Colombian Constitutional Court | Esperanza Gòmez Silva
UPDATED APR 6, 2026
In compliance with the Fourth Item of Judgment T-256 of June 12, 2025, issued by the First Review Chamber of the Constitutional Court of Colombia, which was clarified ex officio under Order 1569 of October 3, 2025 (the “Judgment”), Meta Platforms, Inc. hereby publishes the conclusions of the Judgment.
Meta Platforms, Inc. respectfully informs that it has timely filed a nullity motion against the Judgment, which is pending decision by the Constitutional Court of Colombia en banc.
Compliance with the order in the Fourth Item of the Judgment does not constitute, in any case, a waiver by Meta Platforms, Inc. of the rights that assist it by virtue of said motion for nullity, nor before any other forum, nor under any other course of action available under international law, Colombian law, or any other applicable legal framework. On the contrary, Meta Platforms, Inc. expressly reserves all its rights.
REPRODUCTION OF THE CONCLUSIONS OF THE JUDGMENT
404. For all the above, the Court concludes that Meta’s decision to remove the content of Ms. Esperanza Gómez Silva, as well as her account @esperanzagomez, constituted a restriction on freedom of expression that was not justified in terms of legality, necessity, and proportionality.
405. Likewise, the Court considers that the content moderation procedure applied failed to respect several due process guarantees to which the petitioner is entitled, in particular transparency, contextual sensitivity, consistency, and proportionality.
406. With regards to equality, the Court warns that Meta applied its policies inconsistently and chose to impose the most severe sanction, by deleting the petitioner’s account, despite not having proceeded in the same way with other influencers who have posted similar or even more explicit content. The respondent did not provide a legitimate reason that would justify this differentiated treatment.
407. Additionally, the Court found that, by deleting the petitioner’s account following a procedure that was not very transparent and inconsistent, Meta arbitrarily restricted the space in which the plaintiff carried out her activity as an influencer.
408. Nevertheless, in this case the Court did not find a violation of the right to a minimum living and adjustable wage, since it was not proven that the limitation of her work directly affected the petitioner’s standard of living.
409. Along these lines, the Court will not order in this case an abstract award for economic damages. Pursuant to Article 25 of Decree 2591 of 1991, the tutela judge may adopt this measure when the affected party does not have another judicial remedy and the violation is apparent and the product of a clear and indisputable arbitrary action. This mechanism covers only emergent damage, not lost profits.
410. Although in this case the Court found a fundamental rights violation, there are other suitable judicial mechanisms to claim compensation for damages: in particular, the civil route makes it possible to discuss both the emergent damage and the loss of profits that could arise from the cancellation or non-renewal of the contracts entered into by the petitioner. The Court adopts this decision because, although pecuniary harm may have been caused, it did not compromise the petitioner’s economic stability nor leave her in a state of manifest defenselessness. Therefore, it falls to the civil jurisdiction to determine liability, harm, and damage caused.
411. What follows is a summary of the measures that the Court will adopt to address the effects of the violation of the plaintiff’s rights.
5. Tutela orders
412. This judgment, as indicated above, is the first in which the Court comprehensively addresses the issue of content moderation by social media platforms. Given its scope, and what was found in this process, the Court will issue two types of orders: some aimed at preventing in the country an arbitrary exercise of said power, and others that address the petitioner’s case.
413. On the one hand, the Court will order Meta Platforms, Inc. to establish an accessible and visible electronic communication channel that allows the notification of judicial proceedings against it that originate in Colombia. As indicated at the beginning of this decision, the difficulties noted in this process in notifying the company are not minor, which warrants corrective measures.
414. Likewise, Meta Platforms, Inc. will be ordered to review and adjust Instagram’s Terms of Use and its Privacy Policy, so that users located in Colombia or whose content has relevant effects in this country, and whose accounts are deleted for violations of the Terms of Use or the Community Guidelines, clearly know the reasons for the measure, the time during which their information will be preserved, the purposes of such preservation, and the mechanisms provided by the platform to challenge that decision.
415. Meta will also be ordered that the policies on nudity and sexual activity of adults, and on sexual services between adults in its Terms of Use and Community Guidelines, be unified in a single place, expressed clearly and in the Spanish language. As explained when analyzing the specific case, these rules are not truly clear or accessible, as they are scattered across various microsites that are accessed by clicking on multiple links located in Meta’s Transparency Center and, in some cases, are only available in the English language.
416. Furthermore, the Court will urge Meta to define with greater clarity and detail:
(i) The rules on implicit sexual content within the policy on nudity and sexual activity. Indeed, as explained in detail when analyzing the non-compliance with the sub-principle of legality of the tripartite test, some of those provisions are vague and indeterminate, which may lead to the disregard of fundamental rights.
(ii) The rules on content moderation for the Instagram service, including the strikes system and the possible consideration of offline conduct, about which users must be informed clearly and unequivocally. Thus, as previously indicated when analyzing the violation of the right to equality, these two points are particularly opaque, since the Community Guidelines and the Terms of Use do not explain in detail how the content moderation procedure works or the sanctions applicable to content considered infringing.
417. In view of the transparency shortcomings in the application of content moderation policies that were identified in this Judgment, this Corporation will also invite Meta Platforms, Inc. to create an accountability mechanism so that, as it does in other jurisdictions, it publishes periodic reports on its content moderation decisions regarding Colombian users.
418. Additionally, the Court will order Meta to prepare, within six months following notification of this judgment, a report that must be published in its Transparency Center and sent to the chambers of the presiding judge for dissemination on the website of the Constitutional Court.
419. Likewise, this Corporation will invite Meta’s Oversight Board to prepare a policy advisory opinion on the application of the policies on nudity and sexual activity of adults, as well as on sexual services between adults, in light of the broad power of content moderation. In particular, it will be asked to formulate recommendations on the use of offline activities as a moderation criterion, as well as on the standards of transparency, due process, non-discrimination, and freedom of expression that must be observed when deleting content or accounts.
420. Moreover, the Court will urge the Ministry of Labor, the Superintendence of Industry and Commerce, and the Ministry of Information and Communications Technologies to advance regulations on the activity of influencers on social networks, in which their rights and duties vis-à-vis audiences are clearly defined, as well as the rules of their relationship with digital platforms.
421. On the other hand, as for the specific case of Ms. Esperanza Gómez Silva, the Court considers that Meta Platforms, Inc. violated her rights to due process, equality, freedom of expression, work, and freedom to choose an occupation. Nevertheless, it recognizes the need to balance the protection of these rights with the preservation of the power of content moderation, which is essential to prevent the circulation of child pornography, sexual exploitation, and other speech not protected by freedom of expression.
422. In this context, the Court will order Meta to refrain from imposing arbitrary restrictions that violate the rights protected in favor of the petitioner with respect to the account she currently holds. Going forward, it must apply its rules in a transparent, clear, precise, context-sensitive, and consistent manner, justifying any restriction on freedom of expression in accordance with the tripartite test in the matter. As a measure of satisfaction and guarantee of non-repetition, Meta must publish the conclusions of this judgment in its Transparency Center. Finally, the Court will dismiss Facebook Colombia S.A.S. from the proceedings for lack of standing to be sued.
III. DECISION
In view of the foregoing, the First Review Chamber of the Constitutional Court,
RESOLVES:
First. LIFT the suspension of terms ordered by the First Chamber for the Review of Tutelas by order of October 9, 2023.
Second. REVOKE the first-instance judgment issued on February 17, 2023 by the Thirty-Fourth Municipal Criminal Court with Knowledge Functions of Cali, and instead DECLARE THE MOOTNESS DUE TO CONSUMMATED HARM in the rights to freedom of expression, due process, equality and non-discrimination, freedom to choose a profession or trade, and the work of Ms. Esperanza Gómez Silva.
Third. ORDER Meta Platforms, Inc. to refrain from imposing arbitrary restrictions on the rights protected in this judgment to the detriment of the petitioner, with respect to the account she currently has. In this sense, henceforth, it must apply its house rules in a transparent, context-sensitive, and consistent manner, without incurring violations of fundamental rights.
Fourth. ORDER Meta Platforms, Inc. to publish the conclusions of this judgment in its Transparency Center, within fifteen (15) days from the notification of this judgment.
Fifth. ORDER Meta Platforms, Inc. to establish an accessible and visible electronic communication channel that allows the notification of judicial proceedings against it that originate in Colombia, within fifteen (15) days from the notification of this judgment.
Sixth. ORDER Meta Platforms, Inc. that, within three (3) months from the notification of this judgment, it review and adjust Instagram’s Terms of Use and its Privacy Policy, so that users located in Colombia or whose content has relevant effects in this country, and whose accounts are deleted for violations of the Terms of Use or the Community Guidelines, clearly know the reasons for the measure, the time during which their information will be preserved, the purposes of such preservation, and the mechanisms provided by the platform to challenge that decision.
Seventh. ORDER Meta Platforms, Inc. to, within three (3) months from the notification of this judgment, have unified in a single place in its Terms of Use and Community Guidelines, the policy on nudity and sexual activity and the policy on sexual services between adults, expressed clearly and in the Spanish language.
Eighth. URGE Meta Platforms, Inc. to, as soon as possible, define with greater clarity and detail: (i) the rules on implicit sexual content, which are part of the policy on nudity and sexual activity, and (ii) the rules on content moderation for the Instagram service, including the strikes system and the possible consideration of offline conduct, about which it must inform users clearly and unequivocally.
Ninth. INVITE Meta Platforms, Inc. to create an accountability mechanism so that, as it does in other jurisdictions, it publishes periodic reports on its content moderation decisions with respect to Colombian users.
Tenth. ORDER Meta Platforms, Inc., to send a report to the Constitutional Court indicating the status of compliance with the measures ordered by this Corporation, six (6) months after notification of this judgment. Said report must be published in Spanish and in English in its Transparency Center.
Eleventh. INVITE Meta Platforms, Inc.’s Oversight Board to, in the exercise of its powers, develop a policy advisory opinion on the moderation of content on Instagram posts potentially violative of the rules on nudity and sexual activity of adults, as well as on sexual services between adults, and the limits of such power in terms of transparency, due process, freedom of expression, and equality and non-discrimination, and the protection of influencers who carry out independent work on that social network.
Twelfth. URGE the Ministry of Labor, the Superintendence of Industry and Commerce, and the Ministry of Information and Communications Technologies to advance regulations on the activity of influencers on social networks, in which their rights and duties vis-à-vis audiences are clearly defined, as well as the rules of their relationship with digital platforms.
Thirteenth. DISMISS Facebook Colombia S.A.S. for lack of standing to be sued in the proceeding of reference.
Fourteenth. ISSUE the communications —by the Office of the Clerk of the Constitutional Court—, as well as PROVIDE the notifications to the parties —through the tutela judge of the instance, provided for in Article 36 of Decree Law 2591 of 1991.
Notify and comply.
- NATALIA ÁNGEL CABO
- Justice
- CÉSAR HUMBERTO CARVAJAL SANTOYO
- Acting Justice
- JUAN CARLOS CORTÉS GONZÁLEZ
- Justice
- ANDREA LILIANA ROMERO LOPEZ
- Clerk of Court