Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

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.

Israel's High Court has begun hearing petitions that seek to remove Ben-Gvir from his position. The petitions, filed by various groups, argue that Ben-Gvir's actions and policies are detrimental to the country's stability and democratic values.The hearing comes amid heightened tensions in Israel, with many questioning Ben-Gvir's suitability to hold office. The court's decision is expected to have significant implications for the country's political landscape.

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.

Argentina’s justice system has reopened the case surrounding the death of football icon Diego Maradona, with prosecutors branding his medical team as “a bunch of amateurs” who missed a critical window to save him.The trial of seven healthcare professionals—doctors, psychologists and nurses—resumed on Tuesday in San Isidro, a suburb of Buenos Aires, after the original proceedings were annulled when a presiding judge was found to have participated in a documentary about the case.Maradona, who died in November 2020 at age 60 while recuperating from surgery for a brain clot, is alleged to have suffered from heart failure and acute pulmonary edema two weeks post‑operation. Prosecutor Patricio Ferrari asserted that the patient began to deteriorate 12 hours before his official death and that a timely transfer to a clinic could have prevented the fatal outcome.According to the indictment, the defendants’ decision to keep Maradona at home rather than in a hospital, coupled with a series of “omissions” described as “cruel,” constitutes homicide with possible intent. If convicted, each could face prison terms ranging from eight to 25 years.The new proceedings, expected to conclude by July at the earliest, will hear testimony from roughly 120 witnesses. Among the accused, former team doctor Leopoldo Luque and other staff members will be scrutinized for their role in the athlete’s care.Maradona’s family—daughters Dalma, Gianinna and Jana, and former partner Veronica Ojeda—attended the hearing, urging the courts to deliver “justice for Diego” and allow the legend to “rest in peace.” Outside, about 50 supporters waved Argentine flags and signs demanding accountability for the beloved “D10s.”Defense counsel Vadim Mischanchuk argued that the former star’s death resulted from a “progressive decline in his health” rather than medical malpractice, emphasizing that the condition was natural and unavoidable.Legal analyst Fernando Burlando, representing the Maradona family, highlighted the absence of a stethoscope on the legend’s chest during the critical two‑week period, using the instrument as a stark symbol of alleged negligence.The case revives national grief that first erupted when Maradona’s body lay in state at the presidential palace, drawing tens of thousands of mourners amid the COVID‑19 pandemic.

Mahdieh Esfandiari, an Iranian national who was detained in France for over a year, has returned to Iran following what officials describe as a reciprocal release of French citizens held in Tehran. The University of Lyon graduate, who worked as a translator in France since 2018, was arrested in February 2025 on accusations of “promoting terrorism” after posting online comments supporting Palestine and the 2023 Hamas attack on Israel. She was sentenced to one year in prison and released on bail in October, before being transferred back to Iran in mid‑April 2026. Speaking to Iran’s state television, Esfandiari condemned the French judicial process, stating, “There is no freedom of speech in France; the court’s ruling was very unjust.” Her release coincides with the recent freedom of two French nationals, Cécile Köhler (41) and Jacques Paris (72), who had been imprisoned in Iran for more than three years on espionage charges denied by their families. Köhler and Paris were arrested in May 2022, transferred to the French embassy in Tehran after their November 2025 release, and subsequently flown to Paris via Azerbaijan. French President Emmanuel Macron’s office credited a “long‑term effort” for their liberation, noting that recent diplomatic pressure linked to the US‑Israel conflict with Iran accelerated negotiations. While French authorities have not formally confirmed a swap, Iran’s state‑run IRNA agency reported that Tehran reached an agreement with Paris to exchange the French detainees for Esfandiari. The episode underscores the delicate balance of Iran‑France diplomatic ties and highlights how geopolitical tensions can influence individual human‑rights cases. Analysts suggest the exchange may set a precedent for future negotiations involving political prisoners, illustrating both the leverage of diplomatic channels and the ongoing challenges faced by activists and foreign nationals caught in broader geopolitical disputes.

The US Congress is embroiled in a heated debate over the renewal of Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), a law that grants the US government sweeping powers for warrantless surveillance. The law is set to expire on April 20, and lawmakers are divided over whether to reform it or extend it without changes.A coalition of progressive Democrats and far-right Republicans is pushing for reforms, while others are advocating for an 18-month renewal with no changes, in line with Donald Trump's demands. House GOP leaders delayed a procedural vote on a clean extension of Section 702 after the chamber's rules committee approved the measure, amid dissent from privacy advocates within their own party.Section 702 allows national security agencies to collect and review texts and emails sent to and from foreigners living outside the country without a warrant. If Americans are communicating with a non-American target living abroad, their communications can also be swept in. The law includes a provision that notes it will expire without periodically being reauthorized.Intelligence agencies have argued that a warrant requirement would be too burdensome, while privacy advocates argue that the law has been abused and that a warrant requirement is necessary to protect Americans' rights. The FBI has made 7,413 queries about Americans under Section 702 last year, according to the Department of Justice.The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court has expressed concerns about compliance problems with the FBI's querying procedures under Section 702, stating that they have been 'persistent and widespread.' The court's concerns highlight the need for greater oversight and reform of the law.The renewal of Section 702 comes as the Trump administration appears to be widening its surveillance arsenal, with the FBI resuming its purchase of sensitive location data to bypass warrant requirements. Privacy advocates are pushing for a warrant requirement, citing concerns about mass surveillance and the potential for abuse of power.

The biggest public backer of World Liberty Financial, the crypto venture co‑founded by the Trump family, has publicly accused the firm of embedding a covert "backdoor blacklisting" feature that allows it to freeze token holdings at will. On Sunday, blockchain entrepreneur Justin Sun posted on X, alleging that World Liberty’s smart contracts for the WLFI token contain a tool that can unilaterally freeze, restrict, or confiscate any user’s assets without cause or recourse. Sun did not provide evidence, but said his own wallet was locked in September, making him the "first and single largest victim" of the alleged mechanism. World Liberty responded on X, stating, "We have the contracts. We have the evidence. We have the truth. See you in court, pal," and directed observers to its own posts for clarification. The company’s official risk disclosures do note that it may block or freeze addresses deemed linked to illegal activity or terms violations – a practice also employed by other crypto issuers such as Tether. Sun, who invested tens of millions of dollars in WLFI and later increased his stake to at least $75 million according to his 2025 posts, has not shared the purported blockchain records that supposedly show his wallet being blacklisted by a single administrative account. World Liberty, launched in 2024, claimed it would empower small investors through a decentralized‑finance app that has yet to launch. Reuters analysis indicated the venture generated **more than $460 million** for the Trump family in the first half of 2025. In March, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission settled a 2023 lawsuit against Sun for $10 million, alleging fraud and the sale of unregistered crypto securities. Sun made no admission of wrongdoing. The dispute highlights the murky regulatory environment for crypto in the United States, where the SEC has limited jurisdiction and has declined to comment on the legality of token‑freezing practices.

A recent court of appeal decision suggesting it's impossible to determine which identical twin fathered a child has sparked controversy among genetics experts. Prof Michael Krawczak from Kiel University, Germany, argues that this is not the case. According to Krawczak, the germ cells of monozygotic twins differ with sufficient probability and to a sufficient degree to allow their respective children to be clearly assigned to either of them using molecular genetic techniques.Krawczak and his colleagues first proposed this approach in 2012 and demonstrated its practical feasibility in 2018. While the required molecular genetic testing is costly, currently in the five-figure range, Krawczak questions whether these costs would be a significant enough barrier to preclude genetic testing, given the potential consequences of inaction for those involved.The court's assertion that it was "not possible" to determine paternity in such cases is therefore disputed. Krawczak's comments highlight the potential for genetic testing to resolve paternity disputes in cases involving monozygotic twins, offering a solution to a complex and sensitive issue.