As we discussed on Friday, Mark Zuckerberg has been operating an illegal school at his Palo Alto compound. Zuck’s spokespeople were squirrely about whether the school has finally shut down as ordered by the city, but at the very least it has relocated. Part of the secret school’s undoing came from staff listing the extent of their work on LinkedIn. I called it a valuable lesson in the public nature of public records. Well, it seems another department in Zuck’s fiefdom could use some schooling, this time in US trademark law. You see, Meta — the parent company that owns Facebook and Instagram — unveiled a new feature last month that henceforth all teen Instagram accounts would “be guided” by the familiar PG-13 rating from the Motion Picture Association (MPA). There was just one hiccup: Meta neither informed nor sought permission from the MPA, who have now sent Meta a cease and desist. From The Hollywood Reporter:
In a legal letter sent last week, which was viewed by The Hollywood Reporter, the MPA demanded that Meta and Instagram stop using the PG-13 mark, calling the claims made by the tech giant “literally false and highly misleading.”
“Meta’s attempts to restrict teen content literally cannot be ‘guided by’ or ‘aligned with’ the MPA’s PG-13 movie rating because Meta does not follow this curated process,” the MPA wrote in the letter. “Instead, Meta’s content restrictions appear to rely heavily on artificial intelligence or other automated technology measures.”
The MPA notes that its ratings system, including PG-13, are registered certification marks, authorized by the U.S. Trademark Office in the 1980s. The organization, which represents the major film and TV studios, as well as major streaming platforms, argues in the letter that Instagram is trying to exploit the public’s trust in its ratings system for its own gain.
“Any dissatisfaction with Meta’s automated classification will inevitably cause the public to question the integrity of the MPA’s rating system,” the MPA wrote. “In fact, this is one of the key reasons that the MPA declined an earlier request by one of Instagram’s competitors for permission to use the rating on its platform.”
Instagram initially announced the move as a means of tightening parental controls over teen accounts, including limits on sexually suggestive content, graphic or disturbing content, or content that featured alcohol or drug use, risky stunts, drug paraphernalia, and strong language.
“We decided to more closely align our policies with an independent standard that parents are familiar with, so we reviewed our age-appropriate guidelines against PG-13 movie ratings and updated them accordingly,” the company said at the time. “While of course there are differences between movies and social media, we made these changes so teens’ experiences in the 13+ setting feel closer to the Instagram equivalent of watching a PG-13 movie.”
The MPA, it seems, feels differently. Yet, in reply to the studios’ lobbying organization, a Meta spokesperson reiterated “we made this change to support parents, and we hope to work with the MPA” even if the reference to PG-13 wasn’t an official agreement with the non-profit. Whether that answer satisfies the lobbying org or if it’s litigation up next is the question.
Zuckerberg is really batting a thousand lately, isn’t he? And it’s no less than he deserves, with all the cheating and law-breaking he’s doing for personal benefit and to further the success of a company that does serious psychological harm to teens (and, frankly, adults too). I’m sure some Meta spox would counter that last point with, “But that’s WHY we’re using the PG-13 system!” That’s where I was intrigued by MPA’s assertion that Meta is pawning off the PG-13 review process on “artificial intelligence or other automated technology measures.” It’s a lazy, unreliable technology to leave in charge of teen content, complicated by the fact that, oh yeah, Meta ended their fact-checking policy this year. Plus, need I remind everyone of Zuck’s epic fail on stage with the Meta AI glasses? Not that I’m a huge fan of MPA, mind you; I generally think they have a warped tendency to accept violence while slapping more restrictive ratings to anything remotely sexual. And yes, I did chuckle at their claim that the “integrity” of their ratings would be at risk by Meta! Not wrong, but the hyperbole is amusing. Ultimately, though, MPA has a trademark which I think makes this cut and dry. My bet is Meta will be forced to stop using the label PG-13. I suggest they take the honest route for a replacement, and name the new rating AI-13.
