A federal judge criticized Mark Zuckerberg’s Meta for misusing attorney-client privilege to hide numerous potentially damaging legal documents relating to social media addiction among children. The judge remarked that she had “never seen a company whose employees are so taken” with exploiting this legal loophole.
This stern feedback came during a heated hearing on October 9 in a California federal court, shortly after plaintiffs disclosed that Instagram had created hats emblazoned with “attorney-client privilege” to commemorate the upcoming launch of Instagram’s Teen Accounts in 2024. Many criticized this as a “sick” joke about concealing significant legal information.
In the case at hand, a group of school districts is accusing Meta of exacerbating a mental health crisis among teenagers.
“I have never seen a company whose employees are so taken with the attorney-client privilege that they’d have caps made,” Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers expressed during the hearing, as reported in a transcript.
Meta’s attorney, Ashley Simonsen, responded that the hats were unrelated to the proper application of the privilege in this case.
Her comment seemingly cut off the judge, leading to an irritated response from Gonzalez Rogers: “You need to stop talking when I start, whether you like it or not.”
She firmly added that “a further review is required, period.”
In a surprising turn, Gonzalez Rogers dismissed Simonsen’s request to employ an AI model to expedite the review of the withheld documents, stating that the court needed more information to trust the model’s reliability.
“I don’t trust AI, obviously, as much as you do,” the judge remarked. She suggested that for the model to be credible, Meta would have to train it extensively, making all processes transparent.
Ultimately, Meta and the plaintiffs agreed to allow an independent “special master,” retired US Judge Suzanne Segal, to assess approximately 170,000 documents to decide which ones were legitimately withheld.
Judge Gonzalez Rogers authorized this process on a Wednesday.
In a joint submission, Meta committed to reviewing about 20,000 documents weekly that were initially classified as privileged, with a deadline set for December 30.
Additionally, the special master will evaluate a random selection of 200 documents each week that Meta claims should remain privileged. She will determine either the accuracy of these classifications or if the documents should be disclosed to the plaintiffs.
Any documents deemed appropriate for release by the special master must be provided within five days. Moreover, Meta is responsible for covering the review’s costs.
Safety advocates expressed outrage over Meta’s decision to produce “attorney-client privilege” hats, with one group, Fairplay, labeling it as “utterly sick.” They emphasized the serious consequences Meta’s practices have on children’s lives.
Critics have long called for greater transparency from Meta regarding its internal research, which outlines the dangers posed by platforms like Facebook and Instagram to young users.
In previous revelations, records indicated that Meta’s researchers likened Instagram to a “drug,” describing the company as “basically pushers.”
Judge Gonzalez Rogers is overseeing a complex federal multidistrict litigation in California, aiming to consolidate thousands of cases that allege similar claims about social media addiction and its harms into a few pivotal cases to assess their legal validity.
Earlier in May, Meta settled with the Breathitt County School District in Kentucky to avoid a trial scheduled in Oakland. However, many more cases remain unresolved.
Moreover, in August, Meta agreed to an $18 billion settlement with a coalition of 48 state attorneys general. This settlement included commitments to implement changes like daily usage limits for minors.
Meta did not respond immediately to requests for comment.
