Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

Meta, the world's most powerful social media company, has faced a severe public reckoning in recent days, with juries in California and New Mexico delivering back-to-back verdicts that hold the company liable for harming young people. This marks a significant shift in accountability for social media companies, which have long operated with minimal regulation and few consequences in the US.In the California case, a jury ordered Meta and YouTube to pay $6 million in damages over claims that they deliberately designed addictive products to hook young users. The following day, a jury in New Mexico ordered Meta to pay $375 million in damages over claims that its products led to child sexual exploitation, among other harms.These verdicts are the first to go to court, and they set a precedent for over 2,000 plaintiffs, including families, school districts, and state attorneys general, who have brought lawsuits against Meta, YouTube, TikTok, and Snap. The cases borrow from a familiar playbook, echoing those brought against big tobacco companies in the 1990s, which focused on cigarettes' addictive qualities and their makers' public denials despite knowledge of their products' harms.Lawyers for the plaintiffs argue that social media companies have profited from targeting children while concealing their addictive and dangerous design features. The verdicts signal that public perception of social media and its makers is shifting, with jurors now laying blame on the business practices of a multi-trillion-dollar industry.Meta and YouTube have both said they disagree with the verdicts and will appeal. However, the rulings mark a significant turning point in the growing scrutiny of social media companies and their impact on young people.The cases are part of a broader effort to challenge tech companies' practices, with online safety advocates urging Congress to pass regulation, forming coalitions of parents, teens, and advocates, and bringing thousands of lawsuits front and center. The goal is to force social media companies to redesign their products and do more to protect children online.

A California jury has ruled that Meta and Google are liable for $3m in damages in a landmark social media addiction lawsuit. The case, which began over a month ago, accused the companies of designing features intended to hook young users, including notifications and autoplay features.The plaintiff, a 20-year-old woman referred to as KGM or Kaley, claimed that she became addicted to social media at a young age, which exacerbated her mental health issues. She began using YouTube at age six and Meta-owned Instagram at age nine.The jury deliberated for over 40 hours across nine days before reaching a verdict. Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Instagram head Adam Mosseri testified in the case, although YouTube chief executive Neal Mohan was not called to testify.The verdict is the latest in a wave of lawsuits targeting social media companies. There is a looming federal social media addiction case slated to begin in June in Oakland, California. On Tuesday in New Mexico, a jury found that Meta violated state law by misleading users about the safety of Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp, and by enabling child sexual exploitation on those platforms.Legal experts say the verdict will shape future litigation. 'The fact the jury found Meta and Google liable represents that these cases have real exposure to the social media giants, and are going to frame how future litigation will proceed,' entertainment lawyer Tre Lovell told Al Jazeera.

A landmark verdict in a social media trial has held Meta and YouTube accountable for deliberately designing addictive products that harmed a young user. The jury awarded the plaintiff $6m in damages, with Meta to pay 70% and YouTube the remainder.Human rights groups, including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, have praised the decision, calling it a "watershed moment" for corporate accountability in the digital age. They argue that social media companies must change their design features to ensure children's safety.The plaintiff, a 20-year-old who went by the initials KGM, testified that she became addicted to YouTube at age six and Instagram at nine, which led to a long cycle of depression, self-harm, and body dysmorphia. Plaintiffs have taken issue with features such as infinite scroll and autoplay, arguing that they prioritize engagement over users' well-being.However, not all tech freedom and human rights groups agree on the verdict's implications. Fight for the Future, a US-based digital rights group, has expressed skepticism, worrying that the decision could be used to justify legislative solutions that raise free speech concerns.

UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer has announced plans to address addictive features in social media platforms, signaling a potential regulatory shift following a significant US court ruling that held Meta and YouTube accountable for harms caused by their technology designs.The prime minister emphasized that the recent California court verdict reflects rising public expectations for more aggressive regulation of social media platforms. "I'm absolutely clear that we need to go further," Starmer stated, adding that "the status quo isn't good enough" in terms of protecting children online.Starmer specifically mentioned that the government is consulting about banning social media for under-16s and expressed strong commitment to addressing addictive features within social media platforms. These remarks come amid growing international pressure on tech companies to address the potential harms of their products on young users.In the landmark US case, a California jury found Meta and YouTube negligent for failing to provide adequate warnings about the potential dangers of their platforms. The plaintiff, a 20-year-old woman who claimed she became addicted to social media during her childhood, was awarded $6 million (£4.5 million) in damages, with Meta responsible for 70% of the payment and YouTube covering the remainder.The Duke and Duchess of Sussex welcomed the verdict as "a reckoning" for tech companies, stating in a joint statement: "For too long, families have paid the price for platforms built with total disregard for the children they reach." They emphasized that "today, the truth has been heard and precedent has been set" regarding children's safety versus corporate profits.Both Google, which owns YouTube, and Meta have indicated they will challenge the decision. Google claimed the case "misunderstands YouTube, which is a responsibly built streaming platform, not a social media site," while Meta stated it "respectfully disagrees with the verdict and is evaluating our legal options." The verdict came after nine days of deliberation in the first lawsuit concerning social media's alleged harm to young people to reach trial.The ruling has resonated beyond the courtroom, with European Commission digital chief Henna Virkkunen noting that such cases send "a very clear message" to online platforms about the risks they pose. Campaigners for safer social media have celebrated the decision as a potential watershed moment in regulating platforms like TikTok, Instagram, and X.The Molly Rose Foundation, established after the death of 14-year-old Molly Russell who was exposed to harmful content on Instagram, called for legislation that would make "safety and wellbeing the price for tech firms to pay for doing business in the UK." Thomas Lancaster, a computing expert at Imperial College London, emphasized that policies must be effectively enforced to protect those they're designed to safeguard.Sacha Haworth, executive director of the Tech Oversight Project, declared that "the era of big tech invincibility is over," suggesting that the verdict validates concerns about tech platforms' impact on young people that have been raised for years.

A landmark jury verdict has found Meta and YouTube liable for deliberately designing addictive products that harmed a young user, KGM. The jury ruled that the tech companies were both negligent and failed to provide adequate warnings about the potential dangers of their products.The plaintiff, KGM, testified that she became addicted to YouTube at age six and Instagram at nine, which she claimed had deleterious effects on her wellbeing. By age 10, she said she had become depressed and was engaging in self-harm as a result. Her social media use allegedly caused her to have strained relationships with her family and in school.The jury awarded KGM $6m in damages, with Meta to pay 70% and YouTube the remainder. This lawsuit, over social media's alleged harm to young people, was the first of its kind to go to trial.KGM's lawyers argued that the companies' features, such as infinite scrolling and video autoplay, were designed to keep people on the apps and made the products addictive. The plaintiffs' arguments mirrored those brought against big tobacco in the 1990s, focusing on the addictive qualities of social media and the companies' public denial despite knowledge of their products' harms.Meta and YouTube have consistently denied wrongdoing and plan to appeal the verdict. A YouTube spokesperson said the video service was a responsibly built streaming platform, not a social media site. Meta said KGM's mental health issues were brought on by a difficult home life and social media use was not to blame.This trial is the first in a consolidated group of cases brought in California against Meta, TikTok, YouTube, and Snap on behalf of more than 1,600 plaintiffs. The next bellwether case is scheduled to go to trial in July.

The estate of late British tech tycoon Mike Lynch has been ordered to pay £920m to the technology company Hewlett-Packard (HP) two years after he died in a superyacht disaster.The ruling by London’s high court said the estate was liable to pay the sum as compensation, costs, and interest for HP’s acquisition of Lynch’s firm Autonomy, after a UK legal ruling in 2022 that he duped the US firm into paying £8.2bn for his software firm Autonomy.The deceased entrepreneur’s estate has been estimated to be worth about £500m, so the damages could leave it bankrupt.Lynch and six others, including his 18-year-old daughter Hannah, died in August 2024 on a trip with friends and family celebrating his acquittal on US fraud charges relating to HP’s $11bn takeover of Autonomy in 2011.HP accused Lynch and Autonomy’s former chief financial officer, Sushovan Hussain, of inflating the firm’s value before the takeover. HP wrote down Autonomy’s worth by $8.8bn (£6.5bn) within a year of the purchase.The US tech company has sought damages in UK civil proceedings of up to $4.55bn from the estate of the late tycoon, who was once hailed as Britain’s answer to Microsoft founder Bill Gates.However, the level of the claim was ruled last year by the high court to be “always exaggerated”, as it concluded that Lynch’s estate owed £700m in compensation. The £920m figure includes costs and interest.Lawyers for Lynch’s estate sought permission to appeal against Tuesday’s ruling, which was refused. However, the estate can apply directly to the court of appeal.HP welcomed Tuesday’s decision, which it said in a statement “brings us another step closer to resolution of the dispute”.A spokesperson for the Lynch family said: “We are disappointed by the court’s refusal and believe an application to the court of appeal should follow in the interests of justice. HP’s $5bn damages claim has already been shown to be vastly exaggerated.“Today’s judgment describes the exaggeration as ‘without foundation’ and the purposes for which it was ‘calibrated, publicised and pursued’ as objectionable, misleading shareholders and extending the litigation unnecessarily.“Dr Lynch’s acquittal in the US, where witnesses were properly cross-examined, exposed the truth. The damage to Autonomy was the result of HP’s own actions and failures, not wrongdoing at Autonomy.”

The trial in San Francisco centers on a class-action lawsuit filed against Elon Musk, who is accused of engaging in a pattern of deceptive behavior that misled investors as he attempted to back out of his $44bn deal to buy Twitter, now known as X, in 2022.Musk's claims about the number of bots on Twitter were a key part of his argument for backing out of the deal. He testified that Twitter had a much higher number of fake and spam accounts than the 5 percent it disclosed in regulatory filings, claiming it was actually around 20 percent. However, Twitter's former CFO Ned Segal disputed this claim, saying the number was closer to 1 percent.The trial has significant implications for Musk, whose fortune is now estimated at $839bn. If the court rules in favor of the shareholders, Musk could be liable for damages. The case highlights the challenges of navigating complex financial deals and the importance of transparency in corporate transactions.Closing arguments are set to begin on Tuesday, with the jury instructed to consider the evidence presented during the trial. The case has been closely watched by investors and observers, who are eager to see how the court will rule on the matter.