Instagram allegedly produced hats for employees that read "attorney-client privilege," a slogan critics are calling a "sick" joke that highlights the company's alleged use of legal loopholes to hide documents related to child safety concerns. The hats, displaying the abbreviation "a/c priv," surfaced in court documents as part of a lawsuit filed by a coalition of school districts accusing Meta, Instagram's parent company, of contributing to a teen mental health crisis.
The merchandise was created to celebrate the 2024 launch of Instagram's Teen Accounts initiative, internally known as "Project Nido," which aimed to address issues like eating disorders, depression, and teen suicide among young users.
According to court documents unsealed recently, an internal Meta employee informed Naomi Gleit, head of product at Instagram, that the legal team had "reviewed and are OK with the Nido Swag" on September 9, 2024. Plaintiffs' attorneys argued in a court filing that this indicates the company's lawyers approved merchandise that trivialized Meta's practice of redacting documents using attorney-client privilege.
"Perhaps nothing better illustrates the culture of privilege abuse at Meta than the swag purchased by members of the Teen Accounts team, aka 'Project Nido,'" the plaintiffs' attorneys stated, adding that the decision was "reviewed and signed off on by Instagram legal."
Some employees expressed concern about potential repercussions, with one asking on September 6, 2024, "is there any meta or IG logo on the hat anywhere?" It remains unclear if the hats were ever distributed.
Critics contend that the hats are evidence of a corporate culture at Meta that prioritizes concealing safety issues over addressing them. "It's utterly sick that anyone would joke about violating kids' online safety, let alone employees of a company that has already caused irreparable harm to countless children," said Ashwin Verghese, communications director at online safety watchdog Fairplay. "There is nothing funny about the damage Meta has done to kids' lives."
These revelations could bolster claims made by whistleblowers, such as former Facebook employee Frances Haugen, who have accused Meta of withholding internal research indicating awareness of social media's negative impact on teen mental health.
School district attorneys have pointed to these documents in their arguments that Meta has been overly aggressive in asserting attorney-client privilege to protect sensitive company records. In a ruling on Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers allowed the plaintiffs to review 300 of the "most important" documents Meta had classified as privileged. Meta is required to provide these documents to the plaintiffs by October 7.
The judge has not yet ruled on the plaintiffs' request for a special master to oversee the review of privileged documents, a proposal made after Rogers herself described one of Meta's redaction efforts as "entirely inappropriate."
Meta previously reached a settlement with the Breathitt County School District in Kentucky in May to avoid a trial. Lawsuits from approximately 1,200 other school districts that accuse Meta of fueling social media addiction and causing online harm to children are still proceeding as part of consolidated proceedings in California.
In August, Meta agreed to an $18 billion settlement with 48 state attorneys general, which included commitments to implement changes such as daily usage limits for teens. However, some critics argue these measures are insufficient, noting that a portion of the settlement funds is contingent on competitors like YouTube and TikTok adopting similar changes.