Meta criticized by Apple, Google, Snap over trial misstep

In an ongoing antitrust trial, attorneys for Apple, Google, and Snap criticized Meta for errors in handling redacted documents.

The issue arose after Meta presented slides on April 14, 2025 with incomplete redactions, revealing internal information from other companies.

Unredacted slides showed non-sensitive information, such as iPhone users preferring Apple’s Messages app over Meta and Snap’s offerings.

Another slide indicated that competitors, including TikTok and Meta’s own apps, performed well in 2020.

Apple’s attorney called the mistake “egregious” and raised doubts about Meta’s ability to handle sensitive information responsibly.

Google and Snap expressed concern over Meta’s handling of confidential materials, with Snap describing the approach as careless.

Meta’s attorney Mark Hansen defended the company’s actions, asserting that no confidential details were disclosed.

🔗 Source: The Verge

🧠 Food for thought

1️⃣ Redaction failures carry significant business and legal consequences beyond embarrassment

Improper redaction, as witnessed in Meta’s case, can create lasting trust issues between technology companies that often serve dual roles as competitors and business partners.

When sensitive information is exposed due to redaction failures, the consequences go beyond the courtroom. Organizations face an average cost of $4.88 million per data breach incident, according to research on redaction failures 1.

Meta’s approach to handling competitors’ information, as characterized by Snap’s attorney, illustrates how companies increasingly face scrutiny not just for data handling of consumer information, but also for how they safeguard competitors’ confidential business data.

This incident occurs within a landmark antitrust trial where the FTC is seeking to force Meta to divest Instagram and WhatsApp, acquisitions worth billions that are now central to Meta’s business model 2.

The reaction from Apple—indicating it may not trust Meta with internal information in the future—demonstrates how technical failures can damage critical business relationships in an industry where companies frequently need to share sensitive information during legal proceedings.