The cap, which features the text “a/c priv.” across the front, was part of internal swag for Project Nido — the team that launched Instagram’s Teen Accounts in 2024. Meta’s legal team has argued that certain materials in the multi-district litigation over alleged harm to teens’ mental health are protected by attorney-client privilege. Plaintiffs’ lawyers contend that the company has applied the label far too broadly, pointing to the hats as a symbol of that alleged misuse. The hats were revealed in a court filing this week, and the image has been made public as part of the discovery process. The lawsuits, which also involve other social media platforms, accuse Meta of designing addictive features that harm adolescents. Meta has not publicly commented on the specific cap order, but its attorneys maintain that privilege claims are legitimate and necessary to protect confidential legal advice.
Meta Ordered ‘A/C Priv’ Hats for Teen Safety Team, Plaintiffs Allege Privilege Abuse
Unsealed document reveals baseball caps referencing attorney-client privilege were ordered for Project Nido, the Instagram Teen Accounts launch team.
Analysis
Why This Matters
- The caps could be used as evidence that Meta systematically treats internal business communications as privileged to avoid transparency in litigation.
- The broader lawsuits could reshape how social media companies design features for minors, with potential regulatory or legislative fallout.
- If plaintiffs succeed in piercing privilege claims, it could expose damaging internal discussions about teen safety.
Background
The multi-district litigation known as In re: Social Media Adolescent Addiction/Personal Injury Products Liability consolidates hundreds of cases against Meta, TikTok, and other platforms. Plaintiffs allege that companies knowingly designed addictive feeds and features that harm teens’ mental health. Attorney-client privilege is a common legal shield for confidential communications between lawyers and clients, but courts can find it waived or abused when applied non-genuinely.
Key Perspectives
Plaintiffs’ lawyers: Argue the hats demonstrate Meta’s intentional overuse of privilege labels to hide evidence, calling it a “culture of privilege abuse.” Meta: Has not responded to the cap revelation. Its broader legal strategy relies on asserting privilege over internal communications about product decisions, maintaining these are standard legal protections. Critics/Skeptics: Some legal observers note that novelty swag alone does not prove privilege abuse, but combined with other unsealed documents, it could support a pattern of bad-faith claims.
What to Watch
- Court rulings on whether Meta’s privilege claims for Project Nido communications are valid or must be unsealed.
- Further unsealed documents that may reveal internal discussions about teen safety features before and after the 2024 Teen Accounts launch.
- Potential sanctions against Meta if a judge finds deliberate overuse of privilege to obstruct discovery.