Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

The Australian government has accused major tech firms, including Meta, TikTok, and Google, of failing to comply with a landmark ban on under-16s using social media. The ban, which came into effect last December, aims to protect children from the potential harms of social media.A survey of 900 Australian parents found that around a third (31%) said their children still had one or more social media accounts after the ban, compared to 49% before the laws. Specifically, the survey revealed that 70% of under-16s who had accounts on Instagram, Snapchat, and TikTok before the ban maintained access.The eSafety Commission claimed that the technology being used by these companies, such as facial age estimation, was not effective enough. The commission alleged that the firms had lax guardrails which allowed teens to repeatedly attempt age verification until they were successful. 'None of this is impossible. None of this is even difficult for big tech who are innovative billion-dollar companies. What this update shows is unacceptable,' said Australia's communications minister, Anika Wells.The social media minimum age laws specify that Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, Threads, TikTok, Twitch, X, YouTube, Kick, and Reddit are 'age-restricted platforms', banning under-16s from holding accounts and requiring those companies to take reasonable steps to prevent children from opening or holding accounts. The laws carry a maximum A$49.5m (US$33.9m, £25.7m) penalty.In response, Meta said it was committed to complying with the social media ban and working with eSafety and the government. The company highlighted the challenge of accurately determining age online, particularly at the age-16 boundary. 'The most effective, privacy-protective and consistent approach is to require robust age verification and parental approval at the app store and operating system level before a teen can download an app or create an account,' Meta stated.TikTok and Google were contacted for comment but did not respond by publication time. The government said in January that more than 4.7m social media accounts were deactivated, removed, or restricted in the first days after the ban came into effect.

The UK government is faced with a critical decision on whether to adopt a new law that would require online pornography providers to verify the consent of participants in their content. This move is aimed at curbing the rampant abuse and exploitation prevalent in the industry. The need for such a law has become increasingly evident following several high-profile cases, including a New York Times investigation into Pornhub, which found that the platform hosted videos featuring underaged and sex-trafficked subjects. Similarly, the trial of Dominique Pelicot exposed the horrific abuse of a woman who was raped while unconscious, with the perpetrator sharing videos of the assault online. The proposed legislation, championed by Conservative peer Gabby Bertin, would compel digital pornography businesses to verify the identities of all those featured and confirm that their consent has been obtained. This measure has garnered support from senior Labour figures and influential peers, including Beeban Kidron and Helena Kennedy. The UK's online safety act, introduced last year, brought in age verification for sites hosting user-generated content and gave the regulator, Ofcom, powers to fine or block businesses. However, concerns about consent in relation to professionally produced pornography remain. The Labour MP Diana Johnson was the first to propose consent verification and a new right for performers to withdraw it. The government now faces a choice: accept the bill as amended and make the UK a pioneer in online pornography regulation, or strip the new clause out. The outcome is far from guaranteed, but the pressure from Bertin and her allies has already led ministers to agree to outlaw strangulation imagery and scenes purporting to show incest. Campaigners argue that the regulation is crucial in tackling online misogyny and the soaring rate of child sexual abuse in the UK. The National Crime Agency has blamed online image-sharing and chatrooms for the increase in child sexual abuse, with livestreams featuring children available for as little as £20. The proposed law would also address the issue of deepfake pornographic images, which were outlawed last year thanks to the courage of survivors and a group of women in parliament. As the bill returns to the Commons, the government should throw its weight behind a new, stronger model of consent, ensuring that those who agree to be filmed having sex have the right to withdraw permission for others to watch.

Apple has introduced a new requirement for UK iPhone users, mandating them to confirm they are 18 or older to use certain services. This move, believed to be a first for a European market, comes as part of a broader effort to protect children online. The age verification process can be completed by uploading a credit card or scanning an ID, such as a driving license or national ID. Ofcom, the online regulator, has welcomed the change, calling it “a real win for children and families” and part of a wider drive to “keep young people away from harmful content”. The update is part of a software update and aims to restrict access to certain services and features for users under 18. However, some users have expressed concerns about the privacy implications of uploading personal information for age verification. Apple has assured users that if they already have an account, they can confirm their age with a payment method on file or other eligible methods. The company was unable to immediately specify which services, features, or actions would be inaccessible without age confirmation. This development follows the introduction of age verification gates on many web services, including pornography websites, to comply with the Online Safety Act. Ofcom noted that Apple’s decision makes the UK one of the first countries to receive new child safety protections on devices. The watchdog plans to report on the use of app stores by children and evaluate the effectiveness of age assurance by app store providers.

A New Mexico jury has ordered Meta to pay $375m in civil penalties after finding the company liable for misleading consumers about the safety of its platforms and enabling harm, including child sexual exploitation. This verdict marks the first bench trial to find Meta liable for acts committed on its platform. The lawsuit, brought by New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez, claimed that Meta executives knew their products harmed children but disregarded warnings from their own employees and lied to the public about the risks. The jury found Meta liable for violating New Mexico's consumer protection laws, specifically the Unfair Practices Act. The penalty of $375m is the maximum allowed under the law of $5,000 per violation. Meta has announced its intention to appeal the ruling, accusing Torrez of making 'sensationalist, irrelevant arguments.' Internal Meta documents and testimony revealed that company employees and external child safety experts repeatedly warned about risks on Meta's platforms. Evidence presented included details of a sting investigation, 'Operation MetaPhile,' which led to the arrest of three men charged with sexually preying on children through Meta's platforms. The New Mexico court also heard about deficiencies in Meta's reporting of crimes on its platforms, including the exchange of child sexual abuse material. Meta generated high volumes of 'junk' reports by overly relying on AI to moderate its platforms, making it difficult for law enforcement to investigate crimes. In the next phase of the legal proceedings, the attorney general's office will seek additional financial penalties and court-mandated changes to Meta's platforms to offer stronger protections for children. The state is seeking design feature changes, including 'enacting effective age verification, removing predators from the platform, and protecting minors from encrypted communications.' This verdict is seen as a 'historic victory' for children and families who have been affected by Meta's actions. The case may also open the floodgates to further litigation and regulation of social media companies.

US lawmakers, including Senator Chris Murphy and Representative Greg Casar, are taking steps to regulate prediction markets by introducing the Banning Event Trading on Sensitive Operations and Federal Functions (BETS OFF) Act. This legislation seeks to prohibit wagers on sensitive events such as government actions, terrorism, war, assassination, and events where an individual knows or controls the outcome. The proposed bill comes in response to concerns that betting platforms like Kalshi and Polymarket have allowed users to profit from geopolitical conflicts, including the US and Israel's joint strikes against Iran and the abduction of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro. Critics argue that these platforms enable individuals with insider knowledge to influence government decisions and profit from them. Murphy emphasized that the legislation aims to prevent the monetization of sensitive events, stating, "What happens to us spiritually when every moral question in this country becomes a market?" He added that certain matters should not be influenced by the potential for profit. The lawmakers cited examples of significant profits made by users on Polymarket, including a $500,000 profit from a bet on Iran's supreme leader being out of power hours before a strike. They suggested that such trades may have been made by individuals with insider knowledge from within the White House or close to the administration. The BETS OFF Act is part of a broader effort to regulate the prediction market industry. Other proposed legislation includes measures to establish federal consumer protections, ban elected officials from profiting from prediction markets, and impose age verification for users.