The case is one of several selected as bellwether trials in U.S. courts, meaning its outcome could influence how thousands of similar lawsuits proceed. Plaintiffs across the country allege that social media companies designed features that encouraged compulsive use, particularly among children and teenagers, contributing to anxiety, depression and self-harm.

Attorneys for the companies deny those claims, arguing that mental health struggles are complex and influenced by a range of factors beyond online platforms.

Early use and mounting concerns

The woman, identified in court documents as KGM and referred to during proceedings as Kaley, testified that she began using YouTube at age six and joined Instagram at nine. She told jurors that she would spend hours on the platforms daily and struggled to limit her use.

Kaley said notifications from both platforms gave her a “rush,” prompting her to check her phone repeatedly, including during school hours. She described setting up multiple accounts to boost engagement on her posts and using services to exchange likes with other users to appear more popular.

“When I tried to set limits for myself, it wouldn’t work,” she said. “I just couldn’t get off.”

Her legal team argues that features such as push notifications and appearance-altering filters were deliberately designed to increase engagement and contributed to her depression, body dysmorphia and suicidal thoughts. In court, attorneys displayed a long banner of her Instagram photos, most of which she said had been edited with filters.

In one YouTube video shown to jurors, a younger Kaley celebrated reaching 100 subscribers before apologizing for what she called her “ugly appearance.” She told the court she had not experienced negative body image issues before using social media and filters.

A turbulent home life in focus

Defense attorneys for Meta and YouTube have sought to shift attention to Kaley’s home environment and personal history. During cross-examination, lawyers pointed to family conflict, in-person bullying and other stressors documented in therapy notes.

Kaley described arguments with her mother, often centered on phone use. Asked about earlier claims of abuse, she initially said her mother “wasn’t perfect, but she was trying her best,” and that she would not label her past actions as abuse or neglect today.

Later, under cross-examination, Kaley acknowledged that her mother had been physically and emotionally abusive during the period when she was self-harming in sixth grade. She also confirmed that no doctor or mental health provider had formally diagnosed her with social media addiction or prescribed treatment for it.

Defense attorneys repeatedly referred to her 2025 deposition testimony, highlighting statements that appeared to contradict aspects of her courtroom account regarding the causes of her anxiety and depression. Kaley said she had tried to answer deposition questions accurately but may have misspoken at times.

A former therapist, Victoria Burke, testified earlier in the week that Kaley’s social media presence and her sense of self were “closely related,” and that events on the platforms could “make or break her mood.” Under cross-examination, Meta’s attorneys reviewed therapy notes that also cited school bullying and family issues as significant stressors.

Burke treated Kaley for approximately six months in 2019.

Broader legal and regulatory context

The social media addiction trial unfolds amid intensifying scrutiny of major technology platforms over their impact on young users. In recent years, lawmakers and regulators in the United States and abroad have examined internal research and product design choices at companies including Meta, the parent company of Instagram and Facebook.

Public debate has centered on whether engagement-driven algorithms and appearance filters amplify social comparison and compulsive use, particularly among adolescents. The companies maintain that they have introduced safety tools, parental controls and usage reminders, and argue that they cannot be held liable for complex mental health outcomes influenced by multiple factors.

TikTok and Snap were initially named in related litigation but have since reached settlements in this case, leaving Meta and YouTube as the remaining defendants in the current trial.

Legal experts say bellwether proceedings can provide insight into how juries may assess evidence and causation in similar lawsuits. However, each case turns on its own facts, and outcomes are not automatically binding on other plaintiffs.

The trial is expected to continue for several weeks. Jurors will ultimately be asked to determine whether the platforms were a substantial factor in Kaley’s mental health struggles and whether the companies should be held legally responsible.

For families, policymakers and the technology industry alike, the verdict could signal how courts weigh product design, parental responsibility and adolescent vulnerability in the digital age.

Source: AP News – Young woman says she was on social media ‘all day long’ as a child in landmark addiction trial

The post Young Woman Testifies in Social Media Addiction Trial Against Meta and YouTube appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

Writing Time: August 06, 2025, 21:20 (U.S. Eastern Time)

A new study by the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) has raised concerns over ChatGPT’s ability to provide potentially harmful advice to teenagers, even on sensitive issues such as drug use, eating disorders, and self-harm. While OpenAI, the maker of ChatGPT, says it is working to strengthen safeguards, researchers warn that current measures may be too easy to bypass.

Study Finds Gaps in AI Safeguards

Researchers from CCDH conducted more than three hours of test conversations with ChatGPT, posing as vulnerable 13-year-old users. While the chatbot often issued initial warnings about risky behavior, it sometimes went on to provide detailed and personalized instructions for activities such as substance abuse, restrictive dieting, and self-harm.

In a broader test of 1,200 ChatGPT responses, more than half were classified as “dangerous” by the watchdog group.

“We wanted to test the guardrails,” said Imran Ahmed, CEO of CCDH. “The visceral initial response is, ‘Oh my Lord, there are no guardrails.’ The rails are completely ineffective.”

OpenAI Responds to Concerns

OpenAI, which launched ChatGPT in late 2022, acknowledged the findings but emphasized that work is ongoing to improve its handling of sensitive situations.

“Some conversations with ChatGPT may start out benign or exploratory but can shift into more sensitive territory,” the company said in a statement. “We are focused on getting these scenarios right, including better detecting signs of mental or emotional distress.”

The company did not directly address how these issues specifically affect teenagers but noted it is refining its approach to prevent harmful interactions.

AI’s Influence on Teen Behavior

The report arrives at a time when AI chatbots are seeing widespread use among younger demographics. A July report from JPMorgan Chase estimated that around 800 million people globally—about 10% of the population—are using ChatGPT.

A separate study by Common Sense Media found that more than 70% of U.S. teens have used AI chatbots for companionship, with half using them regularly.

OpenAI CEO Sam Altman has publicly acknowledged the challenge of “emotional overreliance” among young people, describing cases where users defer major life decisions to the chatbot.

“That feels really bad to me,” Altman said at a recent conference. “We’re trying to understand what to do about it.”

Detailed and Personalized Harmful Content

The CCDH report detailed several examples of ChatGPT providing highly tailored responses that could pose risks to minors. These included:

• Suicide notes written for a fictional 13-year-old, customized for different family members and friends.
• An “Ultimate Full-Out Mayhem Party Plan” outlining hour-by-hour drug and alcohol use, including illegal substances such as ecstasy and cocaine.
• A 500-calorie-a-day diet plan paired with appetite-suppressing drugs, given to a fictional teenage girl concerned about her appearance.

Ahmed described reading the AI-generated suicide notes as “devastating” and said the content demonstrated how chatbots can act more like enablers than protectors.

How Teens Bypass AI Restrictions

Researchers found that ChatGPT’s safety filters could be bypassed by reframing harmful questions. For example, if a harmful prompt was rejected, testers would claim the request was “for a presentation” or intended for a friend.

In nearly half of the trials, ChatGPT not only complied but also volunteered additional suggestions, such as music playlists for a drug-fueled event or hashtags to promote self-harm content on social media.

Why Chatbots Differ From Search Engines

While much of the information could be found online, experts warn that chatbots like ChatGPT differ in key ways:

1. Personalization: AI generates bespoke responses tailored to the user’s profile, rather than providing general search results.
2. Conversational Trust: Users, especially younger ones, perceive chatbots as companions, making harmful advice more persuasive.
3. Interactivity: Chatbots can guide users through multi-step plans in real time.

Robbie Torney, Senior Director of AI Programs at Common Sense Media, explained that younger teens are more likely than older teens to trust a chatbot’s advice, increasing the risk of harmful influence.

Age Verification and Policy Gaps

Currently, ChatGPT requires users to confirm they are at least 13 years old but does not verify this information. This allows minors to create accounts simply by entering a qualifying birthdate.

Other platforms like Instagram have implemented more robust age verification and restricted features for younger users to comply with safety regulations. Researchers argue similar measures should be applied to widely used AI tools.

Calls for Stronger Protections

CCDH’s report urges OpenAI to:

• Implement age verification systems to protect minors.
• Strengthen guardrails to prevent harmful content from being generated.
• Increase transparency about how harmful prompts are detected and handled.

Ahmed emphasized that AI companies must act quickly given the rapid adoption of these tools among young people. “We would respond to a teen’s cry for help with compassion and safety,” he said. “AI should be designed to do the same.”

NOTE: This article discusses suicide. If you or someone you know needs help, call or text 988 in the U.S. to reach the Suicide and Crisis Lifeline.

Source: AP News – New study sheds light on ChatGPT’s alarming interactions with teens

The post New Study Warns of Risks in ChatGPT’s Interactions With Teens appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

A group of Microsoft employees staged a protest during a company town hall meeting on Monday, opposing the company’s contracts to provide artificial intelligence (AI) and cloud computing services to the Israeli military.

Protest at Microsoft Town Hall

During the meeting at Microsoft’s corporate headquarters, CEO Satya Nadella was speaking about new products when five employees, standing nearby, revealed T-shirts that collectively spelled out the question:
“Does Our Code Kill Kids, Satya?”

The protest was live-streamed throughout the company, but Nadella continued speaking without addressing the demonstrators. Security personnel quickly approached the employees, tapped them on the shoulders, and escorted them out of the room.

Microsoft later issued a statement, saying:

“We provide many avenues for all voices to be heard. Importantly, we ask that this be done in a way that does not cause a business disruption. If that happens, we ask participants to relocate.”

Context: AI and Cloud Services Used in Israeli Military Operations

The protest follows a recent Associated Press (AP) investigation, which revealed that Microsoft and OpenAI’s advanced AI models were used in an Israeli military program to identify bombing targets in Gaza and Lebanon.

The AP report also highlighted a 2023 Israeli airstrike that mistakenly hit a civilian vehicle in Lebanon, killing three young girls and their grandmother.

Microsoft has not publicly addressed the findings of the AP report, nor has it responded to inquiries regarding possible disciplinary action against the protesting employees.

Rising Internal Tensions at Microsoft

This is not the first time Microsoft workers have protested the company’s involvement with the Israeli military.

• In October 2023, Microsoft fired two employees who helped organize an unauthorized vigil for Palestinian refugees at its headquarters. The company said their termination was in line with internal policies but did not provide further details.
• A group of employees, operating under the name “No Azure for Apartheid,” has been advocating against Microsoft’s Azure cloud services being used by the Israeli military.
• Some Microsoft employees have also expressed support for Israel, arguing that pro-Palestinian activism in the company has made them feel unsafe.

AI and Cloud Usage Increased After October 7 Attack

The AP report, based on internal company data, revealed that usage of Microsoft’s AI models by the Israeli military through Azure increased nearly 200 times following the October 7, 2023, Hamas attack on Israel.

Microsoft employees have actively discussed the findings on internal forums, with many questioning whether the company is violating its stated principles on human rights and the ethical use of AI.

Calls for Accountability

Abdo Mohamed, a researcher and data scientist fired after the October vigil, criticized Microsoft’s leadership, saying the company is prioritizing profits over ethics.

“The demands are clear: Satya Nadella and Microsoft executives need to answer to their workers by dropping contracts with the Israeli military.”

What’s Next?

Microsoft has yet to respond to mounting internal and external pressure regarding its role in Israeli military operations. As tensions rise both within the company and globally, employees and advocacy groups are expected to continue pushing for corporate accountability and ethical AI use.

Source

The post Microsoft Workers Protest AI Contracts with Israeli Military appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

Tech giants in the U.S. and Europe are heading in opposite directions when it comes to managing online hate speech. While companies like Meta and X are loosening content moderation in the United States, Europe is tightening its grip, forcing companies to adhere to stricter standards in an effort to protect users from harmful online content.

This stark contrast highlights the growing divide in online experiences for users in the U.S. and Europe. While lawmakers in the European Union (EU) are advancing legislation aimed at increasing tech safety and accountability, similar proposals have been met with resistance or stagnation in the U.S. Congress.

European Big Tech Companies Agree to New Code of Conduct

This week, major tech platforms, including Meta’s Facebook, Instagram, X, TikTok, YouTube, LinkedIn, and Snapchat, signed on to an updated European Union code of conduct aimed at combating hate speech. Under the new agreement, companies will allow independent organizations to review their platforms for harmful content and act quickly to remove flagged posts.

The new code of conduct is voluntary but aligns with the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA), which requires tech companies to take meaningful steps to combat illegal and harmful content. Henna Virkkunen, the EU’s executive vice president for tech sovereignty, security, and democracy, emphasized that illegal hate speech has no place in Europe, either online or offline.

“This agreement will ensure a safe digital space for all,” she said in a statement.

The U.S. Tech Landscape: A Shift Towards “Free Expression”

Meanwhile, in the U.S., some tech companies are rolling back content moderation policies. Meta and X, in particular, have made changes that could allow for more hate speech, arguing that these shifts promote free speech and reduce censorship.

X, under Elon Musk’s ownership, has experienced a rise in hate speech, particularly after welcoming previously banned white supremacists and conspiracy theorists back to the platform. Musk himself has also promoted some controversial ideas on the site, sparking further concerns.

Meta, on the other hand, recently announced changes to its content moderation policies in the U.S. The company will now focus automated systems on addressing only illegal or high-severity violations, such as terrorism or child sexual exploitation. The changes also include scaling back protections for vulnerable groups, such as women and LGBTQ+ individuals. Meta’s updated policy now allows users to make derogatory comments about women or suggest that transgender people are mentally ill without facing moderation.

These shifts in policy align with the growing political influence in the U.S. that frames content moderation as a form of censorship. Many Republican leaders argue that Big Tech platforms have become too controlling in their moderation efforts, leading to calls for a reinterpretation of the tech immunity law, Section 230.

Diverging Experiences for Users in the U.S. and Europe

As these changes unfold, the differences between the online experiences of Americans and Europeans continue to grow. In Europe, regulations such as the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) protect personal data and prevent tech companies from collecting users’ demographic information without consent. European users are also better shielded from targeted ads and benefit from regulations like the Digital Markets Act, which prevents app developers from bypassing platforms to offer cheaper deals.

Additionally, European users enjoy greater protections against online hate speech and more robust safeguards in the realm of artificial intelligence (AI), which is subject to stricter development standards and privacy laws in the EU. In contrast, the U.S. has loosened regulations, giving tech companies more freedom to set their own content standards and expand the scope of what is considered acceptable online expression.

Big Tech’s Relationship with Trump

The shift in U.S. policy comes as tech executives, including Mark Zuckerberg, Elon Musk, Sundar Pichai, and Tim Cook, have become more closely aligned with former President Donald Trump’s administration. At Trump’s inauguration, several Big Tech CEOs were present, signaling their desire for a closer relationship with the new administration.

In private meetings, Zuckerberg and Cook have reportedly discussed pushing back on EU regulations and lobbying Trump to help American tech companies navigate stricter European laws. Zuckerberg, in particular, has said that he plans to work with Trump to challenge governments that target American tech firms and attempt to impose more censorship.

A Fractured Global Tech Landscape

This divergence in policy between the U.S. and Europe is creating a fractured global tech landscape. Isabelle Wright, Director of Technology and Society at the Institute for Strategic Dialogue, notes that this growing divide could lead to a fragmented information ecosystem, where tech users in the U.S. and Europe experience vastly different online environments.

As tech companies continue to prioritize the interests of American lawmakers and politicians, the potential for increased regulation in Europe could force further changes in how Big Tech operates on the global stage. For now, it seems the balance between freedom of expression and safety online will remain a contentious issue with no easy solution.

Source

The post Europe Tightens Control on Online Hate Speech, While U.S. Relaxes Rules appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

Google faced backlash this week after users noticed that former President Joe Biden was missing from its search results for U.S. presidents. The company attributed the issue to a “data error” and confirmed the problem had been resolved by Thursday.

What Happened?

On Wednesday, users reported that Google’s search results for terms like “U.S. Presidents,” “United States Presidents,” and “U.S. Presidents in order” excluded Biden. Instead, the lists jumped from George Washington to Donald Trump, omitting Biden, who completed his term as president earlier this week.

Screenshots shared online showed the glaring omission, sparking confusion and criticism. CNBC confirmed the issue after performing similar searches that also excluded Biden. By Thursday, Google restored Biden to the search results.

Google’s Explanation

In response to the controversy, a Google spokesperson issued a statement on Thursday:

“There was a brief data error in our knowledge graph. We identified the root cause and resolved it quickly.”

A “knowledge graph” refers to Google’s system that organizes and connects data to provide accurate information in its search results.

The error came at a sensitive time for Google, as the company faces scrutiny over product missteps and its role in providing reliable information.

Sundar Pichai’s Emphasis on Trust

The issue follows a memo sent by Google CEO Sundar Pichai to employees on Election Day in November, urging them to uphold the company’s commitment to reliable and unbiased information.

“Whomever the voters entrust, let’s remember the role we play at work, through the products we build and as a business: to be a trusted source of information to people of every background and belief,” Pichai wrote.

Despite the CEO’s call for integrity, this incident adds to a series of challenges Google has faced in maintaining public trust.

A Tough Year for Google

Google’s omission of Biden is the latest in a series of controversies during a turbulent year for the tech giant.

1. AI Product Mishaps:
   • Google launched Imagen 2, an AI tool that generates images from text prompts, but users quickly flagged historical inaccuracies. The company had to pull the feature temporarily, with Pichai admitting to employees that the company had “offended our users and shown bias.”
   • Similarly, Google’s AI Overview, which provides summary results atop traditional searches, faced criticism for inaccuracies upon its launch.
2. Global Scrutiny:
   • At a December all-hands meeting, Pichai acknowledged the growing scrutiny facing Google:
     

     “It’s not lost on me that we are facing scrutiny across the world. It comes with our size and success. It’s part of a broader trend where tech is now impacting society at scale.”

Political Ties and Controversies

The omission error also reignited conversations about Google’s political affiliations and past controversies.

• Former President Trump has previously accused Google of burying search results related to him—claims that remain unproven.
• Google donated $1 million to Trump’s inauguration fund and maintained a visible presence during his administration. Sundar Pichai, along with other tech CEOs, stood prominently on stage during Trump’s inauguration.

Key Takeaway

Google’s “data error” that omitted Joe Biden from its U.S. presidents search results highlights the challenges of maintaining trust and accuracy in an era of heightened scrutiny. As the company navigates controversies surrounding AI products, political affiliations, and public accountability, its commitment to reliable information remains under the spotlight.

Source

The post Google Fixes Error That Removed Joe Biden from U.S. Presidents List appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

Google’s Response

Google has dismissed the allegations, stating that the complaint overlooks the intense competition in the digital advertising market. Dan Taylor, Google’s Vice President of Global Ads, defended the company’s practices:
“Our advertising tools help websites and apps fund their content while enabling businesses of all sizes to effectively reach new customers.”

Google added that advertisers and publishers have plenty of alternatives and expressed confidence in presenting its case in court.

Investigation Findings

The Competition Bureau launched its investigation in 2020 to assess whether Google’s practices harmed competition in the online advertising market. This year, the probe expanded to include Google’s advertising technology services.

The Bureau found that Google dominates the Canadian ad tech market and has allegedly abused its position to maintain and strengthen its market power. According to the Bureau, these actions have hindered competition, stifling innovation and choice for advertisers and publishers.

Parallels with U.S. and EU Cases

The case comes as Google faces similar legal challenges globally. In the United States, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has accused Google of monopolizing markets for publisher ad servers and advertiser ad networks.

Google has pushed back against the DOJ’s claims, arguing that the online advertising industry remains competitive and that its business decisions are lawful. The company also criticized the U.S. government for focusing on a narrow segment of the market. Closing arguments in the U.S. case were presented earlier this week.

In Europe, Google offered to sell its ad exchange earlier this year to address antitrust concerns from the European Union. However, publishers in the EU rejected the offer, deeming it inadequate, as reported by Reuters in September.

What’s Next?

The lawsuit filed by Canada’s Competition Bureau aims to curtail Google’s influence in the online advertising market and promote a fairer playing field. If successful, the case could lead to significant changes in how Google operates its ad technology in Canada. It also signals increasing scrutiny of big tech companies worldwide as governments seek to address concerns over market dominance and competition.

Source

Top picture credit: REUTERS/Steve Marcus/File Photo

The post Canada Takes Google to Court Over Online Advertising Practices appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

Australia has enacted a world-first law prohibiting children under 16 from accessing social media, placing significant accountability on tech companies to tighten security. The law, passed by the Senate on the final sitting day of the year, requires companies to take “reasonable steps” to enforce the ban or face fines of up to AUD 50 million (USD 32 million).

This unprecedented move is a response to the growing concerns about social media’s impact on youth. While other nations have introduced similar restrictions, Australia is the first to hold companies accountable for violations. Platforms like Snapchat, TikTok, Facebook, Instagram, Reddit, and X are expected to fall under the ban, with the possibility of more being added.

Government and Public Reactions

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese highlighted the growing global concern over social media’s effects on young people, describing it as a platform that can amplify bullying, anxiety, scams, and online predation. “At 16, children are better equipped to recognize fakes and dangers,” Albanese told Parliament.

The bill received bipartisan support, with Liberal Sen. Maria Kovacic calling it a “pivotal moment” in checking the power of tech giants. “We’ve drawn a line in the sand,” she said.

However, the law faced strong opposition from smaller parties and independents. Greens Sen. Sarah Hanson-Young criticized the rushed process and warned that it could push vulnerable youth into isolation. “Social media should be made safer for everyone, not banned arbitrarily,” she argued.

A Rushed Legislative Process

The bill’s rapid progression has drawn criticism for insufficient consultation. Submissions to a Senate inquiry were open for only 24 hours, followed by a brief three-hour hearing. Despite receiving over 100 submissions, most contributors expressed concerns about the lack of thorough review.

The Senate committee recommended some amendments, including prohibiting the use of government-issued documents, like passports, for age verification.

Tech Companies’ Concerns

Tech companies raised objections, citing privacy risks and the challenges of enforcing the law. Snap Inc., the maker of Snapchat, suggested “device-level age verification” as the best solution. X, owned by Elon Musk, expressed concern about freedom of expression. Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram, advocated for waiting on results from age verification trials expected next year.

Meta also criticized the exclusion of platforms like YouTube and online gaming from the ban, arguing this undermines the law’s intent.

Public Support and Next Steps

Despite criticisms, the law enjoys strong public backing. A recent YouGov poll showed 77% of Australians support the ban.

The government will now consult stakeholders to determine a start date. Once implemented, accounts belonging to users under 16 will be deactivated. While parents and children will not face penalties for violations, companies must demonstrate robust efforts to comply.

This landmark legislation signals a turning point in how nations address the complex relationship between social media and youth, setting a precedent for others to follow.

Source

The post Australia Bans Social Media for Under-16s: What It Means for Kids and Tech Companies appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.