Meta’s lawyers have invoked attorney-client privilege to withhold evidence in lawsuits over teen safety and mental health. The company’s response has sparked backlash, with lawyers arguing the privilege is being abused to keep internal research secret. A recently unsealed document revealed that the team behind Instagram’s Teen Accounts ordered ‘attorney/client privilege’ baseball caps, adding fuel to the criticism.

US District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers has already deemed some of Meta’s privilege redactions ‘entirely inappropriate’. She pointed out that Meta tried to frame business decisions as legal advice to avoid publishing certain data. In April 2025, Meta de-designated around 65,000 previously withheld documents, but the plaintiffs say this came too late for their depositions. Now, Meta has requested more time to re-evaluate its privilege claims, while the plaintiffs seek a neutral party to oversee the process.

The term ‘culture of privilege abuse’ has been floated by the plaintiffs, drawing attention to the broader implications of Meta’s approach. This case highlights the tension between corporate privacy and public accountability, especially in matters of child safety and mental health.

The saga continues as the legal battle over Meta’s handling of sensitive information heats up. Whether the company’s approach will set a precedent remains to be seen, but one thing is clear: the debate over privilege and transparency is far from over.