Meta employees ordered ‘attorney/client privilege’ hats while fighting child safety disclosures

Meta may be forced to reveal internal research on teen harm, impacting its public image and regulatory standing.

Meta is facing scrutiny in ongoing lawsuits concerning teen safety and mental health, with plaintiffs alleging abuse of attorney-client privilege. Lawyers representing the plaintiffs highlighted an order for "a/c priv." branded baseball caps by Meta's Project Nido team, which developed Instagram's Teen Accounts. They contend this "swag" exemplifies a broader "culture of privilege abuse" intended to shield internal research on teen harm from public disclosure, a topic previously raised by Mark Zuckerberg following a 2021 data leak. US District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers has already deemed some of Meta's privilege redactions "entirely inappropriate," citing instances where business decisions regarding data publication were incorrectly classified as legal advice discussions. Following Meta's de-designation of approximately 65,000 documents in April 2025, plaintiffs argue it was too late for deposition use. Meta has requested until year-end to re-review other privilege redactions, while plaintiffs seek the appointment of a neutral third party to oversee the review at Meta's expense.

The incident with the "a/c priv." hats suggests a potentially cavalier internal attitude at Meta regarding attorney-client privilege, particularly in sensitive areas like teen safety research. This behavior, if indicative of a wider pattern, could erode judicial trust and lead to stricter oversight in discovery processes. It raises questions about whether Meta prioritizes shielding internal discussions over transparency when addressing significant societal concerns.

The ongoing legal battles and Meta's extensive use of privilege redactions highlight the tension between protecting proprietary information and the public's right to access data in cases of alleged harm. The plaintiffs' demand for a neutral reviewer points to a lack of confidence in Meta's self-regulation, signaling a potential shift towards greater external control over how companies manage sensitive internal communications during litigation.