Several organisations and digital rights groups in the Netherlands have launched legal action against Meta, accusing the tech giant of unlawfully censoring queer communities through the mass removal of LGBTQI+ Instagram accounts.
The mass removal of LGBTQ+ Instagram accounts occurred during the latest Instagram purge, which saw thousands of followers disappear from accounts including celebrities, influencers, and organisations.
The case is being led by global NGO Repro Uncensored and Dutch digital rights organisation Bits of Freedom, following a wave of account suspensions affecting queer organisations, nightlife venues, artists, activists and sexual health educators across the Netherlands.
Represented by Dutch law firm Bureau Brandeis, the coalition argues that Meta’s actions may violate European fundamental rights law, the EU Digital Services Act, GDPR protections and Dutch anti-discrimination legislation.
Among the organisations backing the action are COC Netherlands, BUTT Magazine, Club Church, The Queer Agenda, Sauna Nieuwezijds, Free Willie Amsterdam and several other LGBTQI+ community groups.
“Digital discrimination”
According to Repro Uncensored, reports of censorship targeting LGBTQI+ communities and related organisations have sharply increased in recent months.
The organisation documented more than 130 censorship reports globally in April 2026 alone, most involving Instagram accounts within the European Union.
“This case is about digital discrimination and the exclusion of communities from the public spaces that shape our social, cultural, and political life,” said Martha Dimitratou, Founder and Executive Director of Repro Uncensored.
“When platforms can make organisations, knowledge, and entire communities disappear without explanation or meaningful recourse, it leads to digital ostracisation that undermines civic participation and erodes our democracies.”
The legal complaint alleges that Meta removed accounts “without sufficient notice targeting organisations and individuals within the queer community” and failed to provide proper explanations or meaningful appeal processes.
Some organisations reportedly had accounts flagged under categories such as “human exploitation” or “account integrity”, despite operating as established cultural institutions and community spaces.
Concerns over automated moderation
The coalition has also raised concerns about the role of automated moderation systems, arguing that they may disproportionately target queer and marginalised communities.
“Removing queer accounts without reason and warning constitutes a violation of European law,” said Bureau Brandeis senior lawyer Minke Gommer.
“This is the first case in which the Digital Services Act is being used to challenge discriminatory content moderation by a Very Large Online Platform.”
Several affected organisations said they continue to fear future removals, even after some accounts were reinstated following media attention and public pressure.
“We have our accounts back, but for how long?” asked Caspar Pisters, Head of Communications at Club Church.
“Meta proves zero insight into why they were removed in the first place, it does not give any beforehand warning, it doesn’t have a proper option for appealing. It’s no longer safe to invest in Meta platforms. The impact goes beyond just our Instagram profiles, it injects uncertainty into the entire LGBTQI+ online community,” he said.
Philip Tijsma, spokesperson for COC Netherlands, said the removals disproportionately affected queer communities and other minorities.
“They limit our options to meet, speak out, be visible and quite frankly: be ourselves,” he said.
Australian groups warn of similar pattern
The dispute has also sparked concern internationally, with Australian organisations warning that similar patterns of censorship are emerging there.
Australia’s Digital Rights Watch and Repro Uncensored estimate that dozens of LGBTQI+ and sexual health-related accounts in Australia may have been wrongly removed or restricted.
They also noted that Meta’s removal process is opaque, “leaving LGBTQ+ creators to guess what will get them censored.”
The groups said automated moderation systems risk reproducing bias at scale while leaving users without adequate explanations or appeal options.
“This is not just a content moderation issue,” Digital Rights Watch said in a statement.
“It is about who gets to participate online, whose voices are treated as legitimate, and whether platforms are applying their rules in ways that disproportionately silence marginalised communities.”
In May, American LGBTQI+ media advocacy group GLAAD also raised concerns about the growing use of artificial intelligence in social media moderation systems, warning that these tools often suppress LGBTQI+ content and disproportionately target queer creators and activists.
For the Dutch coalition, the case is about more than reinstating accounts. It is a challenge to how powerful digital platforms moderate public life, and whether queer communities can safely occupy the online spaces they rely on for culture, connection, health information and activism.
