Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

The Australian federal court has taken a strong stance on the use of generative artificial intelligence (AI) in legal proceedings, warning lawyers about the potential dangers and issuing new rules for its use. The court's chief justice, Debra Mortimer, emphasized that the presentation of false or inaccurate information to the court is “unacceptable” and can lead to serious consequences.The warning comes amid a surge in court filings in Australia and globally that have included false citations generated by AI. The court has noted that AI can generate fictitious cases, citations, quotes, and factual errors, which can frustrate the just resolution of proceedings and lead to financial or legal consequences.Under the new rules, lawyers and solicitors are required to confirm if AI has been used in the preparation of documents and ensure that any legal authorities cited exist and support the proposition made. They must also disclose the use of AI in documents, including where and how it has been used.Mortimer cautioned that caution should be taken when putting confidential, suppressed, or private information into AI tools, as there may be serious consequences for entering information into generative AI tools, even if sharing that information was not intended.The court “embraces” the use of technology in proceedings and recognizes that generative AI has the potential to increase efficiency in the conduct of litigation. However, Mortimer stressed that AI “must be used appropriately and with due care” to avoid risks to the proper administration of justice and public confidence in the legal system.Those who use generative AI in ways that go against the new rules can expect consequences such as adverse costs orders and issues with compliance with legal and professional obligations. There have been at least 73 identified cases in Australia where courts have discovered the use of generative AI had resulted in false citations, made-up quotes, or other errors.

A New York jury has ruled against Ticketmaster and Live Nation, finding that the concert giant and its subsidiary had a harmful monopoly over big concert venues. The verdict is a significant loss for the companies, which were sued by dozens of states in the US over claims of anticompetitive practices.The jury deliberated for four days before reaching its decision, which could cost Live Nation and Ticketmaster hundreds of millions of dollars. The companies were found to have overcharged consumers in 22 states by $1.72 per ticket. The verdict also opens the door for potential penalties and sanctions, including court orders to divest some entities, such as venues.The civil case, initially led by the US federal government, accused Live Nation of using its reach to smother competition by blocking venues from using multiple ticket sellers. The company's lawyers argued that it is not a monopoly, saying that artists, sports teams, and venues decide prices and ticketing practices.Live Nation Entertainment owns, operates, controls booking for, or has an equity interest in hundreds of venues. Its subsidiary Ticketmaster is widely considered to be the world's largest ticket-seller for live events, controlling 86 percent of the market for concerts and 73 percent of the overall market when sporting events are included.The verdict marks a significant victory for fans and some artists who have long complained about Ticketmaster's high fees and limited competition. The company has faced criticism from artists such as Pearl Jam, which battled the business in the 1990s and filed an antimonopoly complaint with the US Department of Justice.

Brazil's Federal Police have launched an investigation into Flavio Bolsonaro, a right-wing presidential candidate, for allegedly issuing defamatory statements against his election rival, President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva. The probe was ordered by the Supreme Court's Justice Alexandre de Moraes and relates to posts Bolsonaro published in January.In the posts, Bolsonaro responded to the news of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro's abduction by the US with insinuations linking Lula to crimes. He wrote that Lula will be exposed and predicted the collapse of the left-wing alliance known as the Sao Paulo Forum due to scandals including international drug and arms trafficking and money laundering.Brazil's penal code considers defamation a criminal offence, with prosecutors able to seek heightened penalties for defamation against presidents or heads of state. The Federal Police have 60 days to carry out their initial investigation.The development comes as Bolsonaro and Lula are in a neck-and-neck race for the presidency ahead of October's general election. A recent poll showed Lula slightly ahead in the first round with 37% of the vote compared to Bolsonaro's 32%, but Bolsonaro polls slightly ahead in a one-on-one contest.Flavio Bolsonaro, a senator for Rio de Janeiro and the eldest son of former President Jair Bolsonaro, entered the 2026 presidential race with his father's endorsement. He has suggested that seeking his father's freedom would be part of his campaign.

President Donald Trump announced on Fox Business that he will dismiss Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell should the governor refuse to leave his post when his term concludes on May 15. The statement, made during an interview with Maria Bartiromo, underscored the president’s willingness to act, saying he “has wanted to fire him, but I hate to be controversial… he will be fired.” Legal scholars and policy analysts quickly cautioned that the president’s threat is not grounded in statutory authority. Skanda Amarnath, executive director of the think‑tank Employ America, told Al Jazeera that the administration is already losing a court battle over an attempt to remove Fed Governor Lisa Cook and would likely face the same outcome if it pursued Powell’s removal. The controversy emerges as the Senate Banking Committee prepares to consider Kevin Warsh, Trump’s nominee to succeed Powell. Warsh’s hearing is scheduled for next Tuesday, but his confirmation remains uncertain. North Carolina Senator Thom Tillis has pledged to block the nomination until the ongoing federal criminal probe into Powell’s conduct concludes. If the Senate fails to confirm a new chair, Powell would remain at the helm until a successor is appointed, extending the period of tension between the White House and the central bank. Trump also referenced a separate investigation into a costly Fed building renovation, noting that U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro has not indicated any change in the probe’s direction. However, a federal prosecutor later reported that the investigation uncovered no evidence of criminal wrongdoing. Critics argue that Trump’s broader agenda seeks to increase political control over the Fed’s seven‑member board, aiming to install members who share his economic outlook. Currently, the president has appointed three board members, and one seat—held by Governor Stephen Miran—has technically expired, which would need to be vacated for Warsh to join. Powell has framed the investigation as a pretext to undermine the Fed’s independence in setting monetary policy, a charge that resonates with concerns about preserving the central bank’s autonomy amid political pressure. Overall, the standoff highlights a clash between executive ambition and the institutional safeguards designed to keep monetary policy decisions insulated from short‑term political influence.

The Energy Information Administration (EIA) is set to transition from voluntary pilots to a mandatory nationwide survey, compelling data centers to publicly disclose their energy usage and power bills. This regulatory shift aims to bring a rapidly expanding industry into the fold of federal oversight, addressing concerns over its escalating environmental footprint. From Pilot to Nationwide Regulation The EIA's strategy involves a phased approach, beginning with targeted pilot surveys in key regions. These initial studies focused on 196 companies across Texas, Washington state, and the Washington, D.C.-Northern Virginia metro area. The agency anticipates completing these pilot surveys by September, after which it will roll out a comprehensive, mandatory questionnaire covering data centers nationwide. Political Catalyst: The initiative was spurred by a letter from Sens. Josh Hawley and Elizabeth Warren urging the EIA to monitor the industry's energy consumption. Implementation Timeline: While the mandatory survey date is not yet set, the EIA expects to finalize the methodology following the September pilot completion. Strategic Focus: The surveys will specifically target the details of power bills, providing granular data on electricity demand. Why the Grid is Under Pressure Requiring data centers to reveal their power usage is a critical step for grid stability and environmental planning. As the technology sector, particularly AI, drives a surge in data center construction, the strain on the national power grid becomes increasingly apparent. By mandating transparency, the EIA aims to provide policymakers with the data needed to manage load balancing and prevent potential energy shortages. The Future of Data Center Compliance This move signals a new era of regulatory scrutiny for the tech industry. We can expect that once the mandatory data is collected, the EIA will use it to model future energy scenarios. This could lead to stricter efficiency standards or targeted infrastructure investments in regions with the highest concentrations of data center activity.

Gray whales have historically been a rare sight in the San Francisco Bay. They migrate over 10,000 miles from Mexico's Baja California to the Arctic region, seldom stopping in the busy shipping corridor for prolonged periods. However, in recent years, this has changed in a dire way.A new study published in the journal Frontiers in Marine Science has found that gray whales in the bay have been dying at alarming rates, largely due to collisions with vessels. Eastern North Pacific (ENP) gray whales began to appear more frequently in the well-trafficked maritime corridor around 2018.According to researchers, at least 18% of gray whales that entered the bay from 2018 to 2025 have died. They determined that for more than 40% of the whale carcasses, the cause of death was blunt force trauma consistent with vessel strikes, prompting calls for renewed efforts to help avoid more fatal collisions.“It was historically very unusual for them to enter the bay, especially for longer amounts of time or consistently year after year,” said Josie Slaathaug, lead author of the study. There are whale subgroups known to hunt for food south of the Arctic, but a majority of the recently spotted whales feeding in the bay were not a part of these foraging clusters.A wave of new whale presence had not been observed in the waters since the late 1990s. Researchers have theorized that Arctic warming is disrupting food availability for the whales, driving them to hunt in new places such as the bay, although it remains unclear what exactly they may be eating there.Their potential new feeding corner, though, is a major shipping route. The true mortality rate for whales in the bay may be higher, hovering somewhere from 40% to 50%, Slaathaug said.In recent years, there have been several reports of dead whales that wash up on Bay Area beaches. The ENP gray whale population has been in decline due to malnutrition and starvation from climate-driven prey shifts in the Arctic. The Southwest Fisheries Science Center estimated a population total of about 13,000 whales, its lowest count since 1970.“It’s not unique to their migratory corridor that a lot of whales are dying,” Slaathaug said. “What is unique about San Francisco Bay and this study was that there was such a clear emerging cause of death.”Some local efforts are under way to reduce vessel collisions. The Marine Mammal Center has developed a program called Whale Smart, to educate vessel operators in the San Francisco Bay on how to interpret whale behavior to avoid close encounters.In Alaska, where vessels also pose a threat to the whale population, one fleet company partnered with WhaleSpotter, a company that uses AI and thermal imaging to detect the presence of whales, so they can change course well in advance.Last year, the Center for Biological Diversity, a conservation group, sued the US Coast Guard, which regulates vessel traffic off the California coast, for failing to analyze how vessel routes may harm whales and sea turtles.“This most recent study about the gray whales reaffirms that we have way underestimated the problem and we are not managing human activities well enough to avoid the whales,” said Catherine Kilduff, senior attorney at the center.Federal action is needed to reduce the fatal collisions, Kilduff said. According to the Endangered Species Act, the coast guard should be consulting with the National Marine Fisheries Service when setting shipping lanes to assess impact to marine wildlife.Kilduff also suggested mandatory speed limits for vessels. “There are voluntary speed reductions on the west coast, but there is evidence that those aren’t effective. The compliance rate isn’t high enough,” she said.A 2022 study co-authored by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration found that the average speeds of large vessels had decreased from 2010 to 2019 in voluntary speed reduction zones. But, researchers determined that the cooperation rate of roughly 50% was lower than the amount needed to reduce vessel strike-related mortality to a level that maintains a sustainable whale population.“These whales are using the oceans in such a sophisticated way. We can learn so much from them, and if we can figure out ways to avoid killing them, I know that they’ll come back to healthy population levels,” Kilduff said.

In a landmark decision, a Manhattan federal jury determined that Live Nation and its Ticketmaster subsidiary wield a monopolistic grip on major concert venues across the United States. The four‑day deliberation ended Wednesday with a finding that the ticket‑selling platform had overcharged buyers by $1.72 per ticket, a figure that will now be used by a judge to calculate total damages. The case, originally spearheaded by the federal government and later joined by dozens of states, accused Live Nation of leveraging its extensive venue network to stifle competition. Plaintiffs argued that the company barred venues from using alternative ticket sellers and retaliated against those that attempted to do so. Attorney Jeffrey Kessler, representing the states, called Live Nation a “monopolistic bully” that inflates prices for concertgoers. He cited the company’s control of 86% of the concert‑ticket market and 73% of the combined concert‑and‑sports market, underscoring the breadth of its influence. Live Nation, which reported over $22 billion in annual revenue, rejected the monopoly label, insisting that pricing decisions rest with artists, sports teams, and venue owners. Company counsel argued that the firm’s size reflects “excellence and effort,” not antitrust violations. The jury’s finding arrives amid a broader regulatory push. In 2024, the Federal Trade Commission required Ticketmaster to disclose ticket fees up front, prompting the company to eliminate a post‑checkout processing charge. However, a recent Guardian investigation revealed that Ticketmaster introduced alternative fees to offset lost revenue, raising questions about compliance with FTC rules. Earlier, the Department of Justice settled with Live Nation under the Trump administration, creating a $280 million settlement fund for participating states. The agreement also imposed caps on service fees at select amphitheaters and opened the door—though not the obligation—for venues to work with Ticketmaster rivals such as SeatGeek and AXS. More than 30 states declined the settlement and pursued the trial, arguing that the federal government’s concessions were insufficient. During the proceedings, Live Nation CEO Michael Rapino testified, including about the 2022 Taylor Swift ticket fiasco, which he attributed to a cyber‑attack. Internal communications from Live Nation executive Benjamin Baker surfaced, in which he described certain pricing practices as “outrageous” and disparaged customers as “so stupid,” later apologizing for the “very immature and unacceptable” remarks. Live Nation has announced its intention to appeal the verdict, stating confidence that the ultimate outcome will align with the original DOJ settlement framework. The case continues to spotlight the tension between dominant market players and antitrust enforcement in the live‑entertainment industry.

As millions of Americans rush to file their taxes on Tax Day, a new report reveals that the average US household spent $4,049 on military-related spending in 2025, up from $3,707 in 2024. This increase comes as Donald Trump pushes for a 40% increase in federal defense spending, despite growing concerns over rising living costs and government expenditure.The report by the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) thinktank found that military-related spending in 2025 includes about $1,870 going to Pentagon contractors, $770 to military personnel, $130 for nuclear weapons, and $57 for aid to foreign militaries. The spending does not account for the cost of the US-Israeli war with Iran, which began in February 2026 and has already exceeded $11.3bn in the first six days alone.The IPS report highlights that these enormous sums for the Pentagon and militarism come with enormous costs to ordinary people – both in terms of the opportunity cost for other programs and the drain on their wallets. The analysis is based on an average 'tax filing unit' with a total taxable income of $104,000.Americans have filed their taxes this year amid growing public concern over cost of living, taxes, and government spending. A recent Fox News poll found that 70% of registered voters surveyed believe their taxes are too high, up 11 points from last year. The same poll also found that 29% of registered voters said they were concerned with 'how the government spends their tax dollars.'Beyond military spending, the report estimates that $2,492 of the average taxpayer's federal income tax went to Medicaid, $2,207 to Medicare, and $31 to substance abuse and mental health programs. The report also found that the average taxpayer paid about $396 for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (Snap) and $607 for the Department of Education.The data has significant implications for the economy, as US inflation surged in March with prices up 0.9% compared with last month and 3.3% over the year, amid the US-Israel war with Iran. The University of Michigan's consumer confidence survey recorded a 10.7% drop to its lowest level on record.

President Donald Trump announced on Fox Business that he will dismiss Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell if the central‑bank chief does not vacate the post by the statutory end of his term on May 15. “I’ll have to fire him, OK, if he’s not leaving on time,” Trump said, adding that he had previously held back the decision to avoid controversy. Powell, who has just over a month left in his tenure, has repeatedly been criticized by Trump for what the president calls a “bad job” and for refusing to lower interest rates despite Trump’s repeated demands since his return to the White House in January 2025. In January, Trump nominated former Fed governor Kevin Warsh to replace Powell. Warsh, known for his criticism of the Fed’s relatively high rates, is expected to align more closely with Trump’s push for rate cuts. His confirmation hearing before the Senate Banking Committee is slated for April 21, but the outcome remains uncertain. Republican Senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina, a member of the banking committee, has signaled he will block Warsh’s nomination until the Department of Justice concludes its criminal investigation into alleged misconduct surrounding the Fed’s headquarters renovation in Washington, D.C. Tillis described the probe as “reaching the point of absurd,” yet insists the investigation must be resolved before moving forward. The probe appears active: prosecutors made an unannounced visit to the construction site this week, as reported by the Wall Street Journal, underscoring the seriousness of the inquiry. During the same interview, Trump dismissed the investigation’s relevance, claiming the project was “probably corrupt, but what it really is is incompetence,” and questioned whether a $25 million renovation could balloon to a $4 billion expense. Powell responded in January with a rare public rebuke, labeling the investigation a “pretext” aimed at pressuring the Fed to lower rates. He warned that political intimidation could jeopardize the Fed’s ability to set monetary policy based on economic evidence. The legal backdrop adds another layer of uncertainty. The Supreme Court has yet to rule on Trump’s authority to fire a Fed board member without cause—a question that resurfaced after the president’s attempted removal of Fed governor Lisa Cook last summer. Justices appeared skeptical of such unilateral action during oral arguments in January. With the Fed’s independence at stake, the coming weeks will determine whether Trump’s threat translates into action, whether Warsh can secure Senate confirmation, and how the renovation investigation will influence the broader debate over political interference in U.S. monetary policy.