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.

The ongoing conflict between the United States and Iran has sparked concerns about the motivations behind Donald Trump's continued military actions. Kenneth Roth, a Guardian US columnist and former executive director of Human Rights Watch, draws a striking parallel between Trump's approach and that of Richard Nixon during the Vietnam War. Nixon's quest for 'peace with honor' in Vietnam led to years of devastation, resulting in over 20,000 American soldiers killed and a significantly higher toll among Vietnamese, Cambodian, and Laotian civilians. Similarly, Trump's conflict with Iran appears to be driven by a desire to assert dominance and protect his political reputation, rather than a clear military objective. The article questions the rationale behind Trump's continued bombing of Iran, citing claims that Iran's ballistic missile capacity has been functionally destroyed and its nuclear program 'obliterated.' With 7,000 Iranian protesters killed in January, the Trump administration's call for regime change seems unlikely to succeed. The current fixation on Iran's blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, which carries 20% of the world's oil and gas, has led to soaring petroleum prices. Trump's threat to destroy Iran's electrical infrastructure by the end of the week, unless Tehran agrees to allow the strait to reopen, raises concerns about war crimes and humanitarian consequences. Roth suggests that a de facto ceasefire, where Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu stop bombing, could be a more fruitful path to deescalation. However, Trump's desire for 'unconditional surrender' and the Iranian regime's insistence on lifting sanctions and affirming its right to nuclear enrichment complicate negotiations. The article concludes that Trump's pursuit of 'honor' and 'victory' in the conflict may come at a significant cost to the people of Iran, the global economy, and the United States itself, echoing the lessons of the Vietnam War.

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.

England cricketer Ben Duckett has made a significant decision to pull out of the upcoming Indian Premier League (IPL) to focus on his career with the England Test team. Duckett was signed by Delhi Capitals at the IPL auction in December for a substantial £200,000, but he has now withdrawn from the tournament. The decision comes after a combination of a poor Ashes series, where he played all five Tests with a highest score of 42, and heavy travel following his reserve duties at the recent T20 World Cup. Duckett believes that playing for Nottinghamshire will help him regain his form and secure his place in the England team. “It was a very difficult decision, and I want to apologise to everyone at Delhi that I won’t be coming,” Duckett told the Telegraph. “I’ve spent a lot of time away from home in different places, and it felt like the best thing for me to do to be ready to play for England is to be here right now, at home, refreshing my mind and body.” Under IPL rules, players who withdraw from the tournament for reasons other than injury face a three-year ban. Duckett follows in the footsteps of Harry Brook, who also signed for Delhi in 2025 before pulling out to prioritise his England career. Duckett’s recent performances have been under scrutiny, particularly after a video of him drunk on a night out during the team’s mid-tour break in Noosa was published on social media. He has since apologised for the incident, acknowledging that it was unprofessional. The England team is currently under pressure to refresh its lineup after the Ashes defeat. While Duckett’s opening partner, Zak Crawley, may be the likelier to make way for a newcomer, Duckett has shown promise since his return to the Test team in 2022, averaging 42 with six centuries.

Surrender to It is a film that seems to have been made without regard for the clichés that have been established by similar movies in the past. Writer-director Tim Bryn Smith appears to have ignored the criticism that greeted films like Peter's Friends back in 1992, which featured a similar premise of actors reuniting.The story revolves around a group of former thespians who met at a drama workshop and are now reuniting for a hiking weekend. The cast includes Daemian Greaves, Melissa May Smith, Fletcher Graham, and Chantelle Lee, among others. However, their performances are marred by stiff gestural quality and amateur production values.The script, credited to Bryn Smith and Chris Wetton, feels disjointed and like it was cobbled together from improv exercises and random suggestions. The film tries to balance maudlin tones with comic subplots, but the result is a mess. One subplot involves a bereaved couple mourning their dead son, while another focuses on a movie star recovering from a scandal.The film's production values are also lacking, with scissorhand editing and poorly executed plot twists. Despite its flaws, Surrender to It will be available on digital platforms from 30 March.

In the Democratic Republic of Congo, a staggering number of children are being forced into mine work due to poverty, with many working in hazardous conditions to extract valuable minerals such as coltan, tin, and tungsten. The situation is particularly dire in the eastern Congolese city of Rubaya, where 15-year-old Mishiki Nshokano is one of the children who has been working in the mines for four years to support his family.Nshokano's story is a heart-wrenching example of the desperation that drives children to work in the mines. With his father passing away in a landslide at a mining site in 2022, Nshokano had to drop out of school to help his family survive. He now works as an artisanal miner, earning a meager $4 a day, which he sends home to his mother to help them get by.The DRC government has laws prohibiting child labor, but the informal mining sector remains largely unregulated. According to the United States Bureau of International Labor Affairs, the DRC has made minimal progress in eliminating the worst forms of child labor, with an estimated 40,000 children working in mines across the country.The situation in Rubaya is further complicated by violence between the Congolese army and various armed groups, including the Rwanda-backed M23 rebel group. The Congolese government has accused the M23 of using women and children for looting activities, but observers note that child miners have been an issue in eastern DRC long before the M23 occupied the area.As the DRC and the US sign strategic agreements to exchange minerals for security guarantees, concerns are growing about the human cost of mineral mining. The UK-based organization Global Witness has called for businesses and governments to consider the human impact of mineral mining, highlighting the need for greater accountability and regulation in the industry.