Sheryl Sandberg, the former Chief Operating Officer (COO) of Meta, is currently embroiled in a growing series of legal and professional difficulties. Following a public fallout with Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, who reportedly criticized her handling of company policies, Sandberg now faces a legal battle stemming from allegations related to the Cambridge Analytica scandal. The latest development involves a Delaware court sanctioning Sandberg for allegedly deleting critical emails tied to a shareholder lawsuit.
The fallout between Mark Zuckerberg and Sheryl Sandberg
In the wake of Sheryl Sandberg’s departure from Meta in 2022, tensions between her and the company’s CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, have surfaced in the public domain. Recent reports indicate that Zuckerberg criticized Sandberg for her role in the company’s controversial policies regarding culture and inclusivity during a meeting with Stephen Miller, a senior advisor to former President Donald Trump. This public rift marks a significant moment in Meta’s ongoing challenges with internal leadership and corporate policy. Zuckerberg’s criticisms came just days before the news broke of Sandberg’s involvement in a legal case concerning her actions related to Facebook’s data privacy issues.
Allegations against Sheryl Sandberg and Jeff Zients
The legal case against Sheryl Sandberg and former Meta board member Jeff Zients stems from a shareholder lawsuit filed in late 2024. As per reports, the shareholders claim that Sandberg and Zients used personal email accounts to discuss matters related to a 2018 lawsuit. The lawsuit alleged that Facebook’s leadership, including Sandberg, violated the law and their fiduciary duties concerning user privacy. The plaintiffs contend that Sandberg and Zients communicated on personal email platforms—specifically Gmail accounts—while discussing the legal case. These discussions allegedly included topics related to Facebook’s handling of user data, including the Cambridge Analytica scandal.
In addition to using personal email accounts, the plaintiffs assert that Sandberg and Zients deleted emails from these accounts despite an existing court order instructing them to preserve all relevant documents. The shareholders’ claims are based on the notion that such actions not only contravened legal obligations but also undermined the transparency necessary to address the privacy concerns raised by the Cambridge Analytica incident.
Delaware court’s sanctions: Key legal findings
The Delaware court, which is overseeing the shareholder lawsuit, recently issued a ruling in response to the allegations. The judge found the claims credible, specifically noting that Sandberg used a personal Gmail account under a pseudonym to communicate about the case. The court also highlighted inconsistencies in Sandberg’s responses to interrogatories and questions posed by the plaintiffs. These inconsistencies suggested that she may have intentionally deleted emails, as opposed to relying on an automatic deletion function that could have explained the missing messages.
As a consequence, the judge raised the burden of proof required for Sandberg’s defense. Instead of the typical “preponderance of the evidence” standard, Sandberg must now meet a higher threshold—”clear and convincing” evidence—if she intends to defend herself against the allegations. This shift in legal standards makes it more challenging for Sandberg to successfully prove her case. Furthermore, the court awarded certain legal expenses to the plaintiffs, further escalating the financial and reputational stakes for Sandberg.
Sheryl Sandberg’s response and public defense
In response to the court’s findings, a spokesperson for Sandberg has denied the allegations, asserting that “all work emails were preserved on Facebook’s servers.” Sandberg’s legal team argues that the claims made by the plaintiffs are unfounded and that any deletions were inadvertent or irrelevant to the case.
Despite these defenses, the court’s decision to raise the burden of proof and the ongoing legal developments have added significant pressure on Sandberg. The case has not only brought her personal actions into the spotlight but has also drawn attention to Meta’s broader issues with data privacy and transparency.
The Cambridge Analytica scandal and Meta’s ongoing legal battles
The allegations against Sandberg are inextricably linked to the infamous Cambridge Analytica scandal, which remains one of the most significant data privacy issues in modern corporate history. In 2018, it was revealed that Facebook had allowed the political consulting firm Cambridge Analytica to harvest the personal data of millions of users without their consent.
This violation of user privacy led to widespread public outrage and regulatory scrutiny. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) investigated the company and, in 2019, imposed a historic $5 billion fine on Meta for violating a 2012 FTC order. The order had prohibited Meta (formerly Facebook) from collecting and sharing user data without clear consent. Additionally, Meta has faced regulatory challenges from European authorities, further compounding the company’s legal troubles.
The shareholder lawsuit against Sandberg and Zients forms part of the broader fallout from these ongoing data privacy concerns. As former executives, Sandberg and Zients are now under intense scrutiny for their roles in the company’s actions during and after the Cambridge Analytica scandal.