Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

Jeffrey Stephen Wigand, a biochemist who helped reveal how tobacco companies targeted children and hid the addictive nature of cigarettes, has been drawing parallels between the tobacco industry and social media companies. Wigand, who played a crucial role in the landmark tobacco trials of the 1990s, believes that social media companies have similarly designed their products to be addictive, particularly targeting children.The recent verdict in a major social media trial, which found Meta and YouTube liable for their role in creating addictive products, has strengthened comparisons to the legal crackdown on big tobacco. Wigand sees it as a similar situation, where companies prioritize profits over people's well-being. He notes that both industries use advertisements to target children, with social media companies using data to create addictive algorithms.Wigand's experience in the tobacco industry informs his perspective on social media. He was hired by Brown & Williamson (B&W;) in 1989 to develop a safer cigarette but was fired after raising concerns about carcinogenic substances in cigarettes. He then publicly declared that the tobacco industry was a 'nicotine delivery business' and helped the federal government in its investigations.Wigand believes that social media companies, like tobacco companies, intentionally addict people, especially children, to generate revenue. He emphasizes that brain development in children makes them vulnerable to addiction, and that social media companies exploit this vulnerability.The tobacco industry faced significant reforms and financial penalties following Wigand's whistleblowing. He hopes that similar actions will be taken against social media companies, including putting guardrails on access for children and holding companies accountable for their role in creating harm. Wigand's message to tech workers considering becoming whistleblowers is to carefully weigh the personal costs and prepare for the challenges that come with speaking out.

The Paris Appeals Court on Wednesday rejected Tunisia's request to extradite Halima Ben Ali, the daughter of the late former president Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, who faces accusations of laundering assets acquired during her father's 1987‑2011 rule.The ruling was anchored in Tunisia's failure to provide guarantees of an independent and impartial trial, a prerequisite under French and international extradition standards.Halima Ben Ali was detained in September 2025 at Tunisia's behest as she prepared to board a flight from Paris to Dubai. Authorities allege she participated in the laundering of wealth amassed under her father's regime.Her lawyer, Samia Maktouf, warned that sending her back would be tantamount to “a death sentence.” After the verdict, Maktouf described the decision as “an immense relief” and affirmed that justice had been served in accordance with the law.Tunisian prosecutors say the alleged financial crimes could carry a sentence of up to 20 years in prison, underscoring the broader push to recover misappropriated assets and hold the Ben Ali family accountable more than a decade after the Arab Spring uprisings.The case revives debate over the legacy of Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, who was ousted in 2011, fled to Saudi Arabia, died in exile in 2019, and was sentenced in absentia to life imprisonment by a Tunisian court.While the French decision may strain diplomatic ties, it also signals Paris' commitment to uphold procedural safeguards when handling extradition requests linked to politically sensitive cases.

Ben Jamal, director of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, and Chris Nineham, vice‑chair of the Stop the War Coalition, were each convicted on Wednesday for breaching conditions set by the Metropolitan Police during a large‑scale pro‑Palestine rally on 18 January 2025. The court found they failed to keep the march within a police‑designated zone in central London and, in Jamal’s case, actively encouraged other demonstrators to do the same. The trial, held at Westminster Magistrates’ Court, concluded that both men were fully aware of the restrictions, given their leadership roles in planning the event. The judges noted that Jamal’s remarks amounted to “incitement” because they urged participants to disregard the stipulated boundaries, including the area surrounding the BBC headquarters on Portland Place. Supporters packed the public gallery, with former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn among those present as the verdict was read, according to the PA news agency. In response, the Palestine Solidarity Campaign described the ruling as a “disgraceful decision” and asserted that “the fight is not over.” The statement, posted on X, warned that the judgment undermines the fundamental right to protest. Human Rights Watch UK director Yasmine Ahmed condemned the outcome, calling it a “black mark on British democracy” and suggesting the verdict is part of a broader governmental effort to silence dissent against Israel’s actions in Gaza. The conviction arrives amid mounting tension between law‑enforcement agencies and the UK’s sizable Palestine solidarity movement. Since the conflict in Gaza escalated in October 2023, tens of thousands of Britons have taken to the streets, and thousands of peaceful demonstrators have been arrested for displaying slogans such as “I oppose genocide, I support Palestine Action.” Human Rights Watch’s research highlights a “disproportionate targeting” of pro‑Palestine activists, arguing that the current anti‑protest legislation threatens the ability to protest without fear of harassment. Activists are already gearing up for another large gathering scheduled for 11 April, when supporters of the direct‑action group Palestine Action plan to demonstrate again in London, despite recent arrests and ongoing legal pressure. Overall, the verdict underscores a growing debate over the balance between public order and civil liberties in the United Kingdom, with implications for future demonstrations linked to the Gaza war and broader international human‑rights concerns.

Two prominent leaders in the Palestine solidarity movement in Britain have been found guilty of breaching protest conditions, in what campaigners called a “grotesque” and “shocking” decision.Ben Jamal, 62, the director of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC), and Chris Nineham, 63, vice-chair of the Stop the War Coalition, were accused of failing to comply with conditions imposed on a protest on 18 January 2025. They were subsequently charged with public order offences.The 18 January protest was one of 34 national pro-Palestine demonstrations held since the start of the war on Gaza in October 2023. On Wednesday, Jamal and Nineham were found guilty after a trial at Westminster magistrates court. Judge Sternberg said in his verdict that the conditions imposed were lawful and necessary, and that both defendants clearly knew them.Jamal was also convicted of two counts of inciting other protesters to breach police conditions. Sternberg said the speech Jamal made at the protest constituted incitement because it was “a suggestion, persuasion, and inducement” encouraging a breach of the conditions.“Protest rights, while fundamental, are not absolute and do not permit breaching lawfully imposed conditions,” the judge said in his verdict. Jamal and Nineham said they would appeal against the convictions.The Metropolitan police have faced significant criticism over their handling of the protest in central London, at which more than 70 people were arrested. Trade union leaders, legal experts, MPs and peers were among those calling for an independent inquiry into what they described as “repressive and heavy-handed policing” at the 18 January demonstration.Campaigners vowed that the protest for Palestinian rights on 16 May would go ahead, despite the guilty verdicts. The case has sparked concerns about civil liberties and the right to protest in the UK.

Jurors in two separate U.S. courts delivered historic rulings that, for the first time, hold major social‑media platforms financially accountable for designs that allegedly harm young users. In New Mexico, a jury ordered Meta to pay $375 million for claims that its products contributed to child sexual exploitation and other harms. The following day, a California jury found both Meta and YouTube liable, imposing $6 million in damages for deliberately engineering addictive experiences. The verdicts arrive amid a wave of lawsuits filed by more than 2,000 plaintiffs—including families, school districts, and state attorneys general—targeting Meta, YouTube, TikTok and Snap. While both companies have announced intentions to appeal, the judgments signal a shift from public criticism to concrete legal exposure. During the trials, Meta’s defense repeatedly cited the American Psychiatric Association’s position that “social media addiction is not a thing” in the DSM‑5‑TR. The APA countered that the absence of a formal diagnosis does not negate the phenomenon’s existence, emphasizing growing research on the mental‑health impacts of compulsive platform use. Internal communications presented as evidence painted a starkly different picture. A 2020 Meta email exchange described Instagram as “a drug” and likened the company’s role to that of “pushers,” while another message warned that targeting 11‑year‑olds resembled tactics once used by tobacco firms. Similar concerns emerged from YouTube, where an internal document explicitly stated the goal was “not viewership, it’s viewer addiction.” TikTok’s own research echoed these findings, concluding that users could become addicted in under 35 minutes and that compulsive usage correlates with a range of negative mental‑health outcomes. Moody’s, a risk‑assessment firm, warned that the dual verdicts establish a precedent whereby design‑driven user harm can trigger liability. In an analysis, analysts Adam Grossman and Taro Ramberg noted that insurers should focus on the emerging “design‑centered liability theory,” which links engagement‑driven features—such as infinite scrolling and autoplay—to compensable injuries. They cautioned that the current cases are merely the first data points in a broader legal trend. Beyond social media, the same design principles appear in video games, sports‑betting platforms, AI chatbots and online retail. Moody’s tracker lists over 1,100 pending cases in Los Angeles alone and estimates roughly 4,000 lawsuits targeting 166 U.S. companies for allegedly addictive software design. Both Meta and YouTube maintain that they disagree with the verdicts. YouTube’s spokesperson called the California decision a “misunderstanding” of the platform’s nature, while Meta emphasized the complexity of teen mental health and the non‑unanimous nature of the California jury’s finding. Nevertheless, the courts have signaled that even without a settled clinical definition of “social‑media addiction,” companies can be held responsible for the foreseeable harms of their product designs.

Chinese dissident artist Gao Zhen, renowned for his satirical sculptures of Mao Zedong, has been tried in China on charges of 'defaming national heroes and martyrs'. His wife and a human rights group reported the trial.Gao, 69, was detained in 2024 during a visit to China from the US. He faces a maximum three-year prison sentence. The trial took place behind closed doors in Hebei province and ended without a verdict.Gao is known for his sculptures criticizing the 1966-1976 Cultural Revolution, a period of social turmoil and political persecution in China. His works include 'Miss Mao', featuring Mao with a Pinocchio nose and breasts, and 'Mao's Guilt', a bronze statue of Mao kneeling remorsefully.Gao's wife, Zhao Yaliang, and their seven-year-old son, a US citizen, are under exit bans and cannot leave China. Gao suffers from malnutrition and various health conditions, including lumbar spine disease and chronic knee and eye conditions.The trial highlights China's strict control over artistic expression and its efforts to suppress dissent. EU diplomats attempted to attend the trial but were blocked from entering the court.

Lahore Qalandars batter Fakhar Zaman has been charged with ball-tampering in a recent Pakistan Super League (PSL) match against Karachi Kings, the Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB) announced.The incident took place in the final over, with Karachi needing 14 runs to win. Fakhar, Lahore captain Shaheen Afridi, and fast bowler Haris Rauf were involved in a brief discussion, during which Fakhar and Rauf passed the ball between them.The umpire then approached Rauf and asked to see the ball. Following consultations with the square-leg umpire, the officials awarded five penalty runs to Karachi and ordered the ball to be changed.The penalty proved costly, as Karachi went on to chase down a target of 129 with three balls to spare, and Abbas Afridi hitting a four and a six to seal a four-wicket victory.“Fakhar denied the charge levelled against him during a disciplinary hearing led by the match referee Roshan Mahanama,” the PCB said.“Another hearing is set to take place within the next 48 hours after which the match referee will share his verdict.”Fakhar, 35, could face a ban of one or two matches if found guilty of ball tampering for a first offence in the PSL.

Meta's attempt to shift the blame for a young user's mental health issues away from its platforms and onto her family and offline social problems has backfired in a landmark social media addiction trial. The company, parent of Facebook and Instagram, employed a aggressive defense strategy that included highlighting the plaintiff's complaints about her mother in her teenage text messages and personal writings.The jurors, however, were not convinced by Meta's arguments and decided 10-2 in favor of the plaintiffs, awarding $4.2m in damages from Meta and $1.8m from co-defendant YouTube. This verdict could set a precedent for thousands of similar trials already in the works against social media companies.Meta's defense strategy drew backlash from parental advocates, who argued that the company was attempting to shift the blame away from its own design choices and onto parents and users. "For the biggest tech executives, I want to say something: stop blaming the parents. It's on you," said Julianna Arnold, a co-founder of advocacy group Parents Rise!.The trial's outcome reflects a growing distrust of social media companies and their impact on society. A Pew Research Survey found that around 64% of US adults believe that social media platforms have a negative impact on the country, and around two-thirds of Americans have a negative view of Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg.The verdict has been celebrated by advocates for reining in big tech, who see it as a significant step towards holding social media companies accountable for their role in shaping societal harms. "This trial was proof that if you put CEOs like Mark Zuckerberg on the stand before a judge and jury of their peers, the tech industry's wanton disregard for people will be on full display," said Sacha Haworth, executive director of The Tech Oversight Project.

Meta, the world's most powerful social media company, has faced a severe public reckoning in recent days, with juries in California and New Mexico delivering back-to-back verdicts that hold the company liable for harming young people. This marks a significant shift in accountability for social media companies, which have long operated with minimal regulation and few consequences in the US.In the California case, a jury ordered Meta and YouTube to pay $6 million in damages over claims that they deliberately designed addictive products to hook young users. The following day, a jury in New Mexico ordered Meta to pay $375 million in damages over claims that its products led to child sexual exploitation, among other harms.These verdicts are the first to go to court, and they set a precedent for over 2,000 plaintiffs, including families, school districts, and state attorneys general, who have brought lawsuits against Meta, YouTube, TikTok, and Snap. The cases borrow from a familiar playbook, echoing those brought against big tobacco companies in the 1990s, which focused on cigarettes' addictive qualities and their makers' public denials despite knowledge of their products' harms.Lawyers for the plaintiffs argue that social media companies have profited from targeting children while concealing their addictive and dangerous design features. The verdicts signal that public perception of social media and its makers is shifting, with jurors now laying blame on the business practices of a multi-trillion-dollar industry.Meta and YouTube have both said they disagree with the verdicts and will appeal. However, the rulings mark a significant turning point in the growing scrutiny of social media companies and their impact on young people.The cases are part of a broader effort to challenge tech companies' practices, with online safety advocates urging Congress to pass regulation, forming coalitions of parents, teens, and advocates, and bringing thousands of lawsuits front and center. The goal is to force social media companies to redesign their products and do more to protect children online.