Meta employees ordered attorney privilege hats in lawsuits
Meta employees ordered baseball caps with a/c priv amid teenage safety and mental health lawsuits, as plaintiffs call it an abuse of privilege culture.
Stock photo for illustration only, not from the actual event
- Meta team behind Instagram Teen Accounts ordered caps with a/c priv
- Plaintiffs argue the swag highlights a culture of privilege abuse at Meta
- US District Judge previously called some privilege redactions inappropriate
- Meta de-designated about 65,000 previously withheld documents in April 2025
Amid ongoing lawsuits regarding alleged harms to teen safety and mental health, Meta legal representatives have argued that certain evidence must remain shielded from public scrutiny under attorney-client privilege. However, recently unsealed court documents revealed that the team responsible for launching Instagram Teen Accounts in 2024 went as far as ordering custom baseball caps simply bearing the acronym a/c priv.
Lawyers representing the plaintiffs point to this internal merchandise as a prime example of a culture of privilege abuse within Meta. They argue these actions were deliberately designed to keep internal research regarding teen harm hidden from public oversight, an ongoing challenge that Mark Zuckerberg addressed after internal Instagram safety data leaked back in 2021.
Stock photo for illustration only, not from the actual event
Attorney-client privilege is a legal principle protecting confidential communications between lawyers and clients, yet it frequently becomes a battleground in major tech litigation. Corporations often attempt to apply this shield broadly to internal research documents, raising questions about transparency when business decisions intersect with potential public harm and liability.
US District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers previously ruled in an order last month that several of Meta privilege redactions were entirely inappropriate. She highlighted an instance where Meta lawyers attempted to reframe internal discussions about data publication as formal legal advice, whereas testimony indicated the reluctance to publish was purely a business choice aimed at preventing leaks.
Meta de-designated roughly 65,000 previously withheld documents in April 2025 following discovery, which plaintiffs argue occurred too late to incorporate into depositions. Meta has subsequently requested until the end of the year to re-examine its remaining privilege redactions, while opposing lawyers propose appointing a neutral third party to lead the review at Meta expense.
Source: The Verge
Found something wrong in this article? Report an issue with this article
Comments
Leave a Comment