Meta is preparing to restrict certain beauty filters for minors, but the agreement leaves a difficult question to state officials: where does ordinary photo editing end and a cosmetic-procedure-style transformation begin? Under an agreement reached in August with 47 states, Washington, D.C., and three U.S. territories, Meta agreed to block filters for minors that imitate extreme changes such as cosmetic procedures or heavy makeup. State attorneys general have a two-month window to send the company guidance on which effects should be prohibited. Meta says it plans to enforce the restriction by early next year. The requirement does not cover every effect. Playful filters that turn users into animals or fantasy characters will remain available, as will subtler tools that smooth skin or brighten eyes. Those modest edits may be harder to define—and, for some teens, harder to dismiss as artificial. Mia Lerner, a 17-year-old California high school senior and youth body-image activist, said experimenting with beauty filters contributed to her eating disorder and damaged her self-image. She said subtle edits can fuel comparisons because they look more plausible than an obviously manipulated image. Lerner supports the restrictions but wants companies and officials to ask young people what tools are actually affecting them. The boundaries may prove difficult to keep current. Beauty trends change quickly, and the appearance once dubbed “Instagram face”—marked by features such as a small nose, prominent cheekbones and full lips—is already losing ground. Creative technologist Florencia Solari said trends are shifting toward other looks, including extreme thinness, bringing new filters and new concerns. Meta has previously barred filters that explicitly promote cosmetic surgery, including effects that place pre-surgery markings on a user’s face. The company has also ended its platform for third-party filter creators, added labels for AI-generated images and deployed automated detection tools. Yet a federal judge wrote this summer that harmful aesthetic features continued to evade safeguards. The rules also face a practical problem: images edited with outside tools can still be posted to Instagram, TikTok or other platforms. TikTok restricts under-18 users from using its beauty filters, while Snapchat does not restrict teen access to filters, according to the information provided. YouTube says it has no filters, but users can upload content made with third-party tools. Legal experts say states could disagree about what qualifies as a “cosmetic procedure filter.” David Greene, senior counsel at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, questioned what would happen if one state accepted a feature such as eyebrow lifting while another objected to it. Attorneys general in California, Colorado, Kentucky and New Jersey—the four states that led the trial—declined to comment or did not respond when asked about guidance. Some lawmakers may find that defining a forbidden filter is already the wrong target. Kelly Frasier, co-author of a study on social media and adolescent body issues, argued that regulators should consider broader rules for AI tools used by minors. Future products may generate whole alternate versions of users, not simply smooth a complexion or reshape a nose. The European Commission is taking a broader approach in its proposed KIDS Act, which would prohibit all beauty filters for minors, not just extreme ones. The proposal is still under consideration, and European officials are watching how the U.S. settlement is implemented. For families, the outcome will determine whether teen accounts lose only dramatic makeover effects or a wider range of editing tools. For state officials, the challenge is to protect minors without writing a standard that becomes obsolete as filters, platforms and online beauty ideals change.