platform_acknowledged: true). See methodology.
@Shubham513 (Shubham, Indian-based) publicly reports that their Instagram account (shubhamdogra3, display name 'Shubham Dogra | Artist') was suspended on May 24, 2026, restored on May 27, 2026 following an appeal — with Instagram explicitly acknowledging error — and then re-suspended the same day within hours under a 'fake accounts' policy. The reporter directly attributes both enforcement events to Instagram's AI system.
Sources
Research patterns
All findings →Experienced something similar? See Resources for escalation paths by jurisdiction—EU/DSA, India, Turkey, and more. For US-based cases, Signal Flare covers the full stack: state Attorneys General, the FTC, and congressional offices.
This record is published under GDPR Art 89 public interest exemption. Data policy
Are you the subject of this record? Request erasure
Account is 12 years old per reporter — a long-tenured professional account (similar to PA-2026-0022, Jecon Dreisbach, 18 years). Three-event enforcement sequence: (1) May 24 suspension — policy not visible in available screenshots; (2) May 27 restoration — Instagram email confirms 'the activity on it does follow our Community Standards on account integrity' and 'We're sorry that we've got this wrong'; (3) May 27, hours later — re-suspension under 'fake accounts' rule (Community Standards on account integrity, fake accounts sub-policy), with the 'Read more about this rule' panel specifying: 'We don't allow people on Instagram to create fake accounts' and prohibited examples: creating accounts to bypass rules, using bots, hiding identity to mislead. The restoration email and the re-suspension notice are in direct logical contradiction: the restoration affirmed compliance with account integrity, and the re-suspension invokes the same policy framework (account integrity — fake accounts) hours later. This is the second hours-scale re-enforcement in the dataset (after PA-2026-0007 — @Cholatak, restored then re-suspended within minutes). Reporter directly and explicitly attributes both enforcement events to Instagram's AI system: 'Why they don't fix their studid AI system!' — the most direct AI attribution by a reporter in the dataset. The 'fake accounts' sub-policy provides more specificity than most account integrity citations in the dataset, identifying the prohibited category (fake accounts, bots, identity deception) — but does not identify which of these triggered the specific enforcement, what signal was detected, or why the same account was found compliant in the restoration review that concluded hours earlier. platform_acknowledged: true — restoration email constitutes an explicit error acknowledgment. Third confirmed restoration in the dataset (after PA-2026-0018 and PA-2026-0025); first with an hours-scale re-enforcement following restoration. 770 X followers — low reach, consistent with the structural equity question flagged in PA-2026-0025 and PA-2026-0026 about whether appeal outcomes correlate with public visibility. Screenshots and archive captured by @vhsdev on 2026-06-02, curator: @vhsdev.