Judge rules Meta lawyers sought to hide research on teen harm

Meta Lawyers Tried to Block Internal Research Showing Teen Harm, Judge Rules

A federal court’s recent ruling revealed that Facebook’s parent company, Meta, cannot invoke attorney-client privilege to obstruct internal documents and research concerning teenage harm. According to a report from Bloomberg Law, this decision presents a significant setback for Meta amid lawsuits filed by multiple states, accusing the tech giant of creating addictive platforms despite awareness of their detrimental effects on teens.

Judge Yvonne Williams of the Washington, DC Superior Court found that Meta’s legal advisors directed employees to “remove,” “block,” and “limit” critical segments of internal studies on social media’s impact on teen mental health. Such guidance was viewed as an effort to obscure information, categorizing it under the crime-fraud exception to attorney-client privilege. Meta now faces a deadline of seven days to disclose four documents produced between November 2022 and July 2023.

In response to the ruling, a Meta spokesperson expressed disagreement, labeling the discussions as routine lawyer-client exchanges, claiming that no research findings were deleted or destroyed. This court ruling ties into ongoing lawsuits filed in California, involving numerous state attorneys general and hundreds of private civil suits from parents, teens, and school boards about social media addiction. With the first trials set to commence in 2026, the situation points to a critical period for Meta as it navigates the ramifications of potential harm inflicted on its youngest users.

As this legal battle unfolds, it raises important questions about accountability and transparency in the tech industry. What are your thoughts on the implications of this ruling for Meta and its platforms? Feel free to share your insights in the comments below.