Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

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.

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.

The Trump administration has formally opposed Anthropic's legal challenge, arguing that the Pentagon's decision to blacklist the AI firm was both lawful and necessary for national security. In a court filing submitted on Tuesday, the Justice Department contended that Anthropic’s refusal to remove guardrails preventing its technology from being used in autonomous weapons and domestic surveillance constituted conduct rather than protected speech.Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth designated Anthropic, the creator of the Claude AI assistant, a "national security supply chain risk" on March 3. This move effectively excludes the company from a limited set of military contracts. The administration’s legal team asserts that the dispute is rooted in contract negotiations and national security imperatives, not retaliation. They argue that no constitutional rights were violated because the government did not restrict the company's expressive activities.However, legal experts suggest Anthropic may have a strong case regarding potential overreach. The company is currently challenging the Pentagon's decision in California federal court. The implications of this conflict extend beyond the courtroom; Anthropic executives have warned that the blacklisting could cause billions of dollars in losses this year and severely damage the company's reputation.In a statement, Anthropic emphasized its commitment to national security while acknowledging the necessity of the lawsuit to protect its business interests and partners. The company is also pursuing a separate legal challenge in a Washington, DC, appeals court regarding a broader supply chain risk designation.

Palantir, one of the world's biggest tech companies, has been accused of launching an intimidation campaign against a small Swiss magazine, Republik, after it published an investigative report on the company's activities in Switzerland.The report, which was a collaboration between Republik and the independent Swiss research collective WAV, alleged that Palantir had persistently courted Switzerland but had been rejected. The investigation found that Palantir had pitched itself to Switzerland's chancellor during the Covid-19 pandemic to help with data tracking, approached the Swiss army, and met Switzerland's then finance minister, Ueli Maurer.Palantir was not happy with the report and filed a lawsuit in a Swiss commercial court demanding that Republik print a detailed rebuttal. The company claims that the report paints a false and misleading narrative about Palantir and sets back important discourse on European software modernisation.The journalists behind the report say they had interviewed company executives and sent a full list of questions before publication, but that Palantir demanded they print a detailed rebuttal that went beyond the scope of their investigation. The lawsuit has sparked concerns about Palantir's tactics and the impact on journalism, with the European Federation of Journalists claiming that the legal action is an attempt at intimidation aimed at discouraging critical analysis of Palantir's activities."It does feel like an intimidation campaign," says Marguerite Meyer, a journalist who works with WAV. "However, we adhered to all journalistic standards, and had a thorough factcheck done. They are suing for an absurd list of changes."The investigation, which was published in December, gave an account of Palantir's years-long efforts to try to sell itself to the Swiss government. The journalists found that despite Palantir's efforts, no government contracts had been reported."We tried to find out, is there any kind of government agency that uses this software? I mean, they are in Switzerland, eventually some government official maybe thought they could use this Palantir," says Balz Oertli, who is also with WAV.The lawsuit has raised questions about Palantir's influence and the limits of journalistic scrutiny. Swiss law allows the subjects of a story to request a right of reply, but this has caveats: the right of reply has to be concise and stick to the facts of the story."This lawsuit for a right of reply is not about whether Republik was technically inaccurate or not. It is only about whether Palantir is allowed to place its view of the facts alongside that of Republik and whether Republik must publish it," says Dominique Strebel, an expert in media law and the editor-in-chief of Beobachter, another Swiss magazine.