What do Meta’s, X’s and TikTok’s public safety or law‑enforcement guidelines say specifically about evidence preservation after a CyberTip report?

1. TikTok: explicit preservation pathway tied to CyberTip and one 90‑day extension

TikTok’s Law Enforcement Guidelines and FAQs state that if law enforcement has received a CyberTip report made by TikTok to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) and then requests further user data, that request must meet TikTok’s law‑enforcement requirements and that preservation requests must be formal, on letterhead, signed, and identify the user, data types and date ranges; TikTok will preserve information and will preserve it for an additional 90‑day period if presented with a formal extension request but may not honor more than one extension and may delete preserved information if no formal legal process is received before the preservation period ends ^{[1] [2]}.

2. Meta: transparency enforcement visible, preservation specifics absent in provided sources

European Commission preliminary findings and downstream reporting show Meta was scrutinized for breaching transparency obligations under the DSA—particularly researcher access and appeals mechanics—but the materials supplied do not quote or summarize Meta’s public‑safety or law‑enforcement guidelines on evidence preservation after a CyberTip report, so no definitive statement about Meta’s specific preservation timelines or extension procedures can be drawn from these sources ^{[3] [5] [4]}.

3. X (formerly Twitter): no relevant preservation text in the provided reporting

The search results and reporting provided do not include X’s law‑enforcement or public‑safety guidance concerning preservation following CyberTip submissions; therefore, whether X offers formal preservation windows, extension procedures, or conditions tied to CyberTip‑originated reports cannot be determined from the supplied documents and requires direct review of X’s law‑enforcement portal or public safety pages (no source for X preservation language in supplied material).

4. Broader regulatory and investigatory context: DSA pressure and forensic concerns

The European Commission’s preliminary finding that TikTok and Meta may have breached DSA transparency obligations underscores regulatory pressure on platforms to document processes and data access, but those findings address researcher access and appeal mechanics more than specific law‑enforcement preservation mechanics ^{[3] [4]}. Independent commentary on data‑preservation vulnerability—such as the Relativity analysis—adds a civil‑litigation and forensics lens, warning that reliance on “preserve in place” cloud retention policies can be risky and urging proactive collection strategies when preservation windows are uncertain ^[6].

5. What this means for law enforcement, researchers and advocates

From the supplied material, TikTok provides an actionable, formalized route for preservation after a CyberTip with one explicit 90‑day extension if requested in the prescribed form, and warns that data may be purged absent legal process ^{[1] [2]}. By contrast, the record here leaves unanswered whether Meta or X offer parallel, publicly documented preservation procedures tied specifically to CyberTip reports; the European scrutiny of Meta and TikTok speaks to broader transparency shortcomings but does not supply Meta/X preservation text ^{[3] [4]}. That evidentiary gap suggests investigators or advocates who need preservation should follow platform guidance directly—requesting formal preservation in writing and seeking immediate legal process where platforms signal time‑limited holds—while recognizing regulatory pressure may change practices going forward ^{[1] [2] [6]}.