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

In litigation over alleged harms to teenagers, Meta has invoked attorney-client privilege to withhold internal material; plaintiffs say the company is applying the label too broadly. A newly unsealed document shows the Instagram Teen Accounts team (Project Nido) ordered baseball caps stamped "a/c priv," which plaintiffs cite as evidence of a culture of privilege abuse at Meta.

By AI Newsroom· Reviewed by Pranav, Founder & Editor-in-ChiefPublished less than a minute agoUpdated less than a minute ago0 views

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

Why It Matters

The dispute bears on how much internal research and decision-making about teen safety will be available to the public and to plaintiffs in the lawsuits. Judges and litigants are already contesting whether Meta's privilege claims are legitimate or a means to shield potentially damaging information.

Key Facts

Unsealed document: Shows Project Nido ordered baseball caps labeled "a/c priv."
Project Nido: Internal name for Instagram's Teen Accounts team (launched in 2024).
Judge comment: U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers called some Meta privilege redactions "entirely inappropriate."
Document de-designation: Meta de-designated about 65,000 previously withheld or redacted documents in April 2025.
Meta's request: Meta requested time through the end of the year to re-review other privilege redactions.

Plaintiffs suing Meta over alleged harms to teens' safety and mental health are challenging what they describe as overly broad uses of attorney-client privilege by the company. In filings this week, the plaintiffs pointed to a recently unsealed internal order showing that the Instagram Teen Accounts team, known internally as Project Nido, purchased baseball caps labeled "a/c priv." They say the item is illustrative of a broader "culture of privilege abuse" intended to keep internal research and deliberations from public view.

The dispute has already drawn scrutiny from the presiding judge. U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers criticized certain of Meta's privilege redactions last month, calling some of them "entirely inappropriate." She highlighted an instance in which Meta framed a discussion about whether to publish a slide deck as legal advice, while testimony at trial suggested the concern was more a business decision aimed at preventing leaks.

Meta previously de-designated roughly 65,000 documents in April 2025 after portions of discovery were completed; plaintiffs say that change came too late for use in depositions. The company has asked for additional time through the end of the year to re-review other documents it has marked as privileged. Plaintiffs' lawyers contend a neutral third party should lead such a review and have proposed that Meta cover the cost.

The hat order and the privilege fight form part of a larger legal battle over internal materials related to Instagram and teens. Plaintiffs argue the pattern of privilege designations has limited access to potentially relevant evidence, while Meta maintains certain materials should remain protected under attorney-client privilege as the litigation proceeds.