Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

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 Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has accused Crispin Odey, a former hedge fund manager, of attempting to manipulate a victim of sexual assault into silence. According to evidence presented in court, Odey sent a text to his former employee in January 2022, warning her that the FCA could question her about him.Odey, who has previously accepted that he groped the woman without her consent in 2005, claimed he was under the influence of sedatives at the time. He now faces a number of sexual harassment allegations and has launched a £79m libel lawsuit against the Financial Times.The FCA's lawyer, Clare Sibson, argued that Odey was trying to manipulate the victim into silence and had a clear motive to discourage her from providing her account to the FCA. Odey, however, claimed he only wanted to ensure the woman would "tell the truth".The hearing continues, with Odey hoping to overturn the FCA's decision to ban him from the UK's financial services industry. In addition to the libel lawsuit, Odey is also facing civil personal injury claims by five women, including one who accused him of rape.

Football's world governing body FIFA is facing a lawsuit from supporter groups over allegedly 'excessive' ticket prices for the 2026 World Cup final. The Football Supporters Europe (FSE) and Euroconsumers have filed a formal complaint with the European Commission, accusing FIFA of abusing its monopoly position to impose high ticket prices and unfair purchasing conditions on European fans.The FSE claims that the cheapest openly available final tickets start at $4,185, more than seven times the cost of the cheapest 2022 World Cup final ticket. In contrast, the cheapest UEFA Euro 2024 final tickets were priced at 95 euros ($100). FIFA's own bid documents had projected an average ticket price of $1,408, which has not been met.The 2026 World Cup, hosted jointly by Canada, Mexico, and the United States, will feature 104 matches and 48 teams. While almost seven million tickets have been made available, prices have soared for in-demand games, with most tickets costing at least $200 for matches involving leading nations. Some tickets on FIFA's official resale site are being offered at astronomical prices, such as $143,750 for a category three seat at the MetLife Stadium in New Jersey.The FSE argues that FIFA's actions are unfair and unacceptable in a competitive market, highlighting the initial promise of tickets being available from as little as $21, but instead starting at $60 for some matches.

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.

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.

Anthropic, a leading artificial intelligence company, has taken the US Department of Defense to court in a bid to overturn a ban on its AI model being used by the military and government contractors. The ban was imposed after Anthropic refused to allow its Claude AI chatbot to be used for domestic mass surveillance and fully autonomous lethal weapons.The dispute centers on the company's concerns about the use of its technology for purposes that could potentially infringe on civil liberties and international humanitarian law. Anthropic's CEO, Dario Amodei, has expressed concerns about AI being used in authoritarian ways, which has led to tensions with the US government and former President Donald Trump, who has labeled the company a "RADICAL LEFT, WOKE COMPANY".In a federal court in northern California, Judge Rita Lin presided over a hearing for a temporary injunction sought by Anthropic. The company's lawsuit claims that the government's actions are unprecedented and unlawful, and that they violate Anthropic's First Amendment rights. The government, on the other hand, argues that its decision to bar the use of Anthropic's technology is a legitimate exercise of its authority.The case has significant implications for the use of AI in military and government operations, and could set a precedent for the regulation of AI technology in the US. Anthropic's technology is deeply intertwined with government operations, including in the military, where it is reportedly being used to select and analyze targets of missile strikes in Iran. The company's AI model has been used by various government agencies over the past year, making it a challenging task to disentangle federal agencies from its use.

Rapper Jay-Z recently spoke out about a sexual assault lawsuit filed against him and Sean 'Diddy' Combs' in 2024. The lawsuit alleged that both men raped a 13-year-old girl at a party in 2000, which both Jay-Z and Combs vehemently denied.In a recent interview with GQ, Jay-Z explained why he chose to fight the lawsuit rather than settle. He stated, 'I can’t take a settlement – it ain’t in my DNA.' He further emphasized that settling would have been difficult for him and his family, particularly his wife Beyoncé.Jay-Z expressed that he was 'heartbroken' and 'angry' when the allegations first emerged. He described the experience as 'really hard' and mentioned that he hadn't felt 'uncontrollable anger' in a long time. The rapper emphasized the importance of being certain before making such serious accusations against someone.The lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed in February 2025. Jay-Z's attorney, Alex Spiro, previously described the claims as 'provably, demonstrably false' and highlighted an 'impossible timeline.'In addition to discussing the lawsuit, Jay-Z touched on other topics, including the beef between Kendrick Lamar and Drake and what he described as a 'right-wing agenda to silence voices in the hip-hop community.' He expressed concern about the negative impact of such conflicts on social media and the involvement of people's families.Jay-Z also reflected on 30 years since the release of his debut album Reasonable Doubt, which he will celebrate with two shows at New York's Yankee Stadium in July.

Crispin Odey, a 67-year-old hedge fund tycoon, appeared in a London courtroom on the first day of a three-week trial to challenge the Financial Conduct Authority's (FCA) decision to ban him from the UK's financial services industry. The ban was imposed due to allegations of sexual harassment made by several women. Odey testified that he did not recall cornering a female employee after a boozy lunch and saying to her 'I could attack you now'. However, the employee's diary entry, dated January 24, 2020, confirmed the incident, stating: 'Comes back from boozy lunch and corners me in the corridor. Him: I could attack you now. Me: Please don’t. Him: You could sue me for that.' Odey admitted to having groped a colleague's breasts without her consent in 2005, which he attributed to being under sedatives after root canal treatment. He claimed the woman accepted his apology and continued to work for the firm for another eight years. The FCA alleges that Odey showed a 'lack of integrity' by attempting to frustrate an investigation into allegations of sexual harassment. Odey denied these allegations, stating that he had attempted to have the FCA rule on whether he was fit and proper first. Odey is also facing a £79m libel lawsuit against the Financial Times and civil personal injury claims by five women, including one who accused him of rape. The hearing continues.

The recent sanctions imposed by the Trump administration against a UN human rights expert have raised alarm bells about the state of free speech and the ability to criticize government policies without fear of retribution. The expert, Francesca Albanese, was appointed by the United Nations to monitor human rights in occupied Palestine. Her offense was recommending that the International Criminal Court (ICC) issue arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for war crimes committed in Gaza. The sanctions, which amount to a "civil death," have effectively silenced Albanese, preventing her from opening a bank account, selling her Washington DC house, or drawing a salary from American universities that employed her. This has had a ripple effect, causing fear among faculty and students on campuses who are now hesitant to criticize Israel's human rights record. The executive order signed by Trump threatens to criminally prosecute anyone who provides Albanese or other designated figures with "funds, goods, or services." This vague language has led to a Maine university canceling an academic conference where Albanese was to make an unpaid appearance via Zoom. The authors of the article, a group of North American university professors and human rights lawyers, argue that this has created a chilling effect on free speech, deterring people from expressing their views for fear of facing sanctions or arrest. They have filed a "friend-of-the-court" brief in support of a lawsuit filed by Albanese's husband and daughter against Trump's unconstitutional sanctions. The targeting of Albanese has significant implications beyond those focused on Israel's human rights record. It should concern anyone who believes in free speech and the ability to challenge those in power without fear of retribution. When a government claims the authority to police ideas, everyone's liberty is on the line.