Meta is at the center of a new scandal involving teen safety on social media, as it was revealed that the team that developed Instagram’s Teen Accounts ordered hats marked “a/c priv” — short for attorney -client privilege . The revelation comes amid pending lawsuits against the company and sheds new light on Meta ’s practices to hide internal data about the impact of its platforms on young users.
See also: Tennessee: Meta knew Instagram was negatively affecting teens
Lawyers representing the Meta have called the hats evidence of a broader “culture of abuse of privilege” within the company. The case concerns the company’s deliberate suppression of research data showing Instagram on the mental health and safety of teens — an issue that came to the fore in 2021, when internal data was leaked to the press and Mark Zuckerberg was forced to publicly address the issue.
The internal Teen Accounts was codenamed Project Nido. The group, which was working on launching teen accounts in 2024, ordered the famous hats as corporate “swag” — that is, as promotional material for its members. The fact that the “a/c priv” was chosen as the group’s symbol did not go unnoticed by the plaintiffs’ lawyers, who interpret it as an indication that the invocation of the legal privilege was not accidental or purely legalistic, but part of a systematic strategy.
Meta and attorney-client privilege: What's behind the hats?
Attorney -client privilege is a fundamental legal right that protects communications between a client and a lawyer from disclosure in legal proceedings. However, Meta has allegedly invoked this privilege in a way that goes far beyond the legal limits. US District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers already called some of Meta ’s redactions “wholly inappropriate” in an order last month.
In particular, the judge pointed to a typical example: Meta ’s lawyers attempted to present a discussion about a slide deck and whether certain data should be released as legal advice from an attorney. The judge, relying on testimony from the trial, concluded that the company’s reluctance to release the data was actually a business decision aimed at preventing leaks — not legal advice that would justify privilege.
This finding is critical: it means that Meta was using legal jargon as a “shield” to hide decisions that were purely business in nature, not legal. This practice, if proven systematic, could have serious consequences for the company both in the context of current lawsuits and in future legal proceedings.
See also: Meta says its AI makes you spend more time on Instagram
Meta and teen safety: The history of the case
This case is not isolated to a larger context. Since 2021 , when journalist Frances Haugen leaked thousands of internal Meta documents — known as the Facebook Papers — the company has been under intense pressure over how it handles data about the impact of its platforms on young people. Those documents revealed that Meta itself knew that Instagram could be worsening the body image and mental health of teenage girls, but chose not to take action.
Subsequently, several US and federal authorities filed lawsuits against Meta, accusing the company of intentionally exposing minors to harmful content and designing platforms that create addiction. These lawsuits are ongoing, and the discovery — the exchange of evidence between the parties — has highlighted serious issues with Meta.
In April 2025, Meta declassified approximately 65,000 documents that had previously been withheld or redacted under attorney-client privilege. However, plaintiffs’ lawyers argue that this disclosure came too late — after the depositions had been completed—and therefore they were unable to use them effectively in the proceedings.
Now, Meta is seeking an extension until the end of 2025 to review the remaining overlaps it has made under the privilege. The plaintiffs’ lawyers, for their part, are asking for the appointment of a neutral third party to lead the review — with Meta paying the costs .This request reflects the plaintiffs’ deep distrust of the company’s ability or willingness to conduct an objective self-assessment.
Meta, Teen Accounts and the "legal shield" strategy
Instagram ’s Teen Accounts were launched in 2024 as Meta ’s response to mounting pressure from lawmakers, parents, and child protection groups . The accounts promise increased safety settings for users under 18 , such as restrictions on what they can see and how long they can use it. However, the revelation of the “a/c priv” hats raises questions about whether Meta treats teen safety as a real priority or as a public relations ploy.
The fact that Project Nido — the team that developed these “secure” features — chose the attorney-client privilege as its symbol is revealing, to say the least. It suggeststhat legal protection of internal data was an integral part of the team’s culture from the beginning — and not something that was imposed after the fact by the legal department.
Meta 's critics argue that this mindset reflects a broader corporate culture that places business interests above the well-being of users — especially the most vulnerable, namely minors. The use of legal privilege as a concealment tool, if proven, could constitute obstruction of justice — a charge with serious legal consequences.
The case has wider implications for Europe. Under the Digital Services Act (DSA), the European Commission has already launched investigations into Meta for possible violations of minors' protections. Evidence emerging from the US legal proceedings could feed into European investigations, further increasing pressure on the company.
See also: Meta unveils $1,299 VR glasses and turns AI glasses into hearing aids
In conclusion, the “a/c priv” hat case is not just a joke or a corporate gimmick. It is a symptom of a deeper culture within Meta that, according to the plaintiffs, places legal opacity above public accountability. As the trial progresses and Judge Gonzalez Rogers continues to press for greater transparency, Meta will be called upon to demonstrate that its commitment to teen safety is more than just a hat with legal jargon.
