The Motion Picture Association (MPA) has sent Meta a cease-and-desist letter demanding the company stop using the term “PG-13” to describe Instagram’s teen content filters. The move, first reported by The Wall Street Journal, comes after Meta announced last month that teens on Instagram would, by default, only see content adhering to “PG-13” movie rating standards.
According to the MPA, Meta’s use of the term is misleading and potentially damaging. The association argues that its movie rating system which has been trusted for decades cannot be compared to Meta’s AI-driven content moderation methods.
In its letter, the MPA said that Meta’s description of its content policies is “literally false and highly misleading,” adding that any dissatisfaction with Meta’s system could cause the public to question the credibility of the MPA’s long-established ratings.
The MPA’s rating system, introduced in 1968, relies on human review and specific guidelines to assess a film’s suitability for audiences. By contrast, Meta’s classification approach relies heavily on algorithms and automated detection to block or filter content.
The MPA insists that conflating the two systems could erode trust in its rating labels, which play a vital role for parents and the entertainment industry. Meta, however, has defended its stance. The company clarified that it never claimed Instagram’s teen accounts were officially certified by the MPA or rated PG-13.
Instead, it said the content restrictions are guided by the PG-13 concept using the term as a reference to indicate a moderate content level rather than an official endorsement. Meta also stated that its usage qualifies as “fair use,” as it’s descriptive rather than commercial.
This dispute highlights growing tension between traditional media regulators and tech platforms over how content is classified and communicated. While the MPA seeks to protect the integrity of its trusted system, Meta is attempting to frame its policies in terms that parents and users easily understand.
Ultimately, the case raises important questions about intellectual property, fair use, and the adaptation of established standards to a digital, AI-driven world.
