By Mike Scarcella

WASHINGTON, July 16 (Reuters) - Meta Platforms META.O failed on Thursday to persuade Washington, D.C.'s top court to halt a judge's order requiring it to hand over internal documents to the District of Columbia attorney general as part of a lawsuit accusing the social media company of deceiving consumers about the safety of Facebook and Instagram for children.

A three-judge panel of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals denied a petition from Meta that sought to overturn a lower-court judge's order forcing it to produce documents that could be used as evidence in the attorney general’s lawsuit.

The four documents at issue were described in court filings as communications among Meta researchers about “youth-user wellbeing.” A D.C. Superior Court judge found they were not shielded by attorney-client privilege because they fell under an exception that can strip confidentiality from communications that are used to further or conceal a crime or fraud.

Spokespeople for Meta and D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Schwalb, a Democrat, is pursuing the records as part of a lawsuit alleging Meta violated the district's Consumer Protection Procedures Act by developing addictive products for children that duped the public about their safety.

The case is one of thousands by individuals, municipalities, states and school districts nationwide seeking to hold Meta and other social media companies responsible for allegations that they ‌designed their ⁠platforms to be addictive to young users. Meta has denied any wrongdoing.

The company is battling similar allegations in other state and federal courts. Claims brought by California and three other states are heading to trial in August in federal court in California, where Meta said this month the plaintiffs are seeking $1.4 trillion in penalties.

Meta has disclosed more than 2.5 million documents to the D.C. attorney general, according to Thursday's ruling.

Meta argued that the four communications in dispute reflected conventional legal advice on how to mitigate legal risk and to "modify or use careful language." Meta said the documents show communication about how to describe and present research and not to delete or falsify it.

But Judge Roy McLeese, writing for the appeals court, said Meta had failed to show Superior Court Judge Yvonne Williams clearly erred when she held that Meta "sought and heeded the advice of its counsel to obfuscate its potential liability during the related multidistrict litigation."

"As we have noted, we see no clear and indisputable error in the trial court’s ruling that there was probable cause that Meta used attorneys to further an alleged fraud," McLeese wrote.

He said the court was not ruling on whether Williams' crime-fraud finding was ultimately correct and stressed it was not barring Meta from later challenging the judge’s disclosure order.

The dispute drew interest from various advocacy groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which backed Meta and urged the appeals court to stop the disclosure order.

The case is In re Meta Platforms Inc, District of Columbia Court of Appeals, No. 26-OA-0001.

For Meta: Mark Mosier of Covington & Burling

For D.C.: Ashwin Phatak of D.C. Attorney General’s Office

Read more:

Meta says US states are seeking $1.4 trillion in penalties in August youth safety trial

Google's YouTube settles case over social media harm to children

Meta loses bid to dismiss US states' claims that Facebook, Instagram addict children

New Mexico seeks $3.7 billion, changes to Meta platforms in youth harm trial

Meta, Google lose US case over social media harm to kids