FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 25, 2026|No. 16355
Tech · Lawsuit

Meta Employees' Use of Attorney-Client Privilege Under Scrutiny in Lawsuits

Lawyers suing Meta are questioning the company's broad application of attorney-client privilege, citing internal documents and employee merchandise as evidence of potential abuse in cases concerning teen safety and mental health.

A baseball cap with 'a/c priv.' printed on it, used as evidence in a lawsuit against Meta.
A baseball cap with 'a/c priv.' printed on it, used as evidence in a lawsuit against Meta.
1 sources
Pipeline ingest
3 reads
Positive / Neutral / Negative
1 countries
Related coverage

Lawyers suing Meta have argued that certain evidence should be withheld from public view on the grounds of attorney-client privilege in the ongoing lawsuits over alleged harm to teens’ safety and mental health. Lawyers suing the company said this week that the label has been applied far too broadly, while pointing to a recently unsealed document showing that the team behind launching Instagram’s Teen Accounts in 2024 put in an order for baseball caps that simply said “a/c priv.”

grayscale picture of a baseball cap with a/c priv across the front

Image: 4:22-md-03047, document 3509-4

The lawyers suing Meta argue the Project Nido (an internal name for the Teen Accounts team) swag is part of “culture of privilege abuse at Meta” aimed at keeping the research it’s conducted internally on teen harm out of the public eye, an issue that Mark Zuckerberg discussed after internal data on Instagram’s effects leaked in 2021.

US District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers already called some of Meta’s privilege redactions “entirely inappropriate” in an order last month. She pointed out one example where Meta’s lawyers tried to cast a discussion about a slide deck and whether or not to publish certain data as a discussion of attorney legal advice, deciding that based on testimony from the trial, their reticence about publishing was more of a business decision focused on preventing leaks.

The Court has reviewed the entire document and finds that the primary purpose of the underlying attorney communications was not legal advice. The Court highlights some examples here for purposes of elucidation. One, the following message was redacted to exclude the emphasized portion: “I understand we don’t want to publish it, but it will be increasingly hard for adam/max to understand the severity of each space.” This redaction is entirely inappropriate. There is no indication that the “we” referenced is legal – in fact, neither the speaker nor the other employees in the chat are lawyers. Given the testimony heard at trial, the Court finds that the referenced reticence to “publish”3 the material was a business decision to prevent potential leaks of sensitive business information to the public

Meta de-designated about 65,000 previously withheld or redacted documents in April 2025, after discovery, which the plaintiffs say came too late for them to use in depositions.

PAN's pipeline reviewed approximately 1 open sources for this article. No human editor reviewed this article before publication.

Related Reads

Show on timeline →