Meta Employees Ordered “Attorney-Client Privilege” Hats as Company Fought Teen Safety Disclosures
Unsealed September 2026 filings say Meta’s Project Nido team ordered “a/c priv” hats before Instagram Teen Accounts launched in 2024. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers called some privilege redactions “entirely inappropriate,” and Meta de-designated about 65,000 documents.
Lawyers suing Meta over alleged harm to teens’ mental health and safety have accused the company of broadly misusing attorney-client privilege claims to shield internal research from public view — and they’re pointing to a baseball cap as evidence.
Court documents unsealed in September 2026 show that the team behind Instagram’s Teen Accounts, known internally as Project Nido, ordered baseball caps emblazoned with “a/c priv” — shorthand for attorney-client privilege — ahead of the feature’s 2024 launch. Plaintiffs’ attorneys argue the hats reflect a broader “culture of privilege abuse at Meta” designed to keep the company’s internal research on teen harm out of the public eye.
The accusation comes amid ongoing multidistrict litigation over Instagram’s effects on young users, an issue that drew public attention after internal data on the platform’s impact leaked in 2021 and was discussed by CEO Mark Zuckerberg.
US District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers has already sided with plaintiffs on at least one occasion, calling some of Meta’s privilege redactions “entirely inappropriate” in an order issued the prior month. In one example, she found that Meta’s lawyers had attempted to frame a business discussion about whether to publish certain data as a matter of legal advice — concluding, based on trial testimony, that the reluctance to publish was driven by concerns about leaks rather than legal counsel.
Meta de-designated roughly 65,000 previously withheld or redacted documents in April 2025, following discovery. Plaintiffs’ lawyers say that disclosure came too late to be used in depositions. Meta has since requested time through the end of 2026 to re-review additional privilege redactions, while plaintiffs are calling for a neutral third party — paid for by Meta — to lead that review.