USA 
United Kingdom
Meta has secured an emergency arbitration ruling to temporarily block a former employee from promoting her book, Careless People, a critical account of the social media giant's internal operations and leadership.
The decision raises questions around the scope of confidentiality clauses in severance agreements and their potential enforcement.
The ruling, issued by arbitrator Nicholas Gowen of the American Arbitration Association, determined that Meta would suffer “immediate and irreparable loss” without emergency relief. Former Meta executive Sarah Wynn-Williams, who authored the book, did not attend the arbitration hearing.
Severance agreement dispute
The dispute stems from Wynn-Williams’ severance agreement with Meta, which included a confidentiality clause. Meta argues that her promotion of Careless People violated those terms. While the ruling orders Wynn-Williams to cease promoting the book and, where possible, halt further publication, it does not impose restrictions on publisher Macmillan.
Macmillan argued during the hearing that it was not bound by the arbitration agreement, a position the ruling appeared to support.
Meta spokesperson Andy Stone defended the ruling, saying: “This ruling affirms that Sarah Wynn Williams’ false and defamatory book should never have been published.”
In contrast, a spokesperson for Pan Macmillan told The Guardian that Careless People is a “first-person narrative account” of Wynn-Williams' seven years at the company. The publisher reaffirmed its commitment to free speech and stated that Meta's legal action had prevented Wynn-Williams from participating in publicity for the book.
Lessons for HR leaders
The case reveals the growing complexity of severance agreements, particularly when departing employees share their experiences publicly. HR leaders may need to review confidentiality clauses to ensure they are enforceable and balanced with employee rights.
For businesses concerned about reputational risks, it demonstrates how post-employment agreements can serve as a mechanism to protect corporate interests, but only to the extent they comply with legal boundaries.
As Meta continues its legal battle over the book, it serves as a reminder of the need for organisations to assess their approach to confidentiality terms, especially for senior leaders with insider knowledge.
