Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

A US court has dismissed a lawsuit from WhatsApp's former security chief, who alleged that parent company Meta ignored internal flaws he flagged about the messaging app's digital defenses.Abdullah Baig, who claims he was fired in retaliation for raising these concerns, had alleged that billions of users had been put at risk because of these vulnerabilities. Thousands of employees could view sensitive user data, including profile photos and location, Baig claimed in the lawsuit filed in September. A judge ruled he had not presented enough evidence to move forward.The US district court in northern California ruled last month to dismiss Baig's claims, with the judge, Laurel Beeler, writing on 19 March that 'the complaint does not contain sufficient facts to show that the plaintiff reported violations of SEC rules or regulations.'Baig was head of WhatsApp's security division from 2021 to 2025. He said he had expressed concerns about cybersecurity issues to his supervisor five times but was ignored; he also said he wrote directly to Meta's CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, about what he saw as a violation of US Securities and Exchange Commission rules and escalating retaliation against him. He also claimed that the company didn't fix the hacking of more than 100,000 accounts daily – and focused instead on user growth. At the time, WhatsApp said in a statement that he was 'a former employee dismissed for poor performance' who had filed a suit based on distorted claims.A WhatsApp spokesperson said: 'This ruling reaffirms what we've said all along: These claims have no merit. We're proud of our strong record of protecting people's privacy and security, and will continue building on it.'Baig's lawyer suggested in a statement emailed to the Guardian that the legal fight was not over. 'Mr Baig is not done fighting for users,' said Wilmer Harris, who represents Baig. 'The judge dismissed on pleading grounds, not merit, and we look forward to addressing those deficiencies and ensuring Meta has to finally engage with the substance of Mr Baig's allegations.'

America faces an unprecedented concentration of wealth: the richest 1% now control more assets than the bottom 93% of households, and a single individual, Elon Musk, with a net worth of $805 billion, holds more wealth than the lower‑half of the population combined.Recent tax policies have amplified this gap. In the year following the largest tax cut in U.S. history, 938 billionaires added $1.5 trillion to their fortunes, while President Trump and his family saw a modest increase of $4 billion. Four Wall Street giants—BlackRock, Vanguard, Fidelity and State Street—own stakes in more than 95 % of publicly traded companies, cementing corporate dominance across the economy.Political influence mirrors financial power: by the 2026 midterms, just 50 billionaires had poured over $433 million into campaign activities, shaping policy to protect their interests.Meanwhile, the average American worker is earning roughly $20 per week less than in 1973 after inflation adjustment, despite decades of productivity gains. The Rand Corporation estimates that $79 trillion has shifted from the bottom 90 % to the top 1 % over the past half‑century.Economic hardship is widespread: 60 % of households live paycheck to paycheck, nearly half of older workers lack retirement savings, and over 20 % of seniors survive on less than $15,000 annually. Health‑care insecurity affects 85 million Americans, with more than 500,000 filing for bankruptcy each year due to medical debt.At the heart of the problem is a tax code engineered by the affluent. Billionaires now pay lower effective rates than typical workers. For example, Musk’s tax rate sits below 3.3 % compared with an 8.4 % rate for a truck driver; Jeff Bezos paid under 1 % versus 8.7 % for a firefighter; Michael Bloomberg’s rate was 1.3 % against 13.3 % for a registered nurse; and Warren Buffett’s rate was a mere 0.1 % while a schoolteacher paid nearly 10 %.Corporate tax avoidance compounds the issue. After a $900 billion corporate tax break, major firms such as Tesla, SpaceX, Palantir, Ticketmaster and the parent of Taco Bell, Pizza Hut and KFC reported zero federal income tax despite generating over $17 billion in profit.Public sentiment is shifting. In California, voters favor a billionaire tax by a two‑to‑one margin, and in New York City, 62 % back a 2 % surtax on the ultra‑wealthy. Nationwide, more than six in ten Americans believe the wealthy and large corporations pay too little.In response, Senator Sanders introduced legislation to impose a 5 % wealth tax on the 938 billionaires whose combined net worth exceeds $8.2 trillion. Over a decade, the measure would generate roughly $4.4 trillion.The first‑year rollout would deliver a $3,000 direct payment to every household earning $150,000 or less—equating to $12,000 for a typical family of four. Additional provisions include constructing 7 million affordable housing units, expanding Medicare to cover dental, vision and hearing, providing universal childcare, raising the minimum teacher salary to $60,000, and guaranteeing Medicaid‑funded home health care for seniors and people with disabilities.Crucially, the plan would reverse recent health‑care cuts that stripped coverage from 15 million Americans, ensuring no additional loss of insurance.Even if the tax were applied retroactively, the impact on the ultra‑rich would be modest relative to their fortunes: Elon Musk would owe an extra $42 billion, Mark Zuckerberg an additional $11 billion, and Jeff Bezos another $11 billion—figures that would barely dent their net worths.As Justice Louis Brandeis warned in 1933, “We must make our choice. We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we cannot have both.” Senator Sanders argues the choice is clear: a democratic economy that serves the many, not a plutocratic system that serves the 1 %.The wealthiest Americans must begin contributing their fair share.

Meta's attempt to shift the blame for a young user's mental health issues away from its platforms and onto her family and offline social problems has backfired in a landmark social media addiction trial. The company, parent of Facebook and Instagram, employed a aggressive defense strategy that included highlighting the plaintiff's complaints about her mother in her teenage text messages and personal writings.The jurors, however, were not convinced by Meta's arguments and decided 10-2 in favor of the plaintiffs, awarding $4.2m in damages from Meta and $1.8m from co-defendant YouTube. This verdict could set a precedent for thousands of similar trials already in the works against social media companies.Meta's defense strategy drew backlash from parental advocates, who argued that the company was attempting to shift the blame away from its own design choices and onto parents and users. "For the biggest tech executives, I want to say something: stop blaming the parents. It's on you," said Julianna Arnold, a co-founder of advocacy group Parents Rise!.The trial's outcome reflects a growing distrust of social media companies and their impact on society. A Pew Research Survey found that around 64% of US adults believe that social media platforms have a negative impact on the country, and around two-thirds of Americans have a negative view of Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg.The verdict has been celebrated by advocates for reining in big tech, who see it as a significant step towards holding social media companies accountable for their role in shaping societal harms. "This trial was proof that if you put CEOs like Mark Zuckerberg on the stand before a judge and jury of their peers, the tech industry's wanton disregard for people will be on full display," said Sacha Haworth, executive director of The Tech Oversight Project.

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 recent jury verdict in California has held Meta and YouTube liable for the harm caused to a young woman, KGM, due to the addictive nature of their platforms. The plaintiff claimed that her social media use, which began at the age of six, led to injuries including body dysmorphia and thoughts of self-harm.The jury's decision marks a significant milestone in the ongoing debate about the impact of social media on young people. The verdict suggests that companies like Meta and YouTube, which have been accused of designing features to keep users engaged, can be held accountable for the harm caused by their platforms.Critics of the judgment argue that it could lead to a flood of lawsuits against social media companies, while others see it as a necessary step to protect young people from the potential dangers of social media. The verdict may also prompt regulatory changes and increased scrutiny of social media companies' practices.According to a report from Brown University, social media can be addictive due to its ability to activate the brain's reward system, releasing feel-good hormones such as dopamine. This can lead to a vicious cycle of use and addiction, particularly among young people who spend many hours a day on social media.In response to growing concerns, some countries have taken action to protect young people. Australia, for example, has banned children under 16 from using social media. In the US, there have been calls for social media companies to be required to put warning labels on their sites, but such proposals have yet to gain traction.The verdict is also significant given the close ties between the tech industry and the US administration. The appointment of Mark Zuckerberg to the president's council of advisers on science and technology has raised concerns about the influence of tech companies on policy decisions.Ultimately, the jury verdict sends a clear message to tech titans that they will be held accountable for the impact of their platforms on young people. As the debate about social media regulation continues, this verdict is likely to have far-reaching implications for the industry and for the protection of young people online.

In a significant move, Meta has been ordered to pay $375m in a landmark case. This development is being seen as part of a broader big tech reckoning, with regulatory bodies taking a closer look at the practices of major technology companies. The case against Meta, formerly known as Facebook, highlights the growing scrutiny of big tech firms and their handling of user data and advertising practices. The $375m penalty is a substantial one, reflecting the seriousness with which regulators are approaching these issues. Meta's financial obligations in this case are a reminder of the regulatory risks facing big tech companies. As governments and regulatory bodies around the world continue to examine the practices of these firms, significant penalties and fines are likely to become more common. The image of Mark Zuckerberg, Meta's CEO, is a reminder of the high-profile nature of this case and the scrutiny that big tech leaders are under.

The chasm between Silicon Valley's tech elite and everyday people is growing ever larger, as the industry doubles down on artificial intelligence. Nvidia's CEO Jensen Huang predicts $1tn in sales by 2028, a staggering figure that equates to 3% of the entire US yearly GDP.Meanwhile, 65% of Americans don't use AI in their work at all, according to Pew Research. The survey also shows that Americans are wary of AI and believe both political parties are regulating it poorly. Meta is reallocating huge amounts of its spending to AI, cutting jobs and scaling back metaverse ambitions. The company's Reality Labs division has recorded losses of $80bn since 2020.In a stark illustration of the divide, Mark Zuckerberg is building an AI agent to perform his work as CEO of Meta. The AI industry is splitting away from the lives of everyday people, with exclusive polling conducted for the Guardian finding that twice as many Americans believe their financial security is getting worse than better.In other tech news, Tesla's Cybertruck has been involved in several fiery crashes, resulting in fatalities and lawsuits. The vehicle's unique design and materials have raised safety concerns, with experts alleging that the truck's design led to these worst-case scenarios.