When we declined a case — and why

This case study is different from the others. It's about a case we declined during free review — and why.

The situation

A man in his early thirties came to us about a Facebook account that had been disabled six months earlier. The disable email had cited "child safety policy violations" — Meta's category for content involving minors that violates safety standards.

The customer maintained he had done nothing wrong. He believed the disable was triggered by a misunderstood post involving a family event.

What we reviewed

During free review, we asked the standard initial questions: what was the disable reason, when did it happen, what had he tried so far. He had filed two appeals, both rejected. The rejection emails cited the same policy category as the original disable.

We asked for the original disable email and the appeal-rejection notices. The customer sent them.

The wording in both rejections was unambiguous. This wasn't a vague "community guidelines" disable. The category cited is one Meta treats as final — not subject to standard appeal reversal. The exact policy was severe enough that successful reversals happen in single-digit percentages, and almost exclusively when the customer can prove the original determination was a factual mistake (wrong person, wrong account, mistaken identity).

We didn't see evidence in this case of a factual mistake. The customer's explanation, while sincere, didn't address what the rejection emails specifically cited.

What we told the customer

We declined the case. The conversation went something like this:

"We've reviewed your situation in detail. Honestly, we don't think this account is recoverable through the standard appeal channels. The category Meta cited is one of the narrowest reversal paths, and based on what they wrote in the rejection emails, we don't see a viable path that would meet their threshold for reversal.

We could take your case and submit another appeal, but our honest assessment is that it would fail. That's not something we want to take money for.

If you believe the original determination was factually incorrect — meaning Meta got the wrong account, wrong person, or misidentified the content — there are paths through different legal channels (including a direct ombudsman process for severe-category accounts). Those aren't paths we work in; they're typically attorney-led."

We provided contact information for two attorneys who specialize in social-media policy disputes. No fee, no commitment. The customer thanked us and went a different direction.

Why this case study matters

Most of our case studies show successful recoveries. This one shows what's just as important: knowing when to walk away.

The recovery industry has a reputation for taking money on hopeless cases. Telegram operators promising "100% recovery" on accounts disabled for severe categories. Services that charge non-refundable "consultation fees" to provide the same advice you'd get from reading Meta's policy page.

Our model only works because we decline cases we don't think we can win. If we took every case, our refund rate would be much higher and our actual recovery rate much lower. By declining cases like this one, the cases we do accept have a real chance — which is why our overall recovery rate stays at 94%.

What we always look for during free review

• Disable category. Is it appealable in principle? Community standards / fake-name / hacked = yes. CSAM / terrorism / serious safety violations = generally no.
• Documentation strength. Does the customer have what reviewers need (photo ID, original signup records, business documentation)?
• What's been tried already. If the case has been through three failed appeals, the case is harder than a fresh case.
• Time since disable. Cases past the 30-day window are dramatically harder.
• Customer expectations. Cases where the customer is expecting impossible outcomes (e.g. "recover the account and reverse the wider audience's view of me") need different conversations than the recovery itself.

If most of these signals are negative, we say so during the free review. Better that than taking money we'd have to refund.

If you're not sure whether your case is realistic, that's exactly what free review is for. Start one — there's no commitment until both sides agree.