A federal judge sharply criticized Meta over its use of attorney-client privilege to withhold thousands of documents related to the company’s handling of children’s social media addiction. The remarks came during a hearing on October 9 in a California federal court, where Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers described the tech giant’s actions as unprecedented in her experience.

The dispute centers on documents linked to Meta’s Instagram platform and its launch of Teen Accounts in 2024. Plaintiffs alleged that Meta exploited attorney-client privilege to conceal potentially damaging information about the social media addiction risks faced by young users. The controversy intensified after it was revealed that Instagram employees received hats emblazoned with the phrase “attorney-client privilege” as part of a company event promoting the new accounts.

Judge Gonzalez Rogers noted she had “never seen a company whose employees are so taken” with asserting attorney-client privilege that they would produce merchandise celebrating it. The statement underscored the judge’s frustration with what she viewed as Meta’s expansive and possibly inappropriate use of the legal protection to avoid disclosing internal documents.

Meta’s attorney, Ashley Simonsen, responded by downplaying the significance of the hats, maintaining they were unrelated to the legal proceedings or determinations about privilege. She emphasized that the question of whether outside counsel properly invoked attorney-client privilege was separate from any corporate marketing or internal acknowledgments.

The judge, however, insisted that a further review of the document claims was necessary and signaled skepticism over Meta’s approach. The case remains ongoing, with the court continuing to scrutinize the scope and legitimacy of Meta’s use of attorney-client privilege as plaintiffs seek broader access to internal communications concerning social media’s impact on younger users.