Unsealed court documents from an ongoing multi-state lawsuit against Meta have focused on the “Project Nido” team—the internal group responsible for Instagram’s Teen Accounts. The litigation centers on Meta’s use of attorney-client privilege, a legal protection intended to keep communications between a client and their lawyer confidential.
Project Nido was the internal codename for the team that developed and launched Instagram’s “Teen Accounts” in September 2024. These accounts were marketed as a major safety overhaul, introducing automatic private settings and parental supervision tools for users under 18. However, plaintiffs in the lawsuit, led by 33 attorneys general including those from California and Massachusetts, argue that Meta maintained an internal culture focused on shielding child safety discussions from future legal discovery.
The lawsuit, filed in the Northern District of California, alleges that Meta employees were encouraged to use legal labels to prevent internal documents from being used as evidence in court. Lawyers for the states claim these tactics were part of a calculated effort to ensure that sensitive research or debates regarding the impact of platforms on minors remained non-discoverable.
This strategy reportedly extended to digital habits. Meta has previously faced allegations that it instructed staff to “CC a lawyer” on routine business emails, regardless of whether legal advice was requested. By including an attorney on an email thread, a company can more easily claim the entire conversation is protected by attorney-client privilege during the discovery phase of litigation.
The practice of using privilege designations to limit transparency has drawn significant regulatory scrutiny across the tech sector. Google previously faced sanctions for its “Communicate with Care” program, which the Department of Justice argued was a deliberate attempt to hide documents by training employees to include attorneys in everyday communications.
The unsealed documents regarding the Project Nido team suggest that these tactics were in use as Meta navigated mounting pressure over platform safety. Recent investigations by The Washington Post have also detailed how Meta’s internal research into child safety, particularly within its virtual reality and metaverse initiatives, has often been restricted or siloed within the company.
While Meta has consistently defended its safety record and the efficacy of the Teen Accounts rollout, the litigation highlights a deepening conflict between the company’s public safety pledges and its internal efforts to manage legal liability. The court documents suggest a strategy designed to keep the company’s internal deliberations about its youngest users out of the public record.
