At almost the same time a New Mexico jury is considering whether Facebook misled users over privacy and Cambridge Analytica, another fight involving Meta is taking shape inside the federal Social Media Addiction MDL. This one is about the documents.
On Tuesday, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ordered Meta to conduct another review of attorney-client privilege designations covering 300 documents after plaintiffs challenged the company's privilege practices in MDL 3047. The dispute follows an earlier request from plaintiffs for appointment of a special master to scrutinize Meta's privilege calls, citing prior rulings over what the court characterized as inappropriate redactions. Law360
The hearing produced an unusual detail that caught attention in the courtroom. Plaintiffs pointed to Instagram promotional hats embroidered “a/c priv”—the same shorthand used for attorney-client privilege—as evidence, in plaintiffs' telling, of a broader culture surrounding privilege inside the company.
The hats make for a headline. The 300 documents are the story.
Why the privilege fight matters
This is not happening in isolation. A separate proceeding in Washington, D.C., has already put Meta's handling of internal youth-safety research and attorney-client privilege under judicial scrutiny. In In re Meta Platforms, Inc., the D.C. Superior Court reviewed four internal communications in camera and concluded that the crime-fraud exception applied.
According to the subsequent appellate opinion, the documents involved communications among Meta researchers concerning legal advice about youth-related research. The trial court described material involving advice to remove portions of research concerning teenagers' developmental vulnerability, efforts to block or redesign research concerning teen mental-health harms because of litigation risk, and legal advice surrounding a planned presentation on teenagers' exposure to harmful content. Justia Law
Meta disputed that characterization. The company argued that the communications reflected conventional legal advice concerning risk, presentation and language—not instructions to falsify or suppress research. Meta sought mandamus relief from the D.C. Court of Appeals. On July 16, the appellate court denied the petition, finding Meta had not established the clear and indisputable right required for extraordinary relief. Justia Law
There is an important limitation here. The appellate court expressly did not decide that the trial court's crime-fraud determination was correct. The ruling was procedural: Meta had not met the demanding standard for mandamus. Meta remains able to challenge the underlying finding through ordinary appellate review. Justia Law
Still, for lawyers following the youth-harm litigation, the overlap is difficult to ignore. Meta is now dealing with document and privilege disputes concerning internal youth research in more than one courtroom.
Meanwhile in Santa Fe: another Meta jury is out
A New Mexico jury is separately considering claims arising from Facebook's privacy representations and the Cambridge Analytica scandal. That case should not be confused with New Mexico's earlier youth-safety trial against Meta. The current proceeding concerns allegations that Facebook violated New Mexico consumer-protection law through statements concerning privacy, data practices and Cambridge Analytica. After closing arguments this week, the matter went to the jury. That makes the timing notable.
- Santa Fe: jurors are considering what Facebook publicly told users.
- Oakland: plaintiffs are pressing for closer scrutiny of what Meta has kept behind privilege assertions.
- Washington, D.C.: another court has already ordered production of youth-research communications after finding the crime-fraud exception applicable at the trial-court level.
These are different cases, different claims and different procedural records. But they are beginning to expose the same litigation pressure point: what Meta knew internally, what it said publicly, and what plaintiffs are entitled to see.
The $17.1 billion settlement did not end the private cases
There is also an important point buried beneath last month's enormous state-attorney-general settlement. The agreement resolved substantial claims brought by participating governments, including a separately identified $459,293,017.80 Cambridge Analytica component. It did not, however, extinguish the private Social Media Addiction litigation. The settlement expressly preserves private claims, including litigation proceeding in MDL 3047 and California's coordinated social-media proceedings.
For plaintiff firms continuing to develop these cases, that distinction matters. The government settlement may have removed one major front of litigation against Meta, but it did not close the courthouse doors to individual plaintiffs. And the discovery fight now underway in Oakland shows just how much work remains.
What We're Watching
The immediate question is what comes out of Meta's new review of the 300 privilege-designated documents. A re-review does not mean those documents will ultimately be produced, nor does it establish that Meta's original privilege assertions were improper. But Judge Gonzalez Rogers' order puts those designations back under scrutiny at a time when internal research and corporate knowledge remain central themes in the litigation.
The other watch is New Mexico. A Cambridge Analytica verdict could arrive at any time. If it comes down today, it will give plaintiff lawyers another jury read on Meta's public representations—and potentially another substantial judgment involving the company within weeks of the broader state settlement.
For now, there are two Meta courtrooms worth watching very closely.