Top Tweets for #Humantraffickers

Meta just got exposed for using its own lawyers to DESTROY the research on what Instagram does to kids. A judge broke attorney-client privilege to prove it, and courts almost never do that. Attorney-client privilege is the most protected relationship in law. Whatever you tell your lawyer stays sealed. But there is one exception, and it exists for a single situation: When the lawyer is used to help commit the fraud. That exception is called crime-fraud. And a court applied it to Meta. Meta filed an emergency petition to keep four documents sealed forever. The DC Court of Appeals refused. So what is inside those four documents? Two of them contain Meta lawyers telling researchers to remove parts of a study showing what Meta knew about teenagers being developmentally vulnerable. The reason given was that government investigators could use it. The third covers Meta lawyers working to block or redesign research into teen mental health harms because of litigation risk. The fourth covers legal advice about a presentation on what teens were being exposed to, which the researchers had planned to show Meta executives. The judge found that Meta's attorneys advised researchers to remove, block, limit and update their work. Meta argued these were only "summaries". But the judge checked, and the documents referred to studies, data, stats, outcomes and data points. The lawyers were reaching into the findings themselves. Then the appeals court reached for precedent, and picked a 1997 case: The state of Washington against American Tobacco. The cigarette companies had used their lawyers the same way to misrepresent research on what smoking did to human lungs. A court stripped their privilege too. In 2026, a court looked at Meta and pulled the tobacco file off the shelf. Six whistleblowers even told the Senate a version of this in September 2025. Two testified under oath about Meta's VR products. They said the legal department routinely intervened to alter, delete or block the collection of data showing harm to minors. In one study, legal demanded the destruction of data about underage children being sexually solicited by strangers. Senator Amy Klobuchar said Meta blocked, manipulated, hid and deleted research. Meta denies all of it, calling this conventional legal advice about limiting risk and using careful language. Three employees signed declarations swearing no Meta lawyer ever told them to delete, conceal or alter research. The trial court refused to consider those declarations, because Meta filed them too late. To be precise: The judge found probable cause, not guilt, and the appeals court declined to rule on whether he got it right. That question is still open. But here is what is NOT open... Meta handed over 2.5 million documents in discovery, then sent clawback notices trying to get some of them back. This fight exists because four of them slipped out. Two days ago a New Mexico judge ordered Meta to pay $567 million into a fund for youth mental health treatment. That sits on top of the $375 million a jury imposed in March for 75,000 violations of state law. New Mexico alone now totals $942 million. The judge also ordered Meta to strip Like counts for minors, pause their push notifications between 10pm and 7am, and cap their usage at roughly 3 hours a day. And the BIG one is 9 days away: Jury selection in Oakland starts August 12. Opening statements are August 18. California, Colorado, Kentucky and New Jersey are asking for up to $1.4 TRILLION. Meta's entire market cap is about $1.57 trillion. Frances Haugen leaked the documents in 2021 and Congress held hearings. Arturo Bejar testified in 2023 and Congress held hearings. Six more researchers testified in 2025 and Congress held hearings. Nothing changed, because none of those people could take anything from Meta. But a jury in Oakland can. What do you think will happen?