Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

US senators have strongly rebuked Ticketmaster for increasing ticket fees following a regulatory crackdown on hidden charges. This move has been described as a 'bait and switch' tactic, leaving consumers with higher costs.The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) had mandated Ticketmaster to disclose all concert ticket fees upfront, known as all-in pricing, starting last May. In response, the company removed the order processing fee charged at the end of a transaction. However, documents obtained by the Guardian reveal that Ticketmaster simply raised other fees to offset the loss, potentially violating the FTC's ban on misleading fees.Senator Richard Blumenthal from Connecticut expressed his concerns, stating, 'Ticketmaster seems to believe it has a get-out-of-jail-free card to ignore antitrust and consumer protection laws. The FTC is going to have to choose whether to protect consumers and enforce the law, or cave to Ticketmaster lobbyists.'The FTC had sued Ticketmaster and its parent company, Live Nation Entertainment, last September for hiding mandatory fees until the end of the transaction. Ticketmaster claims it complies with the FTC's all-in pricing rules.In response to the criticism, Ticketmaster stated, 'Since May 2025, tickets on Ticketmaster.com have displayed the full price upfront in line with the FTC's all-in pricing rule. We also provide explanations of fees during the purchase process and maintain a dedicated page with additional information.'Senator Elizabeth Warren from Massachusetts also criticized Ticketmaster, saying, 'Too many giant monopolies think the law doesn’t apply to them, and it’s American families who are forced to pay the price.'An ongoing federal trial is examining whether Ticketmaster operates an illegal monopoly in the live music industry. The company denies these allegations.

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.'

TikTok announced the removal of a high‑profile Israeli far‑right influencer’s account after The Guardian identified videos in which he assaulted left‑wing activists in the occupied West Bank. The platform said the content breached its community guidelines on hate speech and bullying. The influencer, identified as Roi Star, posted footage in January showing himself entering a house used by activists in Ras Ein al‑Auja and using pepper spray on a protester who tried to stop him. In the same clip, he shouted, “This is Judea, not Palestine,” and later threatened to disclose personal details of the activists and their families. When contacted, Star claimed he was “talking about peace” and argued that the area was an open Israeli public space, insisting that his use of pepper spray was the “most minimal” defensive measure. He later described the incident as “acting” and said his intentions were not “extreme.” TikTok’s statement emphasized that its policies prohibit “violent and hateful individuals, including extremist praise or glorification,” and that the account was taken down for breaching these rules. The company also said it had removed additional videos linked to other Israeli far‑right agitators, though it did not disclose further details. The incident occurs against a backdrop of rising far‑right activity on social platforms since the Gaza war began in October 2023. Israeli forces and settlers have been responsible for the deaths of over 1,000 Palestinians in the West Bank, and recent weeks have seen an escalation of attacks on homes and activists. Human‑rights groups warn that the online amplification of such content fuels real‑world violence. Yuli Novak, executive director of B’Tselem, said dehumanising Palestinians has become “mainstream in Israel,” while digital‑media scholar Prof. Anat Ben‑David highlighted the “troubling convergence between platform dynamics and on‑the‑ground violence.” Activists on the ground report a profound psychological impact, with one resident of Masafer Yatta noting that the videos heighten fear among Palestinians living under daily settler attacks. The phenomenon mirrors the rhetoric of Israel’s far‑right politicians. In August 2025, National Security Minister Itamar Ben‑Gvir faced criticism for posting a video taunting Palestinian leader Marwan Barghouti, while Knesset member Zvi Sukkot was filmed denying settler violence in the West Bank, framing the settlement enterprise as a biblical right. Meta’s Instagram continues to host numerous accounts linked to similar agitators, though the company has not responded to requests for comment. Experts argue that while platform policies technically forbid hate‑speech, their vague language allows harmful content to spread unchecked, underscoring the need for stronger enforcement to curb the digital propagation of extremist narratives.

Ministers are rewriting planning rules to make it easier to approve intensive livestock farms, despite ongoing concerns about water pollution, air quality and local opposition.Freedom of Information documents obtained by the Guardian reveal that proposed changes to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) have been discussed in response to lobbying by the country’s leading chicken producers for at least two years.The British Poultry Council (BPC) told farming minister Angela Eagle last autumn that “access to more growing space is the number one priority for the poultry meat sector.”In a submission to the government’s farm profitability review, the BPC argued that the need for a solution—whether through planning reform or land‑use policy—“dwarfs all other issues currently facing us.”Ahead of a January round‑table with Eagle, the BPC urged the government to “develop national planning direction and oversight for food production … to safeguard the UK’s long‑term food security.”Eagle responded that the government has “announced proposals to reform the planning system to more quickly unlock food and farming infrastructure,” emphasizing that “planning should enable ambition, not stifle it.”Her briefing notes directly linked the proposed changes to industry lobbying, describing planning reform as one of the sector’s “biggest asks” and noting that the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government are working to “find solutions to planning barriers to poultry sheds and other infrastructure necessary for food production.”The draft NPPF includes several measures that could ease approval of new intensive livestock developments: a higher threshold for refusing applications on environmental grounds, reduced scope for local authorities to adopt tougher rules, greater weight given to “domestic food production,” and a new emphasis on “better accommodation for livestock.”The industry says it needs extra space to house chickens because of voluntary commitments to lower stocking density. Critics point out that these welfare commitments are not legally binding and that planning conditions do not guarantee long‑term compliance. Recent withdrawals by restaurant chains from the Better Chicken Commitment underscore the controversy.Richard Griffiths, chief executive of the BPC, said the reforms are needed to accommodate welfare improvements rather than to expand production, noting a voluntary reduction in stocking density from 38 kg to 30 kg per square metre.Griffiths warned that failing to support domestic production could increase imports, and the BPC has called for food production to be classified as “critical national infrastructure.”Prof. Paul Behrens of the University of Oxford countered that the food‑security case for intensive poultry is “illusory” because the sector depends on imported feed and vitamins and is vulnerable to disease outbreaks such as avian flu.Opposition to poultry megafarms is organised, with local residents raising concerns over water pollution, air quality and the climate crisis. The Environment Agency estimates agriculture accounts for roughly 70 % of nitrate and 25‑30 % of phosphorus pollution in UK waterways, and runoff from intensive poultry units contributes to that burden.Last year, Norfolk councillors rejected Cranswick’s plan for a 900,000‑bird chicken farm after the company failed to demonstrate that the development would not cause “significant adverse effects on protected sites.”The BPC has also urged early intervention by the Planning Inspectorate to minimise delays, arguing that centralised oversight would bring objectivity to a system where “naysayers, particularly via social media, have a disproportionate sway in the decision‑making process.”Campaign group Communities Against Factory Farming warned that the proposed regime “risks embedding decades of industrial livestock land use in rural and green‑belt locations without adequate scrutiny,” giving “substantial weight” to the economic benefits of intensification.A government spokesperson rejected claims that the NPPF proposals are driven by lobbying, stating that they have been carefully considered to balance sector support with broader priorities such as food security and environmental protection.

A Lahore court has ruled in favor of Pakistani singer Ali Zafar in his defamation case against fellow singer Meesha Shafi. On Tuesday, the court ordered Shafi to pay Zafar 5 million rupees ($17,900) in damages.Zafar sued Shafi for defamation in 2018 after she accused him of sexual harassment in Pakistan’s highest-profile #MeToo case.The court’s ruling states that a 2018 social media post by Shafi and an interview she gave to a lifestyle magazine contained “false, defamatory and injurious imputations” against Zafar. The court found that her allegations of sexual harassment of a physical nature had not been proved to be true or shown to be made for the public good, and therefore constituted actionable defamation.The court's decision has sparked concerns that it may set a “deeply troubling precedent” that could discourage victims of sexual harassment from speaking out. Nighat Dad, Shafi's lawyer, stated that the appeal is likely to challenge the judgement on several grounds, including the trial court's selective interpretation of evidence and failure to consider material evidence presented by Shafi.The dispute between Shafi and Zafar has unfolded over several years, with both parties filing complaints against each other. Shafi’s original complaint of sexual harassment against Zafar has been pending before the Supreme Court for several years, and her civil defamation suit against Zafar is also still pending.

The US government's Endangered Species Committee has voted unanimously to exempt oil and gas drillers in the Gulf of Mexico from protections under the Endangered Species Act. This decision, made during a rare meeting, has significant implications for vulnerable species in the region.The committee, composed of six senior Trump officials, including Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, argued that environmental rules could hinder US energy production, particularly during the ongoing tensions with Iran. Hegseth stated that disruptions to Gulf oil production would not only affect the US but also benefit its adversaries.The exemption is only the fourth time in US history that the Endangered Species Committee has convened, and the third time it has granted an exemption to the Endangered Species Act. Rice's whale, with only about 50 remaining, is one of the species protected by the act in the Gulf of Mexico. Other species, such as birds, sea turtles, and Gulf sturgeon, are also safeguarded.Environmental groups have strongly objected to the decision, labeling the committee a 'god squad' due to its power over species' existence. They plan to challenge the exemptions, arguing that the Trump administration failed to follow the protocols set out under the Endangered Species Act and that the rationale for the exemption is not justified by facts.This move is part of the Trump administration's broader effort to roll back environmental protections and promote pro-fossil fuel policies, despite dismissing climate change as a 'hoax'. Critics warn that this action could lead to the extinction of species, with one expert stating that Trump could be the first person in history to knowingly extirpate a species from the face of the earth.

Chelsea Football Club has reported a staggering £262.4m pre-tax loss for the 2024-25 season, shattering the previous English football record held by Manchester City. The substantial loss is primarily attributed to increased operating costs compared to the previous season. The club's financial report reveals a significant downturn from the £128.4m profit recorded in the 2023-24 season, which was largely bolstered by the sale of Chelsea's women's team for nearly £200m. In contrast, Chelsea's latest financial statements reflect a challenging period for the club. According to a UEFA report, Chelsea's losses for the 2024-25 season were even higher, estimated at €407m (£355m). However, club sources indicate that these figures are influenced by differing reporting requirements in European football. In addition to the financial loss, Chelsea disclosed that they had spent £65.1m on agents' fees, the highest in the Premier League, with Aston Villa being the next biggest spenders at £38.4m. The total spend on agents' fees across English top-flight clubs rose by 13% to £460.3m. Despite the record loss, Chelsea assured compliance with the Premier League's profitability and sustainability rules (PSR), which permit maximum losses of £105m over three years, with certain expenditures like infrastructure and youth development being 'added back.' Chelsea reported revenue of £490.9m, the second-highest on record for the club, including earnings from their participation in the Club World Cup. The club is forecasting revenue of over £700m for the 2025-26 season. Sources close to Chelsea express confidence in their financial structuring and anticipate compliance with all regulatory requirements, including UEFA's football earnings rule, following a €20m fine for previous breaches.

The families of British citizens held in the United Arab Emirates over allegations that they shared images of the conflict with Iran have expressed frustration at the British government's failure to help.Several British citizens are among more than 100 foreign nationals who have been detained under draconian Emirate rules that outlaw publishing or sharing material that could 'disturb public security'.UK government ministers have refused to condemn the arrests, amid claims they are too fearful of offending the Emirates because of their economic clout.The campaign group Dubai Watch, which is supporting nine British detainees, said their identities could not be revealed for fear of reprisals. But it has shown the Guardian anonymised correspondence from their increasingly anxious families.A mother whose daughter is being held wrote: 'This experience is exhausting, mentally and emotionally.'She described reading media reports about the continuing conflict in which Iran has retaliated against US and Israelis strikes by firing drones and missiles against its Gulf neighbours, including the UAE.She said: 'I have just read another article, and quite frankly I could do one purely on the inadequacies and sycophantic responses from this [UK] embassy.'She also expressed increasing fears for her daughter's safety as attacks continued. The mother said: 'I spoke to [my daughter] last night and they are no longer allowed to go outside in the courtyard as it's now deemed too dangerous to do so. This is an even bigger worry as they are all just sitting ducks.'Another message from a woman whose husband had been detained under the same law said the case had been 'mishandled'. She added: 'We are scared because nobody is telling us the truth. Can you please help us.'Police in Abu Dhabi said those detained had 'filmed sites and events and disseminated inaccurate information via social media platforms during the ongoing events, an action that could stir public opinion and spread rumours among community members'. In a statement, the officials said these 'violations' amounted to a 'misuse of social media'.Daisy Cooper, the deputy leader of the Liberal Democrats, confirmed that one of the detainees was a St Albans' constituent. She said their family was frustrated by the lack of consular help.Cooper told the Guardian: 'I'm deeply concerned that my constituent has been held with very little contact with their family, with no clear access to legal counsel, and no confirmation that UK consular officials have been permitted to visit them. The family are distressed and desperate for information about their wellbeing.'Cooper also criticised the UAE's round-up of anyone it has accused of sharing images of the conflict. She said: 'The response from the authorities appears wholly disproportionate given the nature of the allegations.'The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office confirmed that five UK nationals were receiving consular assistance in the UAE.David Haigh, a human rights lawyer and founder of Dubai Watch, said: 'There's an awful lot more than five cases. The embassy is overwhelmed.'He added: 'There hasn't been any government intervention because it would offend the UAE and they don't want to do that. Impotent is the best way to describe the response. They're too scared – it's all about the money and investment from the UAE.'

Berkeley, one of Britain’s largest housebuilders, said it will cease buying new land and impose a hiring freeze as it confronts the impact of the Iran war and broader geopolitical volatility on the UK property market.The FTSE 100 company warned that a reduced likelihood of further interest‑rate cuts and soaring regulatory costs could weigh heavily on its business, prompting cost‑cutting measures that also include using fewer subcontractors.In a significant outlook revision, Berkeley now expects to generate more than £1.4 billion in pre‑tax profit between 2027 and 2030, a stark increase from the roughly £450 million it had forecast for the current year and 2027.Market reaction was swift: the company’s shares plunged up to 18 % on Wednesday morning, later recovering to sit about 13 % lower, making Berkeley the worst performer on the FTSE 100 that day.Berkeley’s statement noted that early‑2026 sales showed modest recovery, but “recent geopolitical events and the macro‑economic consequences, including reduced potential for further rate cuts, could reduce confidence in a near‑term market recovery.”The firm cited “unprecedented” increases in costs and regulation, alongside weak buyer demand, as reasons for halting land purchases, arguing it can no longer achieve a sufficient rate of return on new sites due to a continuous rise in tax and regulatory burdens.These challenges arrive as the UK government pushes to meet ambitious new‑home building targets, while the sector grapples with higher taxation, new building‑safety rules, and longer planning timelines—Berkeley estimates approvals now take about 12 months longer than before.The ongoing war in Iran has amplified inflation fears, lifted mortgage rates above 5 % and heightened mortgage‑cost pressures for consumers, according to Moneyfacts data.Competitors such as Barratt, Redrow and Persimmon have also suffered, each losing more than 20 % of their market value, underscoring the broader stress across the housing‑construction industry.Berkeley, headquartered in Surrey, employs over 2,500 people and focuses on brownfield regeneration projects. It holds land sufficient for 50,000 homes with an additional pipeline for 10,000 homes in London and the south‑east, but will slow construction on existing sites to match market demand and regulator approvals.