media

The company’s stock plunged about 8 percent on the news of Hastings’s departure.

Netflix Chairman Reed Hastings is leaving the streaming service he cofounded 29 years ago as the company regains its footing after it lost its $72bn deal for Warner Bros Discovery to Paramount Skydance.

In a letter to investors released on Thursday, Netflix said Hastings will not stand for re-election at its annual meeting in June and plans to focus on philanthropy and other pursuits.

The company’s stock plunged about 8 percent on the news of Hastings’s departure. The cofounder is credited with helping to revolutionise how movies and television shows are delivered in homes, upending Hollywood’s business model.

“Netflix is growing revenues double-digits, expanding margins in 2026 and gushing free cash flow,” said LightShed Partners media analyst Richard Greenfield. “While the Q1 was uneventful financially, the departure of Reed Hastings has spooked investors.”

Netflix reaffirmed in a 14-page shareholder letter that its mission remains “ambitious and unchanged” – to entertain the world, providing movies and series for many tastes, cultures and languages. The company’s full-year outlook remained unchanged.

The company did not say how it plans to spend the $2.8bn termination fee it received after losing the Warner Bros movie studio and HBO, and lifted its earnings per share to $1.23 in the first quarter compared with 66 cents per share in the same quarter last year.

Revenue rose to $12.25bn, an increase of 16 percent from the year-ago period, modestly exceeding analyst forecasts of $12.18bn.

Netflix, which long told investors that a Warner Bros acquisition was a “nice to have, not need to have” proposition, highlighted areas of future growth.

The company said its investment in expanding its entertainment offerings, with video podcasts and live entertainment – such as the World Baseball Classic in Japan – is driving engagement.

It plans to use technology to improve the user experience and improve monetisation, as advertising revenue remains on track to reach $3bn in 2026 – a twofold increase from a year ago.

April 16 (UPI) — British Prime Minister Keir Starmer put the big five social media firms on notice Thursday that he was considering state intervention, including the nuclear option of a ban, if they did not do more to protect children from being harmed by their products.

Starmer warned executives from Meta, Snap, Google, TikTok and X at a meeting in Downing Street that something had to give, saying a ban on children accessing their platforms would be “preferable to a world where harm is the price” for social media use.

“Things can’t go on like this, they must change because right now social media is putting our children at risk. In a world in which children are protected, even if that means access is restricted, that is preferable to a world where harm is the price of participation,” said Starmer.

“I am determined we will build a better future for our children, and look forward to working with you on this. I do think this can be done. I think the question is not whether it is done, the question is how it is done,” he added.

Executives attending the meeting included Google U.K. managing director Kate Alessi, Markus Reinisch, a public policy principal at Meta, and X’s global government affairs director Wifredo Fernandez.

TikTok was represented by Alistair Law, director of public policy for northern Europe, while Snap was represented by Europe president Ronan Harris.

Starmer put to the firms the negative impacts of social media use on children’s ability to concentrate, their sleep, relationships and the way they view the world that have been flagged by parents and child experts.

“It’s clear to me that parents aren’t asking us for tweaks at the edges, they’re asking us whether a system that clearly isn’t working for children should be allowed to continue at all. Companies have to grip this and work with us to do better by British children,” he said.

No. 10 had earlier acknowledged that some of the tech firms had “stepped up” by disabling autoplay of videos for children by default and providing better tools to parents to limit the amount of time their children spend looking at screens, but took a much tougher line at Thursday’s meeting.

Starmer’s Labour administration has previously pushed back on pressure from parents, educators and child safety advocates for an Australia-style ban for children younger than 16 on fears it could drive them onto the dark web and make them more vulnerable when they eventually begin using the apps by hindering development of their digital skills.

Most social media sites operating in Britain do not permit children younger than 13 to use their products.

However, in the past three months, Starmer’s administration has twice been forced to use its House of Commons majority to override two efforts by the House of Lords, the upper chamber of Parliament, to amend a government bill to include a ban for children younger than 16.

The most recent of these was on Wednesday in which the government defeated the Lords’ latest attempt to force through a ban, but with a reduced majority from the previous vote on March 10. More than 240 of 650 MPs either failed to show or abstained.

In January, 60 Labour Party backbenchers signed a letter urging Starmer to bring forward a ban.

The government managed to fend off the first challenge in March by launching a three-month public consultation on how to proceed with anticipation inside his administration growing that Starmer will yield to pressure for a ban when the findings are published in the summer.

The general consensus is that President Trump’s social media post of himself dressed in robes, after a busy weekend in which he blasted Pope Leo and attended a prizefight while an Iran peace plan fell apart, was an attempt to cast himself as a Jesus-like figure.

But Trump says we have it wrong.

“It’s supposed to be me as a doctor, making people better,” he said.

As a graduate of St. Peter Martyr grade school in the San Francisco East Bay area, and as someone who has seen a lot of doctors for various ailments, I feel uniquely qualified to weigh in.

In Catholic school, holy cards are a big deal. You’ve seen a couple hundred of them by the time you hit second or third grade, so you become familiar with the muted ethereal glow, the heavenly gaze and the look of piety. A standard feature is the halo, a clearly defined sphere that sits like a buttered bonnet on the head of the saint.

Let the record show that in his post on his very own Truth Social, which is not always truthful, Trump does not have a halo.

So in total fairness, it’s possible the president was not lying when he said he was supposed to be a doctor.

On the other hand, having seen a good number of cardiologists and surgeons and orthopedic specialists, I don’t recall any doctors who wore flowing robes while bathed in heavenly light, with a flock of eagles coming out of their ears and a team of Navy SEALs busting through the hospital ceiling.

And then there’s the fireball emanating from Trump’s right hand. All of which begs the question: If Trump thinks this is what a doctor looks like, what ailment is he being treated for, and shouldn’t the public be advised?

There’s also the question of creation — not of human life, but of the very existence of a social media post like this from the president of the United States in wartime. It was described as an AI-generated image, but who was at the computer?

Did the president sit down at the end of a long day and churn out an image of himself playing doctor, if not Jesus Christ? Or does he have a team of staffers who do this sort of thing, and if so, how could Elon Musk have missed them when he said the government was bloated and set out to fire half the federal workforce?

You’d at least hope the president would have the courage of his convictions. But as criticism of his post mounted, Trump deleted it Monday morning.

I think he should have stuck with the story — he was portraying himself a doctor because he’s a healer. The next day, he could have been in a New York Jets uniform and told us he’s a quarterback. Then he could have released an image of himself in the Artemis space capsule and told us he’s an astronaut, and he’s thinking of building a string of Trump hotels on the moon. Ask yourself this: Would anyone have been surprised?

A guy who only knows how to go for broke, and always doubles down when things go wrong, has to stick to his guns or the whole shtick unravels. I’d have respected Trump more if he had traipsed around the White House with a stethoscope for a week or two, or maybe performed brain surgery on Pete Hegseth, just to see what’s going on in there.

What’s going on in Trump’s head, if I might volunteer a bit of armchair psychoanalysis, is that failure triggers a sense of grandeur rather than humility.

Things are not going well at the moment, so he’s lashing out. The price of things was supposed to come down on Day One, but thanks to his upheaval of the world economy, prices went up, and now they’re soaring because he helped start a war that made no sense.

A war that has been criticized by Pope Leo, who has pointed out that while the Trump administration has ascribed a religious imperative to the assault on Iran, and Trump promised to blow the country all the way back to the “Stone Ages,” Jesus would probably not be on board.

Trump, who said last year that he wants to “try and get to heaven, if possible,” now realizes he’s not going to get an endorsement from the pontiff.

And so the man who once issued a national call to prayer, said the Bible was his favorite book, joked after the death of Pope Francis that he wanted to be the next pontiff, and has now issued his own holy card, has attacked Pope Leo for being too liberal as well as “weak on crime and terrible for foreign policy.” He has, in effect, anointed himself as holier than the pope himself.

Even staunch supporters of Trump have worked themselves into a lather over this. They’re lashing out at Trump, as if his criticism of the pope and depiction of himself as Jesus Christ are shocking.

My fellow Americans, certain words have been rendered meaningless in describing the current state of affairs. Among them are shocking, surreal, unbelievable, unprecedented and unexpected.

If indeed Trump thinks he’s Jesus, let his penance begin with 100 Our Fathers, 500 Hail Marys and 1,000 Acts of Contrition.

If indeed he thinks he’s a doctor:

Physician, heal thyself.

steve.lopez@latimes.com

“All Hippos, the drone is in the control room, give us your all.”

Vanessa Bonet of the installation art group Dedo Vabo watched over a mission-control monitor deck, as the buzzing craft climbed into room full of braying hippos in rumpled suits. The beasts were, ostensibly, running a menacing communications conglomerate in a satellite tower looking over the main field of Coachella, but now they were spooked. They scampered around the office looming above the Outdoor stage, while delighted fans on the ground watched them flail behind glass.

“When you put a hippopotamus in a 10 foot enclosed space for 12 hours, they tend to go a little crazy,” Bonet said, picking up her CB radio to tell one hippo their mask had slipped off. “It takes a lot of work to keep this running.”

Coachella veterans were chuffed to hit the grounds and see “Network Operations,” the long-awaited return of Dedo Vabo’s hippos. It’s a years-long installation gag on the polo fields where actors (and Coachella performing artists) in hippo masks pantomime working at evil-ish corporations before the operation blows up in their faces by Sunday evening.

Festival goers observe ‘hippos’ at exhibit, ‘Network Operations’ at the Coachella Valley Music and Arts Festival at the Empire Polo Club in Indio on Saturday, April 11, 2026.

(Christina House/Los Angeles Times)

While the project began in a room at the infamous Cecil Hotel in downtown L.A.’s Art Walk in 2008, they’re now synonymous with Coachella and back on the field for the first time since 2019. Artists from the young punk band Die Spitz and Janelle Monáe’s crew have taken spins in the costumes (they’re hoping famed animal rights activist Moby might be up for a turn this year.) Past installments have seen the hippos found a power company, join the space race and tank the stock market.

“Network Operations” is a little slice of the arty anarchy that defined Coachella’s early, pre-influencer era. In a season of Hollywood marked by mega-mergers from well-funded nepo children, there is something timely about these oblivious creatures smashing up a printing press and a broadcast studio.

“The hippos are mimetic. It’s little bit of a reflection of society with dark, absurdist humor,” said Dedo Vabo’s Derek Doublin. “This is your friendly global neighborhood multi-conglomerate telecommunications and broadcast company. They hold enormous power but they’re also clueless about where they’re going with it.”

If any of the Skydance/Paramount brass are on the field, they might find the situation a bit resonant.

Good morning, and welcome to L.A. on the Record — our City Hall newsletter. It’s Alene Tchekmedyian, with an assist from Rebecca Ellis, giving you the latest on all things local government.

Last summer, the Los Angeles Fire Department enlisted a public relations firm to help shape the narrative around its response to the Palisades fire as it geared up to release its long-awaited after-action report.

The optics around the devastating fire hadn’t been good.

A Times investigation revealed that top LAFD officials failed to pre-deploy engines in Pacific Palisades, despite forecasts of dangerously high winds. Mayor Karen Bass ousted the fire chief. The thousands of residents who lost their homes were growing increasingly angry. City and LAFD officials were concerned about how the report, which was intended to examine what mistakes the department made and how to avoid repeating them, would land.

“While we have a section that deals with press inquiries, media, and interview requests, they are not equipped to deal with what I call a ‘Crisis,’” LAFD Deputy Chief Kairi Brown wrote to the Lede Company in July.

The Times obtained the email and other materials this week through the California Public Records Act. Brown wrote in the email that his brother, Jay Brown, who co-founded the entertainment company Roc Nation with Jay-Z, recommended the firm.

At the time, LAFD’s public information director position was vacant, but a staff roster shows that two captains and four firefighters were assigned to the Community Liaison Office. The captains, Erik Scott and Adam Van Gerpen, each made more than $200,000 in overtime alone last year, on top of their roughly $200,000 base salaries, payroll data show.

Scott and Van Gerpen did not immediately respond to a question about what the overtime was for.

Fire officials also met with and considered another PR firm called Cielo Strategic Communications, but ultimately selected Lede for the job. Lede bills itself as a “full-service strategy, communications and social impact consulting firm,” with high-profile celebrity clients like Kerry Washington and Emma Stone, according to its website.

The Los Angeles Fire Department Foundation, which calls itself “the official nonprofit arm of the LAFD” that provides “vital equipment and funds critical programs to help the LAFD save lives,” took care of the $65,000 bill.

The Times has described efforts by Bass and others to water down the after-action report. Lede’s role, according to internal documents, was to shield the LAFD and the mayor’s office from “reputational harm” associated with the report’s release.

Bass also was involved in media spin, with Scott writing in an Oct. 9 email that “any additional interviews with the Fire Chief would likely depend on the Mayor’s guidance.”

The documents obtained by The Times this week reveal that Lede embarked on “Media 101” training for interim Fire Chief Ronnie Villanueva, including basic tips such as: “While reporters aren’t always out to get you, they’re not your friends either.”

“Tricks” that reporters use to get people talking, according to a Lede slideshow, include: “Speculate,” “Stir the pot,” “The long pause/silence” and “Act like your friend.”

Other advice from Lede: “Stay on message and don’t volunteer information that is not asked.” Don’t “offer information to fill the silence (this is a reporter tactic).”

The Lede Company previously declined to comment on its work for the LAFD, citing client confidentiality. An LAFD spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment Friday.

Other records previously released show that Lede also analyzed news articles before and after the Palisades fire — the goal was to get a sort of vibe check of LAFD from the public — and found criticism of department leadership as well as support for the rank and file.

And a communications plan developed in the event that the after-action report was leaked to reporters involved convening an “emergency briefing between LAFD, Lede, and the Mayor’s Office within 60 minutes of discovery,” as well as embargoed briefings within a day “to control the narrative and reinforce lessons learned and key actions coming out of the LAFD.”

Lede worked with the LAFD until about mid-November, when Jaime Moore took over as fire chief. A couple of months later, the agency hired a public information director, Stephanie Bishop, to lead the Community Liaison Office.

State of play

— SB CANDIDATE: Los Angeles mayoral candidate Spencer Pratt acknowledged this week that he’s living in Santa Barbara County after the Palisades fire destroyed his home. He’s allowed to use his Palisades address to vote and run for office, as long as he intends to return, election officials said.

— BASS BUCKS: Bass and City Councilmember Ysabel Jurado say they want to allot more than $360 million to developers and nonprofits creating affordable housing. The money, which comes largely from the “mansion tax,” would fund 80 projects.

— REVOLVING DOOR: A Times analysis found the longer the mayor’s signature program to battle homelessness exists, the worse its metrics are. As Inside Safe finished its third year in December, roughly 40% of the people who had gone indoors were back on the street.

— CHANGE AGENT: Everyone running for L.A. mayor wants to be a champion of change. As her first term comes to an end, Bass is campaigning on change, vowing to tackle decades-old problems. So is City Councilmember Nithya Raman, who says her decision to run was based on “a sense of urgency that things needed to change.”

—FIGHT FLOP: More than a year after California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta charged 30 probation officers with facilitating so-called “gladiator fights” among youths inside the county’s juvenile halls, almost half of the criminal cases are falling apart. State prosecutors dismissed charges against one-third of the officers, and four more entered into plea deals Tuesday that will end with their cases dropped.

— BADGE BREACH: Sensitive police records, including personnel files, were seized by hackers in a breach involving the L.A. city attorney’s office. A group known for conducting ransomware attacks on large entities took credit for the hack, which involves 337,000 files.

— OLYMPIC OOPS: Los Angeles officials are worried that taxpayers could be on the hook for budget-busting costs to support the 2028 Olympic Games, if the profit promised by LA28 doesn’t materialize. City Atty. Hydee Feldstein Soto and Councilmember Monica Rodriguez both want a contract pledging that LA28 cover any future costs incurred by the city.

— VANISHING BLUES: Up for reelection and facing a budget deficit, Bass says she’s shifting from her original plan to grow the L.A. Police Department to the 9,500-officer force it once was. Her new goal: making sure the department doesn’t shrink from its current total of 8,677 officers, which is the lowest in nearly a quarter-century.

— PRICEY PROTESTS: A well-known LAPD critic and two attorneys are suing the LAPD after officers allegedly fired less-lethal rounds at them during a protest last summer. Activist Jason Reedy says he was shot in the groin after confronting an officer outside LAPD headquarters.

QUICK HITS

• Where is Inside Safe? The mayor’s signature homelessness program monitored 126 encampment sites across the city and visited an interim housing site.
• On the docket next week: L.A. County officials will unveil their budget for the upcoming fiscal year Monday, with the supervisors weighing in at their Tuesday board meeting.

Stay in touch

That’s it for this week! Send your questions, comments and gossip to LAontheRecord@latimes.com. Did a friend forward you this email? Sign up here to get it in your inbox every Saturday morning.

The Dept. of Justice is investigating the NFL’s media deals with streaming companies as more of its games go behind subscription pay walls.

The investigation first reported by the Wall Street Journal centers on the financial impact of live sports streaming on consumers and whether the league’s traditional broadcast partners are getting fair treatment.

The Justice Dept. did not respond to a request for comment. A government official told NBC News the DOJ’s investigation into the NFL is “about affordability for consumers and creating an even playing field for providers.”

Early last month, Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah requested the investigation in a letter to the DOJ, and issued a statement Thursday on X saying he was glad to see it move forward.

The Sports Broadcasting Act passed by Congress in 1961 allowed professional football teams to collectively license the TV rights of their games to national broadcast networks without running afoul of anti-trust laws. Lee noted that courts have recognized the act refers to broadcasts “financed through advertising and made available free to the public.”

Lee said sports packages that go behind subscription paywalls “no longer align” with the intention of the act which was passed when the public only had access to three TV networks.

The NFL has not received a letter from the DOJ saying it is under investigation, according to a person familiar with the matter who was not authorized to comment. But the league issued a statement asserting that fans can see every NFL game played by the teams in their markets for free on broadcast TV unlike every other major sport.

“The NFL’s media distribution model is the most fan and broadcaster-friendly in the entire sports and entertainment industry,” the league said. “The NFL has for decades put our fans front and center in how we distribute our content.”

The NFL said 87% its games can be watched on free TV. The other 13% on streaming and cable platforms are made available on the local TV stations of the teams involved in those contests.

The sports rights landscape has shifted dramatically in the last 10 years as deep pocketed tech companies such as Amazon, Google and Netflix have provided the NFL with significant leverage in its negotiations with its longtime TV partners NBC, CBS, Fox and ESPN.

While streaming companies initially eschewed live sports because of the high cost of rights fees, they have found them to be an effective way to bring a massive number of viewers to their platforms.

Amazon Prime Video is paying $1.5 billion a year for the rights to “Thursday Night Football,” a package that was a money loser when carried by the broadcast networks. Netflix has picked up the rights to games on Christmas Day, while Google’s YouTube became the home of the Sunday Ticket package that gives subscribers access to out-of-market games.

The pressure from the newer competitors comes at a time when companies with traditional TV networks depend on the NFL more than ever as it provides the highest rated programming by a wide margin. The NFL packages also give TV station groups with leverage in negotiating carriage deal fees with cable and satellite companies.

Tensions over the rising rights fees are growing as the NFL has the right to open up the deal with Paramount, because the company underwent an ownership change last year when acquired by Skydance Media. The league is reportedly looking for another $1 billion annually from Paramount which is already paying $2.1 billion a year for its package of games on CBS.

The league has also made it clear it plans to exercise its option in 2029 to open the current 10-year media rights contract that runs through the 2032-33 season.

Fox Corporation — home of the Trump-friendly Fox News Channel — heavily depends on the NFL for programming on its TV stations — has already raised concerns about the renegotiation.

Executive Chairman Lachlan Murdoch has said he believes the $2.5 billion a year Fox pays the NFL is “fair market value.” But he has also told Wall Street analysts the company may have to re-examine its other sports deals in preparation to pay more to the NFL going forward.

Last week, Fox and station group owner Sinclair Broadcasting filed a statement with the FCC asserting that the NFL’s antitrust exemption does not apply to streaming platforms that require paid subscriptions.

“Congress provided a valuable exemption from the antitrust laws for leagues that bargain collectively for sports broadcasting,” wrote Joseph Di Scipio, Fox Corp.’s senior VP, legal and FCC compliance. “But on its face, the statute does not exempt negotiations that the leagues may have with streaming services.”

Austrian officials highlight addiction and ill-health while advocating for stricter age restrictions.

Austria plans to ban children under 14 from using social media, with an official saying certain online sites are addictive and making young people “sick”.

“Austria is introducing ‌a compulsory minimum age of 14 for the use of social media platforms,” conservative ⁠junior minister for digitisation, ⁠Alexander Proll, told a joint news ⁠conference on Friday.

Proell added that draft legislation ‌would be drawn up by June. Cabinet members ⁠from Austria’s two other governing parties were also in attendance.

“We will ‌decisively protect children and young people in future from the negative effects of social media,” Vice Chancellor Andreas Babler of the Social Democrats said.

“We will no longer stand by and watch while these platforms make our children addicted and often also sick … The risks associated ⁠with this use were ignored for ⁠long enough, and now it is time to act,” he added.

Babler said the government would not list individual platforms the ban would apply to, but would ‌decide ‌based on how addictive their algorithms are and whether they include content such as “sexualised violence”.

The announcement comes days after a Los Angeles jury found Alphabet’s Google and Meta liable for $6m in damages in a landmark social media addiction lawsuit.

The case involved a 20-year-old woman who said she became addicted to the apps at a young age due to their platform design. Meta says it plans to appeal the decision.

Also on Friday, the United Kingdom advised parents of children under five to limit screen time to a maximum of one hour per day.

Similar to Austria, other nations in Europe and elsewhere have banned the use of social media for children.

In January, the French parliament voted in favour of banning children aged below 15 from social media, amid growing concerns about online bullying and mental health risks.

Countries including the UK, Denmark, Spain and Greece are also studying a ban.

The European Parliament has called for the European Union to set minimum ages for children to ‌access social media, although it is up to member states to impose age limits.

Tom Skinner, an entrepreneur who was on The Apprentice in 2019, appeared on Question Time in Clacton-on-Sea, Essex, which featured a debate about social media giants

TV personality Tom Skinner squirmed under interrogation from Fiona Bruce during a showdown about social media on Question Time.

The presenter of the topical debate programme accused Mr Skinner, 35, of being “part of the problem” amid the debate around the pros and cons of apps, such as TikTok and Instagram. The entrepreneur regularly posts videos to his 536,000 TikTok followers, including clips of him eating full English breakfasts at his favourite café. He told Question Time he also makes money by promoting products on Instagram, TikTok and other apps.

But Ms Bruce fronted him on his use of the platforms, suggesting he himself was actually playing into the challenges young people and their parents face with social media. Meta and Google were this week found liable for causing addiction in users in a landmark £2.2million legal case, which led to last night’s debate around how they government should help protect children from such addiction.

Addressing Mr Skinner, the host said: “As you said, you are benefiting from social media, you make part of your living that way and, part of the reason you are able to do so is because of the addictive algorithms that will push people towards yours (social media content)… It is giving you a platform, and job opportunities come your way because of it. In the nicest possible way, you are part of the problem.”

The remark led to a wry smile from Justice Minister Jake Richards, also on the panel in Clacton-on-Sea, Essex. Dad-of-three Mr Skinner hesitated as he answered, eventually insisting his videos are harmless.

READ MORE: Calls mount for UK social media ban as Meta hit with ruling over ‘addictive’ appsREAD MORE: Parents across UK to get new powers to limit teenagers’ social media use under trial

Ms Bruce, presenter of the programme since 2019, said: “How can you on the one hand say ‘people shouldn’t be doing it so much’ but, on the other hand, you are benefiting from it?” It left the entrepreneur stuttering again, before he went on to stress the importance of the roles parents should play in protecting children.

“It’s bad. It’s bad when people sit on their phone all day. I’ve seen it myself. I’ve done it myself, I sometimes know I’ve got to be up in four hours and I’ve sat there and I’ve scrolled my brains through, watching absolute nonsense,” Mr Skinner, from Romford, east London, said.

Other panellists defended Mr Skinner, arguing his clips are innocent and “do not drive the worst of the algorithms”. The case this week heard Meta and Google both were negligent in the design or operation of their platforms — including the “infinite scroll” feature that was claimed to trigger addiction in users.

The jury also decided each company’s negligence was a major factor in causing harm to a 20-year-old woman, who says her use of social media as a child addicted her to the technology and worsened her mental health struggles.

Both firms have strongly rejected the verdict and plan to appeal. Meta said: “We respectfully disagree with the verdict and are evaluating our legal options”. A spokesperson for Google added: “This case misunderstands YouTube, which is a responsibly built streaming platform, not a social media site.”

March 26 (UPI) — A California jury has found Meta and YouTube liable for negligently designing addictive social media platforms that harm children, in a landmark verdict that could have lasting implications for the tech industry.

The Wednesday verdict marks the first time technology companies have been found liable for creating addictive online products, amid increased scrutiny of the industry and a wave of litigation.

“This jury saw exactly what we presented from the very first day of trial: that these companies built digital spaces designed to negatively influence the brains of children, and they did it on purpose,” Mark Lanier, lead trial counsel and founder of The Lanier Law Firm, said in a statement.

“The evidence showed that Meta and YouTube knew their platforms were hooking children and harming their mental health, and instead of fixing the problem they kept developing features to maximize the time kids spent on their apps. Now a jury has told them that is not acceptable, and you are being held accountable.”

UPI has contacted Meta and YouTube for comment.

The verdict follows a seven-week trial centered on a now-20-year-old plaintiff known to the court by her initials K.G.M., who testified that her use of Instagram, owned by Meta, and YouTube, an Alphabet product, from a young age caused her to develop anxiety, depression, body dysmorphia and suicidal thoughts.

During the trial, she testified that the platforms’ addictive design features, including algorithm-generated recommendations, beauty features and push notifications caused her severe mental harm.

“[The plaintiff] put a human face on what these companies have known for years: that their platforms were engineered to hook young users, and that the children most vulnerable to trauma were the ones they were most effectively reaching,” Rachel Lanier, co-lead counsel and managing attorney of The Lanier Law Firm’s Los Angeles office, said in a statement.

In its verdict, the jury found Meta 70% responsible for the harm the plaintiff suffered and YouTube 30% responsible, and ordered the Mark Zuckerberg-owned tech behemoth and Google‘s video-sharing service to pay her a combined $6 million, half for compensatory damages and half for punitive damages.

Of the punitive damages, Meta is to pay $2.1 million and YouTube $900,000.

This was the first trial in a much larger consolidated case involving more than 1,600 plaintiffs seeking to hold social media companies responsible for the harm they suffered from using those products.

“This is a major victory for the public, for social media users and for child safety,” Libby Liu, CEO of nonprofit legal organization Whistleblower Aid, told UPI in an emailed statement.

“Each successful lawsuit paints a crystal clear picture showing that Meta is not above the law and can and should be held accountable.”

The verdict came down a day after a New Mexico jury found Meta liable for misleading consumers about the safety of its products, ordering the company to pay $375 million in civil penalties for violating the state’s consumer protection laws.

During the trial, state prosecutors showed that Meta’s design features enabled predators to engage in child sexual exploitation, while demonstrating that Meta intentionally designed its platforms to addict young people.

Following the verdict in Los Angeles County, New Mexico Attorney General Raul Torrez, a Democrat, celebrated it as “another critical step toward justice that puts Meta and other big tech executives on notice that they cannot evade responsibility for design choices that jeopardize child safety.”

“We will seek court-mandated changes to Meta’s platforms that offer protections for kids,” he said in a statement.

The rulings come as more attention is being paid to the effects social media has on youth, resulting with Australia in December banning those under the age of 16 from social media, while other countries are considering similar restrictions.

A Los Angeles jury has found Alphabet’s Google and Meta liable for $6 million in damages in a landmark social media addiction lawsuit. The case involved a 20-year-old woman who said she became addicted to the apps at a young age due to their platform design. Meta says it plans to appeal the decision.

A California jury found ⁠Alphabet’s Google and Meta liable for $3m in damages in a landmark social media addiction lawsuit that accused the companies of being legally responsible for the addictive design of their platforms.

The decision was handed down by a Los Angeles-based jury on Wednesday after more than 40 hours of deliberation across nine days, and more than a month after jurors heard opening statements in the trial.

Among those who testified in the case were Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Instagram head Adam Mosseri, although YouTube chief executive Neal Mohan was not called to testify.

The plaintiff in the case, referred to as KGM or Kaley, was awarded $3m in damages. The 20-year-old said she became addicted to social media at a young age, which exacerbated her mental health issues. She began using YouTube at age six and Meta-owned Instagram at age nine.

Kaley’s legal team alleged that the social media giants used designed features intended to hook young users, including notifications and autoplay features.

“Today’s verdict is a historic moment — for Kaley and for the thousands of children and families who have been waiting for this day. She showed extraordinary courage in bringing this case and telling her story in open court. A jury of Kaley’s peers heard the evidence, heard what Meta and YouTube knew and when they knew it, and held them accountable for their conduct. Today’s verdict belongs to Kaley,” lawyers for the plaintiff said in a statement shared with Al Jazeera.

Jurors were instructed not to consider the content of the posts and videos Kaley saw on the platforms. That is because tech companies are shielded from legal responsibility for user-posted content under Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act.

Meta consistently argued that Kaley had struggled with her mental health separate from her social media use, often pointing to her turbulent home life. Meta also said, “not one of her therapists identified social media as the cause” of her mental health issues in a statement following closing arguments. But the plaintiffs did not have to prove that social media caused Kaley’s struggles — only that it was a “substantial factor” in causing her harm.

YouTube focused less on Kaley’s medical records and mental health history and more on her use of the platform itself. The company argued that YouTube is not a form of social media, but rather a video platform, akin to television, and pointed to her declining use as she got older.

According to company data, she spent about one minute per day on average watching YouTube Shorts since its inception. YouTube Shorts, which launched in 2020, is the platform’s section for short-form, vertical videos that include the “infinite scroll” feature that the plaintiffs argued was addictive.

“We disagree with the verdict and plan to appeal. This case misunderstands YouTube, which is a responsibly built streaming platform, not a social media site,” Jose Castaneda, a spokesperson for Google, told Al Jazeera.

Meta did not respond to Al Jazeera’s request for comment.

Snap and TikTok were previously named in the suit but settled with the plaintiff for undisclosed terms before the trial began.

Shifting momentum

The verdict is the latest in a wave of lawsuits targeting social media companies. There is a looming federal social media addiction case slated to begin in June in Oakland, California.

On Tuesday in New Mexico, a jury found that Meta violated state law by misleading users about the safety of Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp, and by enabling child sexual exploitation on those platforms.

This case has been closely watched by legal experts, who say the verdict will shape future litigation.

“The fact the jury found Meta and Google liable represents that these cases have real exposure to the social media giants, and are going to frame how future litigation will proceed. Although this case will certainly be appealed, I would not be surprised if Meta and Google are already making changes within their platform to reflect the real exposure, and hopefully, the states will start to enact laws regulating social media in a manner congruent with the ruling,” entertainment lawyer Tre Lovell told Al Jazeera.

Professor Eric Goldman, associate dean for research at the Santa Clara University School of Law, echoed Lovell’s assessment.

“The Los Angeles jury verdict is the first of three bellwether trials in Los Angeles, with more bellwether trials to follow in summer, in the federal case. As such, today’s verdict is just one datapoint about liability and damages. The other trials could reach divergent outcomes, so this jury verdict isn’t the final word on any matter.”

Despite the ruling, Meta’s stock has not taken a hit, as it came the same day CEO Mark Zuckerberg was appointed to a new White House advisory council. The stock is up 0.7 percent. Alphabet’s stock, however, is trending downward in midday trading on the heels of the verdict, down 1 percent.

The proposals request that Iran must “commit never to pursue nuclear weapons“, pledge to dismantle nuclear facilities and to hand over the enriched amounts of uranium it possesses to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the UN nuclear watchdog, which is to monitor the issue going forward.

This is first big step by the ChatGPT maker to focus its business on potentially more lucrative areas, such as coding tools.

OpenAI is shutting down its social media app Sora, which went viral towards the end of last year as a place to share short-form videos generated by artificial intelligence but also raised alarms in Hollywood and elsewhere.

OpenAI said in a brief social media message on Tuesday that it was “saying goodbye to the Sora app” and that it would share more soon about how to preserve what users had already created on the app.

“What you made with Sora mattered, and we know this news is disappointing,” it said.

The company behind ChatGPT released Sora in September as an attempt to capture the attention, and potentially advertising dollars, that follow short-form videos on TikTok, YouTube or Meta-owned Instagram and Facebook.

But a growing chorus of advocacy groups, academics and experts expressed concerns about the dangers of letting people create AI videos on just about anything they can type into a prompt, leading to the proliferation of nonconsensual images and realistic deepfakes in a sea of less harmful “AI slop”.

OpenAI was forced to crack down on AI creations of public figures – among them, Michael Jackson, Martin Luther King Jr and Mister Rogers – doing outlandish things, but only after an outcry from family estates and an actors’ union.

Disney, which made a deal with OpenAI last year to bring its characters to Sora, said in a statement on Tuesday that it respects “OpenAI’s decision to exit the video generation business and to shift its priorities elsewhere”.

But Disney did not see the move coming, the Reuters news agency reported.

On Monday evening, Walt Disney and OpenAI teams were working together on a project linked to Sora. Just 30 minutes after the meeting, the Disney team was blindsided with word that OpenAI was dropping the tool altogether, a person familiar with the matter said.

OpenAI announced the move publicly on Tuesday.

“It was a big rug-pull,” according to the person, who requested anonymity to discuss the matter.

Messy process

The move is the first big step by the ChatGPT maker to focus its business on potentially more lucrative areas, such as coding tools and corporate customers.

But the abrupt cancellation of Sora illustrates how messy the streamlining process may become as OpenAI prepares for a stock market debut that could come as early as later this year.

The Sora decision means the end of a blockbuster $1bn deal between Disney and the ChatGPT maker that was announced a little more than three months ago. As part of the three-year deal, Disney said it would invest $1bn in OpenAI and lend more than 200 of its iconic characters to be used in short, AI-generated videos.

But the transaction between the companies never closed, two other people familiar with the matter said, and no money changed hands.

For decades, mole catchers in the countryside have hung their carcasses on fences to be counted for payment and as evidence of their trapping prowess. But when hill walker Simon Lucas shared a photograph of the tradition on social media, he was unprepared for the ferocity of the response.

Meta, YouTube and Snapchat are already under scrutiny for risks they pose for young people. Now they are facing another hurdle in their home state.

California lawmakers are considering legislation to restrict social media use for teens and children under 16 years old. Assemblymember Josh Lowenthal (D-Long Beach) and others introduced a bipartisan bill that would bar social media platforms from allowing users under 16 years old from creating or maintaining accounts.

The legislation comes amid mounting concerns about how social networks impact the mental health of young people. Anxiety among parents and lawmakers has heightened as platforms and AI chatbots become more intertwined with people’s daily life.

Last month, tech executives, including Meta’s chief executive and co-founder Mark Zuckerberg, testified in a landmark trial in Los Angeles over a lawsuit that alleges social media is addictive and harms children.

The trial centers on whether tech companies such as Instagram, which is owned by Meta, and YouTube can be held liable for allegedly promoting a harmful product and addicting users to their platforms.

California has passed legislation before aimed at making social media platforms and chatbots safer but faced pushback from tech industry groups that have sued to stop new laws from taking effect. Tech companies are have responded by releasing more parental controls and restrictions for young users.

Other countries have been moving forward with restrictions on social media. Last year, Australia barred children under 16 years old from having social media accounts.

TechNet, whose members include Meta and Google, said in a statement that it hasn’t taken a position on the California bill but doesn’t believe a ban will effectively achieve the Legislature’s goal’s.

“We support balanced, evidence-based solutions that strengthen protections for young people, equip parents with meaningful tools, and ensure accountability across platforms. Our companies have made significant investments in teen safety and parental controls, and we remain committed to building on that progress,” said Robert Boykin, TechNet Executive Director for California and the Southwest in a statement.

The use of social media by young people has divided tech executives.

Pinterest Chief Executive Bill Ready wrote in an op-ed in TIME published on Friday that governments should follow Australia’s lead and ban social media for kids under 16 years old if tech companies don’t prioritize safety.

“Social media, as it’s configured today, is not safe for young people under 16,” he said.”Instead, it’s been designed to maximize view time, keeping kids glued to a screen with little regard for their well-being.”

Lowenthal’s bill cited social media’s dangers such as “exposure to harmful content, compulsive use patterns, exploitation, and adverse impacts on mental health and well-being.”

“Existing age-based restrictions that rely primarily on user self-attestation have proven ineffective and place an unreasonable burden on children and families rather than on the entities that design, operate, and profit from social media platforms,” the bill states.

A spokesman for Lowenthal didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

Before taking any travel trip, it’s vital that you’re aware of any rules that are in place for the country you’re visiting, as a harmless habit can catch you out and land you a hefty fine

Jetting off abroad is always exciting, but if you’re visiting a popular European destination, there’s a little-known rule you need to be aware of.

Taking photos while wandering the quaint streets of a European town or capturing snaps of the city’s famed landmarks comes second nature to holidaymakers when exploring somewhere new. And afterwards, many tourists look forward to sharing their snaps on social media, but this harmless habit could land you in trouble, alongside a hefty fine.

Travellers planning a trip to Germany are being warned about the country’s strict rules on taking photos in public and sharing them on social media. While tourists have every right to take photos while visiting Germany, there are regulations on publishing or sharing images of people without their consent, even if the photo was taken in a public place, under the Art Copyright Act (KUG).

READ MORE: UK Foreign Office issues travel warning for country popular with 400,000 BritsREAD MORE: ‘I’m a TUI expert – Tenerife’s best city has £5 wine and 24C weather in April’

Simon Hood, a travel expert and Executive Director of John Mason International, explained: “Taking a photograph of a stranger and publishing or distributing this without their permission is illegal in Germany. Even if a person’s face is not in the picture, if they can be recognised by their tattoos, clothes, or the context of the photo, this is still disallowed.

“The regulations are complicated, for example, posting photos of strangers at public events such as parades, sports events and demonstrations are allowed, as long as they are not specific photos of the crowd. The Federal Court of Justice judge cases individually and ultimately determines what is and isn’t unlawful.”

Fines for sharing an unauthorised image online can range from £850 (€1,000) upwards, Simon added. “With this in mind, it’s best to ask those in-frame before posting a photo that includes them.”

Family Law Attorney Stephen Bardol explained the rule further: “From a family law perspective, this topic is often underestimated, especially when children appear in photos. Many assume that posting a photo of someone else is a harmless act, such as during travel, holidays or at family celebrations. But the fundamental rights of the image and privacy protection in Germany are often highly violated here.

“If a person can clearly be identified in a photo, posting the photo is no longer a decision for the person posting the photo, but rather a consent, privacy and interference with the fundamental rights of others.”

Stephen added that the situation can become much more complex when children are involved. He said: “The fact that a child cannot fully understand what the publication of their photo on the internet implies, eg, where it will be accessible, for what period of time and who will have access to it, and most of all the possibility that the picture will be shared or re-published by other users, means that the protection of children is greater than that of adults.”

He advised: “Tourists who are visiting Germany should be careful when taking photos, especially of families with small children. Posting a photo of a square where the families are only visible in the background is one thing, but posting a photo of a single child or a single family is an entirely different matter.”

Do you have a travel story to share? Email webtravel@reachplc.com

Heavy social media use has contributed to ‘worrying decline’ in wellbeing in Western countries, World Happiness Report says.

Social media has played a large role in declining happiness among young people in Western countries, a United Nations-backed report has found.

Heavy social media use partly explains a “worrying decline” in the wellbeing of young people in the West, the latest edition of the annual World Happiness Report said on Wednesday.

In total, 15 Western countries, including the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, saw significant declines in youth wellbeing over the past two decades, according to the report.

The trend was not observed globally, with young people in regions covering 90 percent of the world’s population reporting higher life satisfaction than before.

“The trends are caused by many factors, which differ between continents. However, the evidence in this report does suggest that heavy social media use, especially in some countries, provides an important part of the explanation,” researchers John F Helliwell, Richard Layard, Jeffrey D Sachs, Jan-Emmanuel De Neve, Lara B Aknin, and Shun Wang said in an executive summary of the report.

“Outside the English-speaking world and Western Europe, the links between social media use and wellbeing are more positive, and they vary between platforms,” the researchers added.

The report, published by the University of Oxford’s Wellbeing Research Centre in partnership with Gallup and the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network, cited data from sources including the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) and research by the American social psychologist Jonathan Haidt.

Despite the decline in youth wellbeing, Western countries, particularly in Scandinavia, dominated the overall happiness rankings across age groups.

Finland ranked as the world’s happiest nation for the ninth consecutive year, followed by Iceland, Denmark, Costa Rica, Sweden and Norway.

The Netherlands, Israel and Switzerland also made the top 10.

Middle Eastern and African countries had the lowest happiness scores.

Afghanistan reported the lowest life satisfaction, with Zimbabwe, Malawi, Egypt, Yemen and Lebanon also ranking among the bottom 10 countries.

Social media use among young people has been a growing concern for governments amid reports linking platforms to bullying, sexual exploitation and worsening mental health.

Australia last year introduced the world’s first social media ban for under 16s, with plans for similar restrictions under way in Indonesia, France and Greece.

Jeffrey Epstein urged Canadian-American media and real estate mogul Mortimer Zuckerman to relinquish control of his financial affairs over what he claimed was the magnate’s “potentially dangerous” cognitive impairment, according to files released by the United States Department of Justice.

While Epstein’s business ties with Zuckerman, now 88 years old, have been a matter of public record for over two decades, the files suggest that the late sex offender also served as a confidant with access to the most intimate details of the billionaire mogul’s personal life.

After a meeting with Zuckerman and the Norwegian diplomat Terje Rod-Larsen in October 2015, Epstein wrote an email urging the tycoon to enter a guardianship or conservatorship for his own protection.

Epstein told Zuckerman, the owner and publisher of US News & World Report, that the mogul had requested his help during their meeting several days earlier, but that he “might not remember”.

“Your friends including me are very concerned that your cognitive impairment has now reached a serious and potentially dangerous level. There is serious concern for your financail, emotional physical and psychological safety,” Epstein wrote, using his typically idiosyncratic approach to spelling, punctuation and grammar.

Epstein suggested that Zuckerman grant Rod-Larsen, Zuckerman’s nephews, and “anyone else you trust” authority to manage his affairs, warning that his “remarkable abilities” were no longer enough to protect him.

“I am aware that your condition makes you prone to suspicion but that being said, the future predictable decline will be an ever increasing danger,” Epstein wrote.

“Admittting you have a problem will take courage and determination.”

Zuckerman, who previously owned The Atlantic and the New York Daily News, appeared to take Epstein’s advice seriously, thanking him for his “thoughtfulness and friendship” and asking for recommendations for a lawyer with “experience in such matters”.

Zuckerman suggested the two men meet after he returned from an upcoming trip to San Francisco, but Epstein advised him to cancel the trip and said the mogul had told him about his travel plans on four separate occasions.

“I know you dont remember each time. . MORT , you need a Guardian,” Epstein wrote. “you should choose one now, while your judgment peeks through the haze. waiting too long. will mean most likely a court imposed solution. NOT FUN.”

Epstein also discussed Zuckerman’s health with his nephew, Eric Gertler, advising the relative to oversee the sale of the businessman’s stocks, art collection, helicopter and plane.

“my expertise is the financial . take any other suggestion as merely transmitting from others skilled in this terrible situation,” Epstein wrote to Gertler, who is the current executive chairman of US News & World Report, in one email.

It is not clear if Zuckerman followed Epstein’s advice to pass over control of his affairs.

Zuckerman announced that he would step down as chairman of Boston Properties, one of the largest real estate investment trusts in the US, about six months after his correspondence with Epstein.

Zuckerman did not cite any health concerns at the time and kept the title of chairman emeritus at the company, which he cofounded in 1970.

His philanthropic organisations – the Zuckerman Institute and Zuckerman STEM Leadership Program – and Gertler did not reply to Al Jazeera’s requests for comment.

Zuckerman’s relationship with Epstein, who died in 2019 while awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges, occasionally made headlines during the early 2000s, before Epstein’s 2008 conviction for soliciting a minor for prostitution.

In 2003, Zuckerman partnered with Epstein and several other prominent businessmen, including the disgraced Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein, in an unsuccessful bid to buy New York Magazine.

The two men teamed up again the following year to invest $25m in the short-lived relaunch of the entertainment and gossip magazine Radar.

Investigative files released by the US Department of Justice in January showed that the late financier viewed Zuckerman as a client and close associate, as well as a business partner.

In 2013, Epstein drew up a $21m proposal to provide Zuckerman with “analysing, evaluating, planning and other services” related to the passing on of his estate, according to emails in the files.

It is unclear whether Zuckerman accepted Epstein’s proposal or otherwise employed him to manage his estate planning.

Epstein also pressured Zuckerman to alter coverage of his alleged sexual abuse of girls in the New York Daily News, suggesting a “proposed answer” to questions put to him by the newspaper in 2009. Zuckerman owned the New York Daily News at the time.

Al Jazeera Arabic presenter Jamal Rayyan, the first face on the channel when it launched nearly three decades ago, has died at 73.

The Palestinian presenter delivered the network’s first-ever bulletin when it went on air in 1996.

Al Jazeera Arabic presenter Jamal Rayyan, the first face ever seen on the channel when it launched nearly three decades ago, has died at the age of 73.

Rayyan passed away on Sunday after a broadcasting career spanning more than five decades, during which he covered major global and regional events for the channel – from the United States wars in Afghanistan and Iraq to the Arab Spring.

He had been with Al Jazeera since its first day on air on November 1, 1996, when he presented the channel’s opening bulletin at the start of what would become a major broadcaster in the Arab world.

Born in Tulkarem in the occupied West Bank in 1953, the Palestinian presenter began his career at Jordanian Radio and Television in 1974 before working with several broadcasters in the region and beyond, including Emirati television, South Korean public broadcasting, and BBC Arabic.

Rayyan later recalled being sworn to secrecy after being quietly selected for the historic role.

“The vice chairman of the board came and said to me, ‘You have been chosen to be the first face on Al Jazeera, but we want one thing from you: do not tell anyone,’” he told Al Jazeera’s In-Depth Studies, a collection of testimonies from the channel’s founders and early staff.

Measured delivery, distinctive voice

The announcement that Rayyan was presenting the first bulletin was made public half an hour before airtime. He entered the studio deliberately on an empty stomach, he recalled, to ensure he could breathe well and deliver.

“As the broadcast started, my heart began beating rapidly. However, after I appeared on the screen and said, ‘Welcome to the first broadcast of Al Jazeera channel,’ I returned to my natural state and finished the broadcast. As soon as I finished and exited the studio, the entire room erupted in applause,” Rayyan said.

He spent nearly three decades as one of Al Jazeera’s most recognisable presenters, building a following of 2.3 million on X.

Over the years, Rayyan became a familiar presence in homes across the Arab world, his measured delivery and distinctive voice closely associated with Al Jazeera’s news bulletins.

In the Arab world and beyond, his broadcasts and the channel’s editorial approach reached wide audiences and helped shape regional news coverage in the years that followed.