Lex CloakRedaction failures: a running record
A black box over text looks like a redaction. Often it is not one. This is a running record of public cases where a document that someone meant to redact still gave away what it was meant to hide. Each entry says what happened, how the redaction failed and what came of it, with sources you can check.
Last updated . New cases are added once they are confirmed.
At a glance
| Date | Case | How it failed |
|---|---|---|
| December 2025 | U.S. Department of Justice, Epstein files release | Text left under black boxes |
| April 2025 | FTC v. Meta Platforms (D.D.C.), opening-statement slides | Redaction boxes could be removed |
| May 2021 | United States v. Parnas (S.D.N.Y.) | Text left under black boxes |
| January 2019 | United States v. Manafort (D.D.C.) | Text left under black boxes |
| March 2009 | Transportation Security Administration | Text left under black boxes |
| April 2005 | U.S. military command in Baghdad (Multi-National Force-Iraq) | Text left under black boxes |
The record
December 2025
U.S. Department of Justice, Epstein files release
Days after the Justice Department began posting records under the Epstein Files Transparency Act, readers showed that the redactions in at least one document could be undone by copying the covered text. CNN traced that document to a 2021 court filing in a Virgin Islands civil case, carried into the release as an exhibit, rather than to the department’s own redaction work.
- Exposed
- Allegations in a government civil complaint
- How it failed
- Text left under black boxes
- What happened next
- No response specific to this document was reported in the sources.
April 2025
FTC v. Meta Platforms (D.D.C.), opening-statement slides
After opening statements in the Federal Trade Commission’s antitrust trial, Meta emailed reporters a PDF of its slides. The Verge found that the redactions over other companies’ information were layers that could be removed.
- Exposed
- Non-public business information about other companies
- How it failed
- Redaction boxes could be removed
- What happened next
- Meta asked reporters to destroy the file and sent a corrected version. In court, lawyers for Apple and Snap called the errors egregious, according to The Verge.
- The Verge, “Meta’s antitrust trial slide redactions aren’t actually hiding anything” (Apr 15, 2025). theverge.com
- The Verge, “Google, Apple, and Snap aren’t happy about Meta’s poorly-redacted slides” (Apr 16, 2025). theverge.com
- The National, “Meta trial: Social media giant inadvertently sends reporters sensitive information” (Apr 16, 2025). thenationalnews.com
May 2021
United States v. Parnas (S.D.N.Y.)
A defense letter filed on the public docket carried redactions that could be read by copying the text into another document. The recovered passages described what federal prosecutors had seized in a related investigation.
- Exposed
- Details of evidence seized in a federal investigation
- How it failed
- Text left under black boxes
- What happened next
- The next day the judge temporarily sealed the letter because it had not been redacted properly, and directed counsel to propose how to refile it.
- U.S. District Court, S.D.N.Y., “Order, Dkt. No. 192, United States v. Parnas, No. 1:19-cr-00725” (May 26, 2021). courtlistener.com
- CNN, “Faulty redactions in court document show federal investigators seized more info in case against Rudy Giuliani than previously disclosed” (May 25, 2021). cnn.com
- Talking Points Memo, “Judge Seals Botched Redaction Filing That Pointed To Broader Giuliani Probe” (May 26, 2021). talkingpointsmemo.com
January 2019
United States v. Manafort (D.D.C.)
The public version of a defense filing, answering the special counsel’s claim that the defendant had broken his plea agreement, had text under black bars that could be copied and pasted into a new document. Reporters read the covered passages the same day.
- Exposed
- What prosecutors alleged the defendant had lied about, including contacts during the 2016 campaign
- How it failed
- Text left under black boxes
- What happened next
- None reported in the sources.
- NPR, “Manafort Allegedly Shared 2016 Polling With Associate Linked To Russian Intelligence” (Jan 8, 2019). npr.org
- Associated Press, via CBC News, “Manafort shared polling data with Russian contact during U.S. presidential campaign, court filing says” (Jan 8, 2019). cbc.ca
- Mother Jones, “Paul Manafort’s Lawyers Tried—and Failed—to Redact This Sensitive Legal Filing” (Jan 8, 2019). motherjones.com
March 2009
Transportation Security Administration
The TSA posted its Screening Management Standard Operating Procedures to the federal procurement website with black boxes over sensitive passages, and the text under the boxes could still be read. The document was found and taken down in December 2009.
- Exposed
- Airport screening procedures and equipment settings
- How it failed
- Text left under black boxes
- What happened next
- The Homeland Security Inspector General reviewed the breach, a House Homeland Security subcommittee held a hearing, and ABC News reported that five TSA employees were suspended.
- DHS Office of Inspector General, “TSA’s Breach of Sensitive Security Information (OIG-10-37)” (Jan 2010). oig.dhs.gov
- ABC News, “TSA Stonewalls Congress About Screening Manual Security Breach” (Dec 16, 2009). abcnews.com
- Washington Technology, “In wake of TSA breach, a refresher on redacting PDFs” (Dec 9, 2009). washingtontechnology.com
April 2005
U.S. military command in Baghdad (Multi-National Force-Iraq)
The command posted its report on the death of an Italian intelligence officer at a Baghdad checkpoint as a PDF with black bars over classified passages. Readers restored the text by copying it into another program.
- Exposed
- Names of service members and units, checkpoint procedures and security information
- How it failed
- Text left under black boxes
- What happened next
- The military acknowledged the error, and the full text circulated on news sites within days.
- Associated Press, via NBC News, “Data leak highlights common mistake” (May 2, 2005). nbcnews.com
- NPR, “Technical Error Reveals Classified Info on Death of Italian Agent” (May 2, 2005). npr.org
- PBS NewsHour, “U.S., Italy Issue Reports on Checkpoint Death” (May 3, 2005). pbs.org
How cases are chosen
- Each case is a real, public event, confirmed by the court or organisation’s own record or by at least two independent news reports.
- Entries describe the kind of information that was exposed, never the information itself. People whose information was exposed are not named.
- How a redaction failed is stated only when a source says so. Otherwise the entry says the sources do not state it.
Summaries are drawn from the linked sources and describe what was reported. They are not findings of fault. Know of a case that belongs here? Send it with a source to help@lexcloak.com.
The pattern, and a ten-second check
Most of these share one cause. A black shape was drawn over text that stayed in the file, so anyone could select it, copy it or run the file through a text extractor. The page looked finished. The words were still there.
Before a redacted file leaves your hands, open it, try to select the text you hid and paste it somewhere. If anything comes back, the redaction did not take. How to check a redacted PDF walks through the full check, and twenty years of the same mistake tells the story behind several of these cases.
Where Lex Cloak fits
Lex Cloak removes the text under a redaction rather than covering it. Before it hands the file back, it reads the finished document and looks for the text it was asked to remove, and tells you if any of it can still be read. It runs on your own computer, so the document stays there. See how it works.