Judge says Meta can’t shield internal teen‑harm research with attorney‑client privilege

A court in Washington, D.C. has ruled that Meta cannot use attorney‑client privilege to block internal documents and research related to social media harm to teenagers. The judge found that advice from Meta’s lawyers encouraging employees to “remove,” “block,” “button up” or “limit” portions of studies appeared intended to limit legal liability and potentially to conceal evidence — bringing the crime‑fraud exception into play.

The court ordered Meta to hand over four specific documents created between November 2022 and July 2023 within seven days. Meta has disputed the ruling, saying these were routine lawyer‑client discussions and that no research findings were deleted or destroyed.

Case context

• The decision relates to state lawsuits and hundreds of private civil claims accusing social platforms of addictive design and harms to teens’ mental health.
• Earlier reporting shows dozens of US state attorneys general and private plaintiffs pursuing litigation; some trials are scheduled to begin in 2026.
• The crime‑fraud exception removes privilege where communications further a crime or fraud, or where legal advice appears used to cover up wrongdoing — the court found enough indication to invoke that exception here.

Why this matters

Requiring the production of internal research could reshape the litigation strategy and public narrative about what major platforms knew and when. If documents reveal prior awareness of harms, plaintiffs could secure larger damages or force policy changes. The ruling also signals that courts may scrutinize attempts to limit access to internal findings when legal liability is at stake.

Key details

• Judge: Yvonne Williams (Washington, D.C. Superior Court)
• Documents ordered: Four documents from Nov 2022–Jul 2023
• Deadline: Meta has seven days to comply with the order
• Next steps: Meta says it disagrees and may seek to challenge the ruling; related trials and motions are expected through 2026

For ongoing updates and filings, watch court dockets and statements from the parties involved. The outcome of any appeals or further motions could change how much material becomes public.

Source: Original reporting and case details have been covered by major outlets; see the full article for more context: read the full report.

Discussion: Should social platforms be required to disclose internal research about user harms — especially when it concerns minors? What safeguards should courts use when balancing privilege against public interest and legal accountability?