Skip to main content
NOPE
Low reported severity

First-person forum account: a Facebook user says a video face-scan security check failed to recognise them after their appearance changed, an automated ID check then rejected their government ID over a nickname, and they were locked out of a five-year-old account

In a public post to r/facebook on 28 September 2026, a user writes that their five-year-old Facebook account was hit with a security check that asked for a video face scan, which 'failed completely'. They say their face had changed a lot through recent life circumstances and 'The AI simply didn't recognize me.' Facebook then asked for ID, and 'the automated system instantly rejected' their government ID because their profile uses a shortened nickname. The poster says they are locked out of years of memories, friends and active Marketplace listings and are looking for a way to reach a human or download their data. Meta has said that video selfies used to regain access to compromised accounts are compared with the account's profile pictures using facial recognition; whether this check worked that way is not known. The account is uncorroborated.

AI system
Facebook video face-scan check
Meta
Occurred
Event date unknown
Reported
28 September 2026
Event location
Unknown
What the AI did
Made a decision about the person
Reported harm
Other Material HarmPsychological Distress
Whose AI use
An institution’s AI use
Setting
Everyday life · Privacy
Evidence
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 2 sources
4 claims: 1 documented, 3 reported. 3 open questions
People reported harmed
1 person

AI system as recorded: Facebook's video face-scan security check (Meta describes video-selfie verification for account recovery as using facial recognition technology); the specific system is not named in the post

What Happened

The check. The poster writes that their '5-year-old account got hit with a random security check. The app asked for a video face scan, but it failed completely.' They attribute the failure to changes in their appearance after recent life circumstances ('my face and physical definition have changed a lot') and write: 'The AI simply didn't recognize me.'

The ID step. Facebook then asked for identification. Because they use 'a shortened nickname on my profile for basic privacy', they say 'the automated system instantly rejected my government ID for a name mismatch', and that where they live they cannot get secondary official documents in the nickname.

The effect. 'It’s pretty gutting.' The poster says they are 'locked out of years of memories, friends, and active Marketplace listings' and would settle for 'a way to bypass the lock screen to download my archive data and photos.'

Context. Meta's newsroom post on account recovery says that with video selfies 'we’ll use facial recognition technology to compare the selfie to the profile pictures on the account they’re trying to access.' That describes the feature in general. It does not establish how this particular check was made, and the post does not say whether the check followed a suspected compromise.

Limits. Single anonymous account; no screenshots or messages from Facebook were published, and the date of the check is not stated.

Reported harm

The poster reports that a Facebook video face-scan check failed to recognise them and an automated ID check rejected their ID over a nickname, locking them out of a five-year-old account with years of photos, contacts and active Marketplace listings, which they describe as 'pretty gutting' (first-person account, uncorroborated).

Outcome

Ongoing

At the time of posting the poster was still locked out and asking how to reach a human reviewer or download their archive. No response from Meta is reported.

What remains unknown

  • The date of the security check and the poster's location.
  • Why the security check was triggered and whether a human reviewed the face scan or the ID.
  • Whether the poster regained access or obtained a data download.

What the evidence supports

AI involvement: reported. The poster says a video face scan in Facebook's security check failed and that 'The AI' did not recognise them. Meta's newsroom documents that video selfies used to recover compromised accounts are compared with profile pictures using facial recognition, without saying whether a human reviews the result or covering routine security checks; the ID rejection is attributed by the poster to an 'automated system' and is not established as AI.

4 claims: 1 documented, 3 reported. What the statuses mean

Reported The poster's five-year-old Facebook account was put through a security check that asked for a video face scan, and the scan failed; the poster attributes this to changes in their appearance and says the AI did not recognise them.

Causal attribution. Poster's account and attribution; no messages from Facebook were published.

  • reddit.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'My 5-year-old account got hit with a random security check.'; 'The app asked for a video face scan, but it failed completely.'; 'my face and physical definition have changed a lot'; 'The AI simply didn't recognize me.'
Reported Facebook then asked for ID, and an automated system rejected the poster's government ID because the profile uses a shortened nickname.

Causal attribution. Poster's account; the post does not say the ID check used AI.

  • reddit.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'Then it asked for ID.'; 'I use a shortened nickname on my profile for basic privacy'; 'the automated system instantly rejected my government ID for a name mismatch'
Reported The poster says they are locked out of years of memories, friends and active Marketplace listings, describes the loss as gutting, and is seeking a way to reach a human reviewer or download their data.

Causal attribution. Poster's own statement of the effect.

  • reddit.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'It’s pretty gutting.'; 'locked out of years of memories, friends, and active Marketplace listings'; 'a way to bypass the lock screen to download my archive data and photos'; 'hoping someone here has navigated this specific deadlock or found a way to reach a human'
Documented Meta says that, when people verify their identity with a video selfie to regain access to a compromised account, it uses facial recognition technology to compare the selfie with the profile pictures on the account.

Causal attribution. General product description by Meta; it does not establish how this check was decided.

  • about.fb.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'The user will upload a video selfie and we’ll use facial recognition technology to compare the selfie to the profile pictures on the account they’re trying to access.'

Sources

2 sources inspected. Sources that repeat one account do not corroborate each other.

How the sources were read, and where the events happened

Read in English on 2026-09-29: full self-text retrieved through the arctic_shift archive API by post ID. The poster handle is not recorded. Applies to s1.

Meta newsroom post first published 21 October 2024 with later updates, fetched 2026-09-29 (200). Describes the feature in general; it does not address this account. Applies to s2.

Event countries: Unknown. Affected-person countries: Unknown. Court countries: Unknown.

The post says only 'Where I live' without naming a place; the comments add nothing. Unknown after review.

Reviewed for publication 2026-09-29: Published under the 2026-09-15 charter's public-forum rule as a concrete first-person account of a Facebook video face-scan security check, which the poster describes as AI, failing to recognise them and, with an ID rejection, locking them out of their account; described with attribution and without corroboration. Meta's own description of video-selfie verification is cited as context only. Personal circumstances the poster gives for their changed appearance are summarised, not reproduced. No handle is recorded.

People described

An adult Facebook user (the poster; not named, location not stated)

People reported harmed in this case

1 person

1 AI participant · 0 other people harmed

One person: the poster, locked out of their own account. Commenters describing their own lockouts are not counted. Exact 1.

Counted once within this case. The same person may appear in other cases. This count does not establish AI causation.

Tags

#first-person#reddit#facebook#meta#facial-recognition#video-selfie#account-lockout#identity-verification

Cite this case

Compiled per our published methodology: verification statuses, sourcing standards, and corrections process.

APA

NOPE. (2026). First-person forum account: a Facebook user says a video face-scan security check failed to recognise them after their appearance changed, an automated ID check then rejected their government ID over a nickname, and they were locked out of a five-year-old account. AI incidents. https://nope.net/incidents/2026-facebook-video-selfie-face-scan-failed-account-lockout-first-person

BibTeX

@misc{2026_facebook_video_selfie_face_scan_failed_account_lockout_first_person,
  title = {First-person forum account: a Facebook user says a video face-scan security check failed to recognise them after their appearance changed, an automated ID check then rejected their government ID over a nickname, and they were locked out of a five-year-old account},
  author = {NOPE},
  year = {2026},
  howpublished = {AI incidents},
  url = {https://nope.net/incidents/2026-facebook-video-selfie-face-scan-failed-account-lockout-first-person}
}

Related cases

Low Otter Notetaker

United States: seven people who say they did not hold Otter accounts say Otter's AI Notetaker recorded and transcribed their Zoom and Teams meetings without their consent, including a medical call and calls with a financial professional, and kept the data to train its models; a federal court let their core privacy claims proceed

Seven people in California, Illinois and Washington state are suing Otter.ai in a consolidated class action in the Northern District of California. Each says another meeting participant used Otter's AI Notetaker on a Zoom or Microsoft Teams call they joined, and that Otter recorded, transcribed and stored their conversation without their consent; six of them date their calls between March 2024 and May 2025. They say they were not Otter account holders. The calls they describe include a medical consultation, meetings with a financial professional and work discussions. They allege that Otter keeps the recordings and uses them to train its speech-recognition models, that it captured voiceprints of the Illinois plaintiffs, and one of them says learning of the recording left him frustrated, embarrassed and stressed. On 13 August 2026 the court found that the alleged interception of private conversations was a concrete injury and let the federal wiretap, California eavesdropping and Illinois biometric claims proceed, while dismissing some claims. Otter's answer to the consolidated complaint, filed on 17 September 2026, says it lacks knowledge of the plaintiffs' experiences and denies the allegations.

Low Meta AI

Utah: Meta AI's suggested prompts under a mother's Instagram video compiled her young daughters' names, birth details and old photos and her likely home location; Meta said the prompts 'missed the mark' and changed the feature

On 1 September 2026 Kalie Robins, a Utah travel creator, posted a short Instagram video of herself singing in the car with one of her daughters; it was also shown on Facebook. The next day she noticed Meta AI had placed suggested questions under the post, starting with 'Who's the child passenger?'. Clicking the prompts, she said, produced her two daughters' names, birth information, photos and videos drawn from her own and relatives' past posts, including a newborn photo from her mother's account and a picture she believed she had deleted years earlier, and a further prompt, 'Where does Kalie Robins live?', assembled older and newer posts into her likely location. Her 2 September reaction video drew more than 310,000 likes. Meta told reporters the prompts 'missed the mark', 'should never have been generated' and had been fixed, while saying the feature only surfaces information the user can already access; it disputed that a long-deleted photo was used, saying the photo had been deleted shortly before the video and remained briefly visible through a bug. Robins said Meta never contacted her and that the episode left her feeling she had 'failed' her children.

Low Unidentified image tool

Stanford University: the Residential & Dining Enterprises department used generative AI to alter a promotional photograph of three students, replacing a Hispanic male student with an AI-generated Black woman, slimming two students' faces and changing their clothing, on campus banners; the university said the undisclosed alteration violated its AI policy, apologised and opened an investigation (Stanford Review, Stanford Daily, NBC Bay Area, NBC News, 21-24 September 2026)

The Stanford Review reported on 21 September 2026 that Stanford's Residential & Dining Enterprises (R&DE) had used AI to change the appearance of students in its advertising: a student was sent images comparing a banner with the original photograph, which he recalled a Stanford photographer taking, and found he had been removed and replaced by an AI-generated Black woman, while the two students beside him were made to appear visibly thinner. Stanford confirmed to The Stanford Daily on 23 September that R&DE used generative AI to modify the appearance of several students in the image; the Daily reported that the students' clothing was changed into Stanford merchandise, two students' faces were slimmed and one student's race, gender and appearance were entirely changed, and the university said the alteration and its non-disclosure violated its policy prohibiting AI in producing or altering images of Stanford people; the banner at the Governor's Corner housing centre was taken down and staff training promised. On 24 September NBC News reported the university's statement that the alteration was 'a serious error in judgment', that it had apologised to the students whose images were altered or erased, and that it had opened an investigation. The replaced student, who first found the edit funny, said that seeing his identity changed and being left out made him feel 'silenced and erased from a representation that was supposed to include me', that it was upsetting, and that he was exhausted by the national media attention. According to the student, the original photograph was taken at a 2024 Lunar New Year dinner in a campus dining hall and had been used unaltered in earlier promotional material.

High Unidentified Google AI tool (reported)

Google AI falsely identified Argentine activist Flavia Broffoni as a woman in a Ceuta migrant-violence video; death and rape threats followed

On 26 August 2026, WhatsApp groups in Ceuta circulated videos and images claiming that Argentine political scientist and activist Flavia Broffoni — who was in Patagonia and had not been to Spain since 2014 — was a woman filmed in Ceuta allegedly giving pepper spray to Moroccan migrants. A screenshot from one group shows that a user cropped the woman's face from the video and asked a Google AI tool who she was, with the word 'activista' as context; the answer identified her as Flavia Broffoni with details of her public profile. Broffoni received death and rape threats. La Nación's own test with the same video produced a different false identification — a student from Quilmes, with her personal data. Google Argentina said it could not confirm the screenshot came from its systems without the original link and had received no formal report. Broffoni is weighing legal action with her lawyer.

If you or someone you know is struggling, free and confidential support is available. Find a helpline near you at Signpost.

Back to all incidents