Sen. Mark Warner Presses Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg on Ads Featuring Child Sexual Abuse Material, Non-Consensual Intimate Images

Good to see Sen. Mark Warner pressing Meta on this horrific crap on his platform:

WARNER PRESSES META CEO ON ADS FEATURING CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE MATERIAL AND NON-CONSENSUAL INTIMATE IMAGES

WASHINGTON – U.S. Sen. Mark R. Warner (D-VA) raised the alarm over a recent report that Meta ran advertisements across its platforms that featured child sexual abuse material (CSAM) and non-consensual intimate images (NCII). In a letter to Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Sen. Warner pressed Meta on advertisements that have run and likely continue to run on their platforms, demanding answers about how the company allowed the ads to pass its review systems, how much Meta profited from them, and what steps the company has taken to identify and remove similar content.

Research from the Tech Transparency Project (TTP) found that Meta ran dozens of paid advertisements over a nine-month period containing AI-generated CSAM or promoting tools that could be used to create NCII. Researchers identified more than 50 image and video ads containing exploitative imagery of children in Meta’s publicly accessible Ad Library, which does not provide users with a mechanism to report ads.

The ads included content directing users to apps or websites that could be used to create NCII, images of children as thumbnails leading to sexually explicit content, and images in which a child’s face had been superimposed onto an adult’s body. The findings come despite Meta’s own advertising standards that prohibit “imagery depicting nudity, sexual activity, depictions of people in explicit or sexually suggestive positions, or activities that are sexually suggestive.” Researchers found that some of the ads were distributed to thousands, if not tens of thousands, of users.

Sen. Warner wrote, “It strains credulity that Meta was (or is) unknowingly hosting—and profiting from—such blatantly illegal content, when your company explicitly states that it reviews and approves all ads. The CSAM and NCII that Meta hosted were paid ads that Meta’s own systems reviewed and approved per Meta’s advertising procedures. Researchers also found that new ads continued to appear even after Meta was directly notified of the problem, and that that notification followed a July 2026 BBC investigation that found similar CSAM-linked ads running on Instagram in India.”

The letter concludes with the senator pressing Meta for an explanation on how the identified advertisements were approved and distributed on its platforms and to provide detailed information about the company’s handling of ads involving child exploitation and “nudify” services. Among other questions, Sen. Warner asked Meta to provide:

• The dates the ads were detected and reported, as well as an explanation for any delay between detection and reporting;
• Information about whether Meta distributed, transported, or advertised CSAM;
• An explanation of whether and how Meta reviews advertisements before publication, as its policies state;
• An explanation for why identified ads remain in Meta’s Ad Library after being detected and removed from circulation;
• The unique IDs for every ad placed by Meta’s eleven Chinese resellers that was removed from Meta’s platforms or Ad Library during the past two years for violating policies related to child abuse, exploitation, or “nudify” ads; and
• The number of paid ads later flagged for nudity or exploitation that were shown to users under the age of 18.

Sen. Warner has led efforts in Congress to crack down on AI-generated sexual abuse material and non-consensual intimate images. In July, he introduced the SAFE AI Act, legislation to ban federal agencies from procuring AI systems capable of generating CSAM or NCII, prohibit software designed to circumvent AI safety controls, and create a private right of actions for survivors whose likeness is used to generate AI-produced CSAM.

Read the full letter here and below.

Dear Mr. Zuckerberg:

I write to express my alarm and frustration over public reporting that child sexual abuse material (“CSAM”) and non-consensual intimate imagery (“NCII”) were featured in advertisements that have run, and likely continue to run, on Meta Platforms, Inc’s (“Meta”) services and platforms. Recent reporting suggests that some of Meta’s advertising partners, including companies based in China, are placing thousands of ads that depict women and girls simulating sexual acts on Meta platforms. It is unacceptable that any of this material appears on Meta’s platforms and appalling that your company is seemingly profiting from it. I request specific and detailed answers as to how Meta repeatedly allowed these ads to appear and the corrective action that Meta is taking in response.

Research from the Tech Transparency Project (“TTP”) indicates that Meta ran dozens of paid advertisements containing AI-generated CSAM across Facebook, Instagram, Messenger, and Threads over a nine-month period. Distributing, transmitting, and advertising CSAM are federal crimes punishable by mandatory minimum sentences ranging from five to fifteen years. Researchers identified more than 50 image and video ads containing exploitative imagery of children available in Meta’s own public Ad Library. While advertisements in the Ad Library may not be running, they remain accessible to the public. Concerningly, these ads reportedly could not be reported to Meta’s safety systems because there is no reporting mechanism for ads that are not actively running despite the fact that they remain in the Ad Library. 

According to TTP’s research, the ads ran between November 2025 and early August 2026, and reached users in the United States, the United Kingdom, and more than a dozen European countries. At least one advertisement reaching over 2,500 social media accounts in Europe alone. Some ads directed users to “nudify” apps or websites (digital tools to create NCII); others used images of children as thumbnails leading to sexually explicit content or superimposed a child’s face onto an adult’s body. 

It strains credulity that Meta was (or is) unknowingly hosting—and profiting from—such blatantly illegal content, when your company explicitly states that it reviews and approves all ads. The CSAM and NCII that Meta hosted were paid ads that Meta’s own systems reviewed and approved per Meta’s advertising procedures. Researchers also found that new ads continued to appear even after Meta was directly notified of the problem, and that that notification followed a July 2026 BBC investigation that found similar CSAM-linked ads running on Instagram in India. 

Image Based Sexual Abuse (“IBSA”) is pervasive and deeply harmful. Depictions of nudity and sexual activity violate Meta’s own community standards and, very importantly in these instances, its own advertising standards. Meta’s advertising policy on Adult Nudity and Sexual Activity states that “Ads must not contain imagery depicting nudity, sexual activity, depictions of people in explicit or sexually suggestive positions, or activities that are sexually suggestive.” [emphasis added]. Contrast that policy with the TTP’s findings that “explicit AI-generated [CSAM] and images of minors alongside sexually suggestive statements”  were prominent in dozens of paid advertisements that Meta directed towards thousands, if not tens of thousands, of individuals.

I am seeking answers about the corrective actions that Meta is taking in response to these disturbing reports. If Meta has information about the advertisements identified in the Wired reporting, provide a list of those ads, as well as detailed answers to the following questions, accompanied by documentation sufficient to substantiate the answers provided, not later than August 26, 2026: 

1. Section 2258A of Title 18 of the United States Code requires electronic communication service providers to report apparent CSAM to the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children (“NCMEC”) “as soon as reasonably possible” upon obtaining actual knowledge.
   • Provide for each ad referenced in the reporting by Wired:

• • •          the date on which each of these advertisements was identified internally;
    •        the date (if ever) each of these advertisements was reported to NCMEC; and
    •      and the basis for any delay between detection and reporting.

 You do not need to provide the content of the ad; a unique ID # is sufficient.

1. Provide for each ad referenced in the reporting by Wired:
   • the date on which each of these advertisements was identified internally;
   • the date (if ever) each of these advertisements was reported to removed; and
   • and the basis for any delay between detection and removal. 

You do not need to provide the content of the ad; a unique ID # is sufficient. 

1. Sections 2251, 2252, and 2252A of Title 18 of the United States Code make it a crime to knowingly distribute, transport, or advertise CSAM, including computer-generated CSAM.
   1. In the instances noted in the Wired article cited in this letter, did Meta distribute, transport, or advertise CSAM, including computer-generated CSAM?

1.         If the answer offered is ‘no’, provide an explanation sufficient to support such a claim. 

1. • Does Meta review advertisements before the company publishes them across its platforms, as your policies state?

1.         Do you assert that any such review of a given advertisement and subsequent approval to publish a given advertisement does not constitute knowledge for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. § 1446A, 18 U.S.C. § 2251, 18 U.S.C. § 2252, and 18 U.S.C. § 2252A?
2.        Why were the advertisements not removed from the Ad Library even after they were detected and removed from active circulation? 

1. • Please confirm on behalf of Meta your understanding that federal law does not require a real child to have been used to produce the underlying image for CSAM to be illegal. 

• • Provide a list of every ad placed by any of Meta’s eleven Chinese resellers that Meta removed from its platform or ad library for violating policies on child abuse and exploitation.

1.         Between which dates did each ad run?
2.        How were the users to whom the ads were targeted identified or selected?

                                                           iii.      How many impressions did each ad receive in the United States?

1.        How many impressions did each ad receive in total?
2.        How much money was Meta paid to run each ad?
3.        Did Meta retain the revenues generated from running each of these ads?

                                                         vii.      Does Meta, as a matter of policy, retain revenue for advertisements that are illegal in nature, or feature material, like CSAM or NCII, that is illegal under U.S. law? If no, what does Meta do with any such revenue?

You do not need to provide the content of the ad; a unique ID # is sufficient. 

1. Provide a list of all ads placed by any of Meta’s eleven Chinese resellers that were removed for violating policies on nudify ads within the past two years. For the purpose of this question, a “nudify ad” is any advertisement offering, or linking to, a service that a used can use to digitally manipulate an image of an identifiable individual (as that term is used in 47 U.S.C. § 223, as amended by the TAKE IT DOWN Act, Pub. L. No. 119-12 (2025)) in order to create an intimate visual depiction (as that term is used in 15 U.S.C. § 6851). Between which dates did each ad run?

1. • How were the users to whom the ads were targeted identified or selected?
   • How many impressions did each ad receive in the United States?
   • How many impressions did each ad receive in total?
   • How much money was Meta paid to run each ad?
   • Did Meta retain the revenues generated from running each of these ads?
   • Does Meta, as a matter of policy, retain revenue for advertisements that are illegal in nature, or feature material, like CSAM or NCII, that is illegal under U.S. law? If no, what does Meta do with any such revenues?

 You do not need to provide the content of the ad; a unique ID # is sufficient. 

1. Meta reviewed and approved paid advertisements that reportedly contained illegal content, including CSAM. Arguably, the protections offered to interactive computer services under 47 U.S. Code § 230 do not apply, as Meta is the publisher and monetizer of this content.
   • Did Meta undertake an analysis of its legal liability for publishing and hosting the content identified in this reporting? 

1. How many paid advertisements later flagged by Meta’s systems for adult nudity, child sexual exploitation, adult sexual exploitation, or human exploitation were shown to users aged 13-18 in the U.S. in calendar year 2025? As of August 24, 2026?

 

Thank you for your attention to this important matter, and I look forward to your response.