Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

The Australian government has accused major tech firms, including Meta, TikTok, and Google, of failing to comply with a landmark ban on under-16s using social media. The ban, which came into effect last December, aims to protect children from the potential harms of social media.A survey of 900 Australian parents found that around a third (31%) said their children still had one or more social media accounts after the ban, compared to 49% before the laws. Specifically, the survey revealed that 70% of under-16s who had accounts on Instagram, Snapchat, and TikTok before the ban maintained access.The eSafety Commission claimed that the technology being used by these companies, such as facial age estimation, was not effective enough. The commission alleged that the firms had lax guardrails which allowed teens to repeatedly attempt age verification until they were successful. 'None of this is impossible. None of this is even difficult for big tech who are innovative billion-dollar companies. What this update shows is unacceptable,' said Australia's communications minister, Anika Wells.The social media minimum age laws specify that Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, Threads, TikTok, Twitch, X, YouTube, Kick, and Reddit are 'age-restricted platforms', banning under-16s from holding accounts and requiring those companies to take reasonable steps to prevent children from opening or holding accounts. The laws carry a maximum A$49.5m (US$33.9m, £25.7m) penalty.In response, Meta said it was committed to complying with the social media ban and working with eSafety and the government. The company highlighted the challenge of accurately determining age online, particularly at the age-16 boundary. 'The most effective, privacy-protective and consistent approach is to require robust age verification and parental approval at the app store and operating system level before a teen can download an app or create an account,' Meta stated.TikTok and Google were contacted for comment but did not respond by publication time. The government said in January that more than 4.7m social media accounts were deactivated, removed, or restricted in the first days after the ban came into effect.

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.

The UK government is facing mounting pressure to appoint a Conservative former cabinet minister as the next chair of Ofcom, the media regulator. Jeremy Wright, a former culture secretary and sitting Conservative MP, is competing against Margaret Hodge, a Labour peer and former MP, for the role.The appointment has become crucial amid concerns over the rapid growth of online content and the rise of politically partisan broadcasting. The Online Safety Act, which aims to tackle harmful online content, has created legal pitfalls for Ofcom, leading to claims of paralysis at the regulator.Wright, who was involved in drafting laws to tackle harmful online content, is seen as a strong candidate due to his legal background as a king's counsel and his knowledge of the Online Safety Act. He is believed to be willing to take risks in confronting big digital platforms.On the other hand, Hodge has been seen as the favourite to be appointed by the Labour administration. As chair of the public accounts committee, she built a reputation for attacking big tech over its tax bill and has previously suggested banning online anonymity and making social media directors personally liable for defamatory posts.The delay in appointing a new chair is causing concern, with some warning that it could leave Britain at risk. The new chair must address fundamental flaws in Ofcom's implementation of the Online Safety Act and restore the frayed support and confidence of civil society.A government source said a decision would be made very soon. An Ofcom spokesperson said the regulator looks forward to working with whoever the government appoints as its next chair to make life safer online.

Two prominent US lawmakers, Senator Bernie Sanders and House Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, have introduced legislation to impose a moratorium on the construction of new AI data centres. The proposed pause aims to ensure that the rapidly advancing technology does not pose a threat to the 'future of humanity'. The lawmakers argue that current regulations are insufficient to address the potential risks associated with AI, including mass government surveillance and the proliferation of sexually explicit deepfakes.The legislation seeks to address concerns about the environmental impact of data centres, which consume huge amounts of water and electricity. It also aims to protect workers' livelihoods and civil liberties. Sanders emphasized that lawmakers are 'way behind' in understanding AI and that a moratorium is necessary to prevent a handful of billionaire Big Tech oligarchs from making decisions that could reshape the economy, democracy, and the future of humanity.Ocasio-Cortez stated that Congress has a moral obligation to stand with the American people and stop the expansion of data centres until a framework is in place to adequately address the existential harm AI poses to society. The proposed legislation comes amid a growing grassroots backlash against the rollout of data centres in communities across the US, with at least 36 data centres blocked or delayed between May 2024 and June 2025, disrupting $162bn in investment.However, the bill faces an uphill battle in the US Congress, where Republicans control both the House of Representatives and the Senate. Democratic Senator John Fetterman dismissed the proposed moratorium, calling it 'China First' and arguing that the US should build the emerging AI infrastructure while implementing appropriate guardrails.

UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer has announced plans to address addictive features in social media platforms, signaling a potential regulatory shift following a significant US court ruling that held Meta and YouTube accountable for harms caused by their technology designs.The prime minister emphasized that the recent California court verdict reflects rising public expectations for more aggressive regulation of social media platforms. "I'm absolutely clear that we need to go further," Starmer stated, adding that "the status quo isn't good enough" in terms of protecting children online.Starmer specifically mentioned that the government is consulting about banning social media for under-16s and expressed strong commitment to addressing addictive features within social media platforms. These remarks come amid growing international pressure on tech companies to address the potential harms of their products on young users.In the landmark US case, a California jury found Meta and YouTube negligent for failing to provide adequate warnings about the potential dangers of their platforms. The plaintiff, a 20-year-old woman who claimed she became addicted to social media during her childhood, was awarded $6 million (£4.5 million) in damages, with Meta responsible for 70% of the payment and YouTube covering the remainder.The Duke and Duchess of Sussex welcomed the verdict as "a reckoning" for tech companies, stating in a joint statement: "For too long, families have paid the price for platforms built with total disregard for the children they reach." They emphasized that "today, the truth has been heard and precedent has been set" regarding children's safety versus corporate profits.Both Google, which owns YouTube, and Meta have indicated they will challenge the decision. Google claimed the case "misunderstands YouTube, which is a responsibly built streaming platform, not a social media site," while Meta stated it "respectfully disagrees with the verdict and is evaluating our legal options." The verdict came after nine days of deliberation in the first lawsuit concerning social media's alleged harm to young people to reach trial.The ruling has resonated beyond the courtroom, with European Commission digital chief Henna Virkkunen noting that such cases send "a very clear message" to online platforms about the risks they pose. Campaigners for safer social media have celebrated the decision as a potential watershed moment in regulating platforms like TikTok, Instagram, and X.The Molly Rose Foundation, established after the death of 14-year-old Molly Russell who was exposed to harmful content on Instagram, called for legislation that would make "safety and wellbeing the price for tech firms to pay for doing business in the UK." Thomas Lancaster, a computing expert at Imperial College London, emphasized that policies must be effectively enforced to protect those they're designed to safeguard.Sacha Haworth, executive director of the Tech Oversight Project, declared that "the era of big tech invincibility is over," suggesting that the verdict validates concerns about tech platforms' impact on young people that have been raised for years.

In a significant move, Meta has been fined $375m in a landmark case, highlighting the growing scrutiny of big tech companies. The fine, reported by The Guardian, marks a major development in the ongoing debate over tech regulation and accountability.The case, which involved multiple authors including Lucy Hough, Katie McQue, Bryony Moore, Ryan Ramgobin, and Zoe Hitch, underscores the increasing pressure on tech giants to adhere to regulatory standards. As the digital landscape continues to evolve, this ruling sets a precedent for future cases involving big tech.

In a significant move, Meta has been ordered to pay $375m in a landmark case. This development is being seen as part of a broader big tech reckoning, with regulatory bodies taking a closer look at the practices of major technology companies. The case against Meta, formerly known as Facebook, highlights the growing scrutiny of big tech firms and their handling of user data and advertising practices. The $375m penalty is a substantial one, reflecting the seriousness with which regulators are approaching these issues. Meta's financial obligations in this case are a reminder of the regulatory risks facing big tech companies. As governments and regulatory bodies around the world continue to examine the practices of these firms, significant penalties and fines are likely to become more common. The image of Mark Zuckerberg, Meta's CEO, is a reminder of the high-profile nature of this case and the scrutiny that big tech leaders are under.

Progressive lawmakers Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez have unveiled a bill to place a moratorium on the construction of AI datacenters in the US. The proposed pause aims to ensure the AI boom benefits workers, protects the environment, and does not harm communities.The bill's introduction comes amid growing concerns about the rapid buildout of AI infrastructure and its impact on energy consumption, electricity bills, and the climate crisis. Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez argue that a temporary ban would give the US government time to create strong federal safeguards for AI.“AI and robotics are creating the most sweeping technological revolution in the history of humanity,” Sanders said. “The scale, scope, and speed of that change is unprecedented. Congress is way behind where it should be in understanding the nature of this revolution and its impacts.”The proposal has gained traction, with at least 11 states considering similar policies. Advocacy groups, including Food and Water Watch, have also called for a federal datacenter moratorium, citing concerns about the sector's impacts on electricity bills and the climate crisis.The bill's supporters argue that datacenters' massive energy consumption and water usage have sparked controversy, especially in drought-ridden areas. If current trends continue, datacenters may account for nearly half of all US emissions from the power sector.“We cannot sit back and allow a handful of billionaire Big Tech oligarchs to make decisions that will reshape our economy, our democracy and the future of humanity,” Sanders said. “We need serious public debate and democratic oversight over this enormously consequential issue. The time for action is now.”

The UK government is set to trial social media curbs for teenagers in a major study aimed at understanding the impact of reduced social media use on young people's lives. Hundreds of UK teenagers will participate in the six-week pilot, which will test different restrictions on social media use, including bans, digital curfews, and time limits on popular apps like Instagram, TikTok, and Snapchat.The trial, led by the UK government, will involve 300 teens across all four nations of the UK, with some participants having their social apps disabled, while others will have access blocked overnight or capped to one hour's use. The goal is to gather evidence on how different restrictions affect young people's day-to-day lives.Technology Secretary Liz Kendall emphasized the importance of testing different options in the real world, stating that the pilots will provide the evidence needed to take the next steps, informed by the experiences of families themselves.The pilot is part of a broader effort to address concerns about the mental health risks associated with unfettered internet access. Nearly 30,000 parents and children have responded to the government's digital wellbeing consultation, which closes on May 26. An independent study, funded by the Wellcome Trust, will also examine the impact of reducing social media use among adolescents.The study, involving about 4,000 students between the ages of 12 and 15 from 10 Bradford secondary schools, will investigate changes in anxiety and sleep quality, time spent with friends and family, wellbeing, body image, social comparison, school absences, and bullying.The UK government faces pressure to follow Australia's move to ban access to social media sites for under-16s, with France, Spain, and Indonesia also considering similar bans. The European parliament has passed a resolution on age restrictions, although it is not legally binding.Critics argue that the pilot is a half-measure that puts pressure on parents rather than holding big tech accountable for the harm caused by social media. Bereaved parents have written to parliamentarians, urging them to support a ban and expressing concern about the consultation process.