Judge Scolds Meta Over 'Attorney-Client Privilege' Swag Hats, Rejects AI Document Review

A federal judge has criticized Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, for its extensive use of attorney-client privilege to conceal thousands of legal documents related to children's social media addiction. The judge, Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, presiding over a case in California federal court, expressed dismay at the company's practices.

During a hearing on October 9, Judge Gonzalez Rogers stated, "I have never seen a company whose employees are so taken with the attorney-client privilege that they’d have caps made," referencing recent revelations that Instagram employees created swag hats celebrating the launch of Instagram's Teen Accounts with the phrase "attorney-client privilege." Critics have condemned these hats as an "utterly sick" mockery of efforts to conceal damaging information.

Meta attorney Ashley Simonsen defended the hats, asserting they were unrelated to the legal application of privilege in the case. However, Judge Gonzalez Rogers interrupted Simonsen, stating, "You need to stop talking when I start whether you like it or not." She emphasized, "A further review is required, period."

In a separate development during the hearing, the judge also rejected Meta's request to employ an AI model for accelerating the review of withheld documents. "I don’t trust AI, obviously, as much as you do," the judge commented, adding that such a model would only be permissible if trained and fully disclosed by the company itself.

To address the dispute over document classification, Meta and the plaintiffs have agreed to utilize an independent "special master," retired US Judge Suzanne Segal. Segal will review approximately 170,000 documents that Meta has claimed as privileged or redacted. She will determine whether these classifications are appropriate or if the documents should be disclosed to the plaintiffs.

Meta has agreed to re-examine an average of 20,000 documents weekly that were initially marked as privileged, with a deadline of December 30 to complete this review. Additionally, the special master will review a weekly sample of 200 documents to assess Meta's privilege claims. Any documents the special master deems unredacted must be provided within five days, and Meta will bear the costs of this review.

Online safety advocates previously voiced outrage over the "attorney-client privilege" hats. Ashwin Verghese, Communications Director for Fairplay, stated that "there is nothing funny about the damage Meta has done to kids’ lives." He added that such revelations are important for parents and policymakers to understand the company's operations.

Meta has faced significant scrutiny regarding the impact of its platforms, like Facebook and Instagram, on young users. Internal researchers have previously compared Instagram to a "drug," with employees describing themselves as "basically pushers." In August, Meta agreed to a $16.7 billion settlement with 48 state attorneys general to resolve claims that its social media platforms harm children, which included implementing changes like daily usage limits for teens. Another bellwether case settlement with the Breathitt County School District in Kentucky was reached in May.