Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

The US Court of International Trade is hearing oral arguments in a case aimed at overturning President Donald Trump's global import tariffs. The tariffs, which were imposed in February, have been met with opposition from several US states and small businesses.The plaintiffs, including 24 mostly Democratic-led states and two small businesses, argue that the 10% global import tax sidesteps a Supreme Court ruling that invalidated most of Trump's previous tariffs. They claim that the tariffs are based on archaic authority meant to protect the US dollar from sudden depreciation in the 1970s, not to address routine trade deficits.Oregon's lawyer, Brian Marshall, told the judges that they should block the tariffs rather than let them expire on the normal 150-day timeline, to prevent Trump from invoking laws to keep them indefinitely. "[If] we have a successive series where there's always tariffs in place, that's a problem," Marshall said.The Trump administration has argued that the global tariffs are a legal and appropriate response to a persistent trade deficit caused by the fact that the US imports more goods than it exports. "President Trump is lawfully using the executive powers granted to him by Congress to address our country's balance of payments crisis," White House spokesperson Kush Desai said.The case is significant as it challenges Trump's use of Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which authorises duties of up to 15% for up to 150 days on imports during "large and serious United States balance-of-payments deficits" or to prevent imminent depreciation of the dollar.

The United States government has reaffirmed its position that it plans to deport Salvadoran immigrant Kilmar Abrego Garcia to Liberia, despite arguments that doing so would be vindictive.On Tuesday, lawyers for the administration of President Donald Trump told US federal judge Paula Xinis that it remains committed to Liberia as a destination.Abrego Garcia, however, has said that, if he must be deported, he would prefer to be sent to Costa Rica, and the government there has indicated it would accept him.But the Trump administration’s insistence on sending Abrego Garcia to Africa has raised questions about its motive.Critics have accused the US government of seeking retribution against Abrego Garcia, whose case has spurred scrutiny over the legality of Trump’s mass deportation campaign.The case began with a high-profile mistake. In March 2025, less than three months into Trump’s second term, Abrego Garcia was wrongfully deported to his native El Salvador, in violation of a 2019 protection order that found he could face gang violence if returned to the country.The Trump administration, at the time, described Abrego Garcia’s removal as an “administrative error”.Still, it initially refused to seek his return, arguing that Abrego Garcia was a gang member and that, once abroad, he was subject to El Salvador’s leadership. Abrego Garcia, though, had no criminal record at the time of his deportation.Abrego Garcia was imprisoned, first at El Salvador’s Terrorism Confinement Centre (CECOT) and later in a second prison in Santa Ana, El Salvador.Meanwhile, lawyers in the US had turned to US courts to reverse his deportation.In early April 2025, Judge Xinis ruled that the US government had to “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s return to the country, and later that month, the US Supreme Court upheld her ruling in a unanimous decision.But it was only in June 2025 that Abrego Garcia was brought back to the US. In announcing Abrego Garcia’s return, the Trump administration revealed it would be filing criminal charges against him for human smuggling.He pleaded not guilty, but was forced to remain in jail. The Trump administration had deemed him a flight risk, and his own lawyers feared that stepping out of his jail cell would land him in immigration detention instead.When a court ordered his release in August, this is exactly what happened: Immigration agents took him back into custody within days.Authorities at the time said they would deport him to Uganda. Later, they changed the proposed destination to Liberia.Abrego Garcia was ultimately freed from immigration detention in December, but he continues to fight both his criminal charges and his deportation proceedings.At Tuesday’s hearing, Judge Xinis questioned why the Trump administration would not consider deporting Abrego Garcia to Costa Rica instead of Liberia.She pointed out that the country had recently inked an agreement to accept 25 removals from the US per week.In response, Ernesto Molina, the director of the Justice Department’s Office of Immigration Litigation, suggested that Abrego Garcia could “remove himself” to Costa Rica.But Xinis called the proposal a “fantasy” and noted that he cannot leave as long as the Justice Department is prosecuting him on criminal charges. He is legally required to attend his criminal hearings.After the tense exchange, Xinis set another hearing on the matter for April 28.

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.'

UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer has expressed strong support for curbing addictive social media features that target children, stating that the government 'will have to act' to regulate these features. In an interview with the Sunday Mirror, Starmer emphasized that these features 'shouldn’t be permitted' and that the government is committed to taking action.The government's education secretary, Bridget Phillipson, also weighed in on the issue, stating that social media platforms are 'designed to keep you there' and that the government will closely examine how to tackle addictive features. The comments come amid a growing debate about the impact of social media on children's mental health and wellbeing.The UK government's consultation on social media regulation has garnered significant attention, with nearly 30,000 parents and children responding to the digital wellbeing consultation. The government is considering a range of options, including a ban on social media for under-16s, which has already been enacted in Australia.The move comes after a US court ruling found Meta and Google liable for a woman's childhood social media addiction, awarding $6m in damages. The companies plan to appeal the decision. The UK government's consultation will also examine the use of addictive algorithms and algorithmically driven content on social media platforms.As part of the consultation, hundreds of UK teenagers will trial social media bans, digital curfews, and time limits on apps as part of a government pilot. The government aims to introduce significant changes to regulate social media and protect children online.

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.

The recent landmark decisions against Meta and YouTube by two US juries have sent a strong message to tech companies. The cases, which focused on the deliberate design of addictive products that harmed a child, have been hailed as a major victory for campaigners pushing for change.In one case, Meta was found liable for $375m in civil liabilities over the use of Facebook and Instagram for child sex trafficking in New Mexico. The state's attorney general is seeking platform changes and financial penalties.The verdicts, which are expected to be appealed, demonstrate a shifting attitude towards tech companies and their responsibility to protect users, particularly children. Internal documents revealing executives' cavalier approach to young people's safety have been made public, providing critics with valuable evidence.While it is too early to declare a reckoning similar to that faced by big tobacco in the 1990s, the current push towards stronger regulation is gaining momentum. Governments and civil society are increasingly holding tech companies accountable for their impact on public health.The precautionary approach to children's safety has been highlighted as crucial, with young minds being particularly vulnerable to the attention economy's assault. Fortunately, governments and courts are taking steps to regulate social media companies and force them to take responsibility for their impact.In Australia, social media companies have been told to leave children alone, while in the UK, the government has issued guidance on screen time and is considering restricting children's use. Design features such as infinite scroll and gaming-type rewards have been identified as key factors in the addictive nature of social media.Ultimately, a whole society approach is needed to reduce our dependence on social media and work out what safeguards are needed for adults and children alike. The events of the past week have made this goal a bit more achievable.

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.