When a Glitch in the Matrix Becomes a Legal Problem: Meta’s Re-Follow Scandal
By Dani Brody; Photo Credit: Justin Sullivan / Getty
Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, has recently faced backlash over reports that it has automatically re-followed political accounts for users who had previously unfollowed them.[1] Meta has historically handled administration changes by switching the official President of the United States (POTUS), Vice President (VP), and First Lady accounts on Facebook and Instagram to the new administration while retaining the existing followers of those accounts.[2] Consequently, if a user previously followed President Biden, they were automatically switched over to follow President Trump, while former-President Biden’s posts were archived under a different handle and the POTUS account reset with no posts attached.[3] However, this process does not explain why users who have unfollowed the accounts since the inauguration are automatically re-following them hours later and raises serious First Amendment and consumer protection concerns.
The First Amendment protects not only the right to speak but also the right not to speak or associate with messages with which an individual disagrees.[4] The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that the government cannot force individuals to express or endorse viewpoints against their will, so if it were a government agency forcing citizens to follow certain political figures or organizations, it would be a clear First Amendment violation.[5] However, because Meta is a private platform, it is immune from First Amendment liability, and consequently, users may have fewer legal remedies against them.[6] Given tech companies’ dominant role in online speech, there is growing consensus that such tech platforms should be treated as “quasi-public forums,” potentially subjecting them to First Amendment considerations.[7] In the meantime, aggrieved users’ only hope may be the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). If users were led to believe they had control over their follows, as Facebook’s and Instagram’s Terms of Use sections imply,[8] only to have Meta override their choices, this could constitute deceptive or unfair business practices, allowing regulatory agencies like the FTC to investigate whether the practice misled users or infringed on their rights.[9]
Although Meta has declined to provide a detailed explanation, some have postulated that the re-follow errors are merely a glitch resulting from the company processing a high volume of unfollow requests.[10] However, even if Meta’s action was unintentional or algorithmic, it risks being perceived as an attempt to manipulate political discourse, especially given Zuckerberg’s recent attempts to curry favor with the new administration.[11] Meta has stated that they are returning to a “fundamental commitment to free speech,”[12] but overriding user preferences on political content undercuts this promise by directly challenging the principle that individuals should control their own political engagement.
Dani Brody is currently a 2L at Vanderbilt Law School. She is from Los Angeles, California, and graduated from Columbia University in 2019 with a major in History and minor in Business Management.
[1] Mike Isaac, Why You Might Suddenly Be Following Trump on Instagram and Facebook, New York Times (Jan. 22, 2025),
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/22/technology/personaltech/trump-instagram-facebook.html.
[2] Id.
[3] See id.
[4] See U.S. Const., amend. I.
[5] See Herbert v. Lando, 441 U.S. 153, 168 n.16 (1979) (stating that the First Amendment applies to every “government agency—local, state, or federal”).
[6] Manhattan Cmty. Access Corp. v. Halleck, 587 U.S. 802, 805 (2019) (holding that a private entity operating public access channels is not a state actor subject to First Amendment constraints).
[7] Eugene Volokh, Treating Social Media Platforms Like Common Carriers?, 1 J. Free Speech L. 377, 381–82 (2021).
[8] See “Terms of Use,” Instagram: https://help.instagram.com/termsofuse (last accessed Feb. 1, 2024); Meta Platform Terms, Facebook: https://developers.facebook.com/terms (last accessed Feb. 1, 2024); “Meta Terms of Service,” Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/terms/ (last accessed Feb. 1, 2024).
[9] See 15 U.S.C. 45 § 5.
[10] Isaac, supra note 1.
[11] See Tom Gerken, Mark Zuckerberg Dines with Donald Trump at Mar-a-Lago, BBC (Nov. 28, 2024): https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c87x98q8y08o; Liv McMahon, Mark Zuckerberg’s Meta Donates $1M to Trump Fund, BBC (Dec. 12, 2024): https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c8j9e1x9z2xo.
[12] Aleks Phillips, Meta Denies Forcing Users to Follow Trump Accounts, BBC (Jan. 23, 2025): https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn8y4npny5xo.