Tero Vesalainen/Getty Images
How much filter is too much filter for kids and teens posting selfies on social media?
That is the question state attorneys general across the country are grappling with following a landmark settlement with Meta this summer. As part of the agreement, the social media giant agreed to block some digital beauty filters for minors — specifically those mimicking extreme transformations like cosmetic procedures or heavy makeup.
Now, the burden falls on state officials to tell Meta where to draw the line. But defining where harmless fun ends and harmful manipulation begins is far from straightforward.
Impact on youth body image
For teenagers navigating the digital landscape, the pressure of online perfection is a daily reality. Much of that pressure has been driven by online beauty trends like “Instagram face.” Coined in 2019 by The New Yorker writer Jia Tolentino, the phrase refers to a look characterized by a small button nose, high cheekbones and pouty lips. While traditionally only achievable in real life through plastic surgery or extreme makeup, it can be applied instantly online using beauty filters.
Mia Lerner, a 17-year-old high school senior in California and a youth body image activist, knows the toll these digital tools can take. She told NPR experimenting with beauty filters contributed to her eating disorder and left her struggling with her self-image.
“I’ve even tried to fix my nose with AI,” Lerner said. “My face looks a lot better, I think, in [the] photo that I manipulated with these beauty filters. But I’m still living with this nose that I see in the mirror.”
Lerner welcomes the aspect of the Meta settlement that aims to restrict beauty filters for minors. “It’s a very important step in the right direction,” Lerner said.
The problem with ‘subtle’ editing
However, the agreement reached in August between Meta and 47 U.S. states — plus Washington D.C. and three territories — does not institute a blanket ban on all digital effects.
Filters that transform users into playful characters, like elves or puppies, will remain available for young people. But so will filters offering subtle beautification effects — such as smoothing skin tone or adding a slight eye glow.
It is this category of relatively minor editing that particularly concerns Lerner.
“When I see something that has been so obviously AI-generated, it’s very easy for me to logically say, ‘Well, that’s obviously been manipulated so I can’t compare myself to that,'” Lerner said. “But when I see these videos of people who are just slightly edited, it’s a lot easier for me to go down that comparison path.”
Tech guardrails vs. moving targets
Meta has previously implemented measures to manage beauty filters, which are increasingly powered by artificial intelligence.
The tech giant has already banned filters that explicitly promote cosmetic surgery, such as those overlaying pre-surgery marker lines onto skin. It has also shut down its platform for third-party creators of these tools, introduced mandatory labels for AI-generated content, and deployed automated AI detection systems. Despite these systems, harmful aesthetic filters and features that keep children trapped in an endless cycle of scrolling, clicking, and staying online persistently slipped past these guardrails, as a federal judge wrote in a summary judgement denying Meta’s defense this summer.
Meta is not the only tech company grappling with teen access to beauty filters. TikTok also restricts users under the age of 18 from using them. Snapchat does not restrict teen access to filters. Neither company responded to NPR’s request for comment. YouTube told NPR it does not have any filters. But there’s nothing stopping users from posting images or videos made with third party filters to the platform — or onto TikTok and Instagram, for that matter.
Meanwhile, state attorneys general are reaching the end of a two-month window they set themselves to provide Meta with guidance in the form of a letter on what constitutes a bannable filter — and what does not.
Evolving beauty standards
They face a moving target, as digital beauty standards evolve rapidly.
“If the states want to define what is a beauty filter, they should define what is beauty,” said Florencia Solari, a creative technologist who has spent years developing AI and augmented reality experiences for global brands.
Solari noted that trend cycles move quickly. “Instagram face” is already falling out of favor. “People are starting to move away from that because it’s starting to look a bit clownish,” Solari said. “Now it’s going towards extreme thinness. So that’s another problem.”
As a result, the tools that are used to achieve the latest look are therefore also changing. So what might be branded by lawmakers as an “extreme” beauty filter in 2026 will likely be different in 2027.
Technological changes
While beauty standards are changing quickly, so is technology.
Instead of sitting in boardrooms debating pixel thresholds for cheekbones, Kelly Frasier, the co-author of a recent study highlighting the negative impacts of social media on body issues in adolescents, said legislators should consider the fact that teens will soon be able to use AI to create entire fake universes around themselves, not just change the way they look. So they should focus on broader AI regulation for minors.
“I think that legislators are asking the wrong question if they’re asking where to draw the line for beauty filters,” said Frasier. “And to be honest, filters will probably become completely obsolete within the next few years.”
Legal and regional challenges
On top of the technological and cultural challenges, legal experts warn that individual states may struggle to reach a consensus on what does and does not constitute what the settlement agreement describes as a “cosmetic procedure filter.”
“What we don’t really have a sense of is what happens if the states disagree with each other?” said David Greene, senior counsel at the Electronic Frontier Foundation. “What if one state finds, you know, eyebrow lifting to be completely acceptable and another one thinks it’s awful?”
NPR reached out to the attorneys general offices in all four plaintiff states that led the trial — California, Colorado, Kentucky, and New Jersey — for an update on the guidelines. But officials either declined to comment or did not respond.
Beyond the U.S., some international regulators are hoping to avoid discussions around beauty filter definitions entirely.
In Europe, the proposed KIDS Act — designed to regulate youth social media usage — takes a sweeping approach.
In that plan, “Beauty filters – not extreme beauty filters; beauty filters full stop – are forbidden for minors,” said European Commission spokesperson Thomas Regnier. Regnier said EU legislators are closely watching the implementation of the U.S. settlement. “We want child-friendly services for our children. A beauty filter has nothing to do with a child-friendly service,” Regnier said.
Teens want to be heard
Meta says that it plans to enforce the ban on “cosmetic procedure filters” by early next year.
For youth activists like Lerner, the hope is that tech companies and regulators will include teens in these discussions. “So often it’s just the government or these companies in these conversations,” Lerner said. “The company should be asking us for our actual perspectives, like ‘Are people actually using these extreme AI filters or is that not going to make a difference?’ ‘Do we need to target something else?'”
Meta said the company has partnered with teens over the years, but did not respond to NPR’s question asking if it is doing so currently.
