A newly unsealed court document has introduced an unusual detail into the sprawling litigation over teen safety on Meta’s platforms: employees on the team behind Instagram’s Teen Accounts ordered hats bearing the phrase ‘a/c priv’ — shorthand for attorney-client privilege. The document, identified as number 4:22-md-03047, document 3509-4, was unsealed as part of the ongoing lawsuits alleging harm to teens’ safety and mental health.
According to the filing, the hats were ordered by the Teen Accounts team, known internally as Project Nido. The plaintiffs’ lawyers point to the hats as evidence of what they describe as a culture of privilege abuse at Meta — a workplace where legal protection is treated casually, perhaps even as a badge of belonging.
The dispute over attorney-client privilege has become a central battleground in the litigation, which stretches back to 2021, when internal Instagram research on teen harm leaked. That leak prompted public scrutiny and led Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg to discuss the company’s internal research. The lawsuits have continued since, and in 2024 Meta launched Instagram Teen Accounts, a product designed for younger users.
Privilege Claims Under Scrutiny
Meta has argued that certain evidence in the case is protected by attorney-client privilege. Plaintiffs, however, contend that the privilege label has been applied far too broadly, shielding documents that have little to do with legal advice. The unsealed filing suggests that the ‘a/c priv’ hats are emblematic of that broader problem.
Last month, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers issued an order addressing the privilege redactions. She called some of them ‘entirely inappropriate.’ The judge cited a slide deck discussion that had been mislabeled as legal advice, noting that the reticence described in the document was a business decision focused on preventing leaks — not a legal consultation.
The order followed a lengthy dispute over how Meta designated and redacted documents. In April 2025, Meta de-designated approximately 65,000 documents, effectively conceding that they should not have been withheld under privilege. But the plaintiffs argue that this de-designation came too late for depositions, meaning key testimony may have been taken without the benefit of those documents.
The Document Review Standoff
Meta has requested time through the end of the year to re-review its privilege redactions. The plaintiffs, meanwhile, want a neutral party to lead the review, with Meta footing the bill. That proposal remains before the court.
The ‘a/c priv’ hats are not the only point of contention, but they have become a vivid symbol of the broader fight over transparency. The plaintiffs’ lawyers say the hats show a culture in which privilege is treated as a perk rather than a serious legal doctrine. Meta has not commented publicly on the hats, and the unsealed document does not include any explanation from the company about why they were ordered.
As the litigation moves forward, Judge Gonzalez Rogers will have to decide how to handle the remaining privilege disputes. Her order last month made clear that she is skeptical of some of Meta’s claims, and the plaintiffs are pressing for a more independent review process. The case continues to test how far attorney-client privilege can stretch when a company faces allegations of hiding information about teen safety.
