and clarified that in cases such as mastectomy or cancer-related content, and imagery related to famine, genocide, or war crimes, content may be shown with age restrictions or sensitivity labels. Still, there was no explicit exception for bare-chested Indigenous women in public-facing policy language. Internally, Meta relied on newsworthiness and “spirit of the policy” allowances to make case-by-case decisions. Meta’s internal guidance on Indigenous nudity focused on context—cultural norms, customary practices, and safety considerations—drawing on input from regional teams.

In their appeals to the Board, the users argued that the imagery was culturally significant and educational, aiming to raise awareness about the Himba people’s traditions. One appeal stressed that Meta’s nudity policy should not apply to content depicting Indigenous practices, asserting that reinstating the post was important for promoting cultural understanding and respect.

Meta submitted that while all four posts technically violated its Adult Nudity and Sexual Activity Policy, two were allowed under internal allowances—the Yanomami case, under a newsworthiness exception, and the Maya/Karo case, under a spirit of the policy exception. The other two posts depicting Himba women were removed, based on a perceived higher risk of sexualization and uncertainty regarding the subjects’ consent. Neither of those posts was escalated to internal experts for review before removal.

At the outset of its analysis, the OSB made a few preliminary considerations. Regarding the context, the Board emphasized that nudity among Himba women in northern Namibia is culturally embedded and non-sexual. Bare-chestedness, along with symbolic jewelry and body adornments, forms part of spiritual identity and ancestral connection. Similarly, the Yanomami people, living in the Amazon rainforest of Brazil and Venezuela, regard nudity as part of their natural and spiritual worldview, with no inherent sexual meaning. By contrast, the Mayan people do not have cultural or spiritual traditions involving nudity.

The Oversight Board assessed Meta’s decisions under the platform’s content policies and human rights responsibilities, and evaluated broader implications for content governance.

1. Compliance with Meta’s Content Policies

The OSB acknowledged that all four posts violated the explicit terms of Meta’s nudity policy, as none met the listed exceptions for breastfeeding, protest, medical/health, or humanitarian contexts. It thus focused on whether Meta appropriately applied its internal allowances.

In the Yanomami case, the Board agreed with Meta’s decision to leave the post online. The post had strong public interest value, the OSB opined, as it addressed an ongoing humanitarian crisis linked to illegal mining on Indigenous lands. Additionally, the nudity was culturally appropriate, and the women appeared aware of being photographed, minimizing the risk of harm.

However, the Board disagreed with Meta’s decision not to apply its “spirit of the policy” allowance in the two Himba-related cases. While Meta argued that consent was unclear and the posts did not appear to serve public-interest or awareness-raising purposes, the OSB held that the company failed to apply its own internal guidance. Himba nudity is socially and historically embedded in cultural norms and should have been assessed accordingly. The context—particularly indicators of awareness or participation in cultural performance—should have supported applying the allowance and retaining the posts. Meta’s policy intent to prevent the sharing of exploitative or non-consensual content was not undermined by these posts, the Board opined.

In the Maya/Karo case, the majority of the Board considered that Meta should not have granted the allowance. The image misrepresented the subject by featuring a Karo woman while the article concerned Mayan culture. This discrepancy failed to meet Meta’s internal criteria for cultural nudity and raised questions about consent and misrepresentation. Given the clickbait framing and lack of cultural relevance of the article, keeping the post up was inconsistent with Meta’s own policy rationale, the OSB said. A minority of the Board disagreed, arguing that the nudity reflected Karo cultural norms and that the image’s use still served public-interest purposes.

2. Compliance with Meta’s Human Rights Responsibilities

The OSB then assessed the cases in light of Meta’s Corporate Human Rights Policy and international human rights standards—particularly the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. The Board took into consideration the following internal standards to assess the present cases: first, Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which protects the right to freedom of expression without discrimination; second, it referred to the UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of expression’s emphasis on the importance of upholding the rights of minorities and Indigenous Peoples, noting that it underpins recognition of their cultural rights; last, General Comment No. 21 of the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights which recognizes that the right to participate in cultural life includes the freedom to share and develop cultural expression, including customs and dress.

Legality (Clarity and Accessibility of the Rules)

The Board noted that users of Meta’s platforms should be able to understand the rules that govern their speech, and content reviewers should have clear, consistent guidance for enforcement to meet the legality requirement under the three-part test. Under Meta’s Adult Nudity and Sexual Activity Policy, “visible female nipples” are prohibited except in certain contexts, such as breastfeeding, acts of protest, or when shared for medical or health reasons (including mastectomy or cancer survivor tattoos). The OSB found that this prohibition was sufficiently clear when applied to the facts of the four nudity cases under review.

However, the OSB expressed ongoing concerns about how Meta applied its allowances. Regarding the newsworthiness allowance, the Board noted that the company has provided more detail in its Transparency Center about the process and criteria used to grant this exception, following recommendations issued in the Former President Trump’s Suspension, Colombia Protests, and Iran Protest Slogan decisions.

Regarding the “spirit of the policy” allowance, the Board highlighted that it has repeatedly warned that it may fall short of legality standards (Sri Lanka Pharmaceuticals, Communal Violence in the State of Odisha, and Iranian Make-Up Video for a Child Marriage). In Sri Lanka Pharmaceuticals, the OSB recognized the need to avoid clear injustices in global, large-scale moderation through a comprehensive allowance, but recommended that Meta make its criteria public and apply them only in exceptional cases—a commitment the company has made.

The Board then noted that special allowances present serious limitations. First, they lack predictability since such rules remain as confidential internal guidelines that are not accessible to the public, leaving users uncertain about what is permitted. Second, they are not easily accessible because only a narrow set of pathways can trigger these allowances: at-scale moderators cannot apply them, nor are they directed to flag content that might qualify for an exception—as the Board concluded in the Candidate for Mayor Assassinated in Mexico case. In this case, only posts from cross-check accounts remained online. Users outside the cross-check program, or without personal contacts at Meta, face substantial barriers to having eligible content reviewed by specialized teams. Meta acknowledged before the OSB that reliance on escalation can lead to inequities in enforcement.

The Board also underscored how certain allowances were repeatedly applied to the same type of content. In such instances, Meta should assess whether this type of content warrants an explicit inclusion in its public-facing rules for specific exceptions to certain policies. In cases like the ones at hand, as recognized by Meta, cultural nudity is a recurring category of escalated cases. Thus, the OSB recommended that the company create and develop a narrowly tailored exception in the public Adult Nudity and Sexual Activity Policy to cover images of bare-chested Indigenous women in non-sexual cultural contexts.

Legitimate Aim

The Board accepted that the Adult Nudity and Sexual Activity Policy pursues legitimate aims, including the protection of privacy (ICCPR Article 17) and the prevention of non-consensual imagery, as it previously considered in the Gender Identity and Nudity decision. However, it warned against overreliance on vague justifications such as “community sensitivity,” which Meta cited in its rationale. While such aims may align with public morals, the OSB noted that similar arguments have historically been used to suppress marginalized voices. A minority of the Board emphasized that “community sensitivity” is not a valid ground for limiting speech unless it is tied directly to a legitimate human rights aim.

Necessity and Proportionality

The OSB held that the removal of the two Himba posts was not necessary or proportionate. As noted by the Board, in the Himba cases, cultural nudity is a non-sexual, accepted tradition, and several indicators—such as the subjects facing the camera or participating in a public performance—pointed to implicit consent. The posts were not demeaning or exploitative, and their removal disproportionately interfered with both the posters’ and audience’s ability to share and access culturally significant content. In contrast, the majority considered that in the Maya/Karo case, removal was appropriate due to cultural misrepresentation and privacy concerns.

The OSB also argued that Meta’s current approach—removing such content by default and allowing exceptions only via internal escalation—imposed a heavy burden on Indigenous communities and failed to meet necessity and proportionality standards. Blanket bans on bare-chested Indigenous women restricted expression, undermined cultural self-representation, and disproportionately impacted communities that already face exclusion from digital platforms.

The Board emphasized that Indigenous communities must be able to share content depicting cultural practices—including nudity—in ways that do not require the content to be “newsworthy” or “educational” to remain online. Meta’s internal guidelines acknowledge that such nudity is not inherently sexual. Hence, the OSB urged Meta to reflect this in its public-facing policy.

The Board acknowledged the complexity of implementing new exceptions through existing enforcement technology but encouraged practical measures. These include developing internal guidance for reviewers to identify and escalate cultural nudity posts using objective indicators like hashtags, geo-tags, body paint, or ceremonial symbols. Meta could also introduce culturally appropriate appeal pathways, enabling Indigenous communities to flag misrepresentative content or restore content wrongfully removed. Partnering with Indigenous-led organizations through the Trusted Partners Program was also recommended.

The OSB suggested that Meta extend this approach to other cultural contexts where bare-chestedness is part of traditional ceremonies—such as the Reed Dance in Eswatini—which are currently blocked by default under existing rules.

In light of the above, the Oversight Board overturned Meta’s decision to remove the two Himba-related posts and ordered that they be restored. It also overturned Meta’s decision to retain the Maya/Karo post and instructed that it be removed. The Board upheld Meta’s decision to leave up the Yanomami post.

Policy Advisory Statement

To better respect freedom of expression while upholding Indigenous rights, the Board recommended that Meta publicly include an exception in its Adult Nudity and Sexual Activity Policy to permit images of bare-chested Indigenous women in culturally accepted, non-sexual contexts. This exception should be escalation-based, grounded in internal criteria for cultural nudity, and aligned with safety and consent standards. The Board will consider this recommendation implemented once Meta updates the public-facing policy to include this exception.