media

An ICE official tells Al Jazeera the British political commentator overstayed his visit in the US and will be removed.

Milo Yiannopoulos, a far-right British commentator known for previously being a vocal supporter of United States President Donald Trump, has been detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

A spokesperson for the US Department of Homeland Security told Al Jazeera that Yiannopoulos was taken into custody at the Louis Armstrong International Airport in New Orleans, Louisiana, on Thursday.

He allegedly overstayed his legal authorisation to remain in the US after entering the country through New York City on May 14, 2019.

“Yiannopoulos was issued a final order of removal by an Immigration Judge on July 22, after failing to show up for his immigration hearing,” the spokesperson wrote on Friday. “He will remain in ICE custody pending removal.”

The Department of Homeland Security also posted a photo to social media that appeared to be a mugshot of the 41-year-old conservative firebrand who, in June 2025, called on the Trump administration to “deport millions and millions and millions of people”.

In the post, the department warned that those detained for overstaying their visit would be “arrested and deported without a chance to return”.

Online records do not specify which ICE detention facility is currently holding Yiannopoulos. Instead, it refers “family members and legal representatives” to contact the ICE field office in Alexandria, Louisiana, for additional details.

Reports indicate Yiannopoulos was in New Orleans for a concert by the musician Ye, formerly known as Kanye West. TMZ was the first to report Yiannopoulos’s detainment.

Laura Loomer, a top Trump ally known for spreading conspiracy theories, appeared to take credit for Yiannopoulos’s detainment, calling it a “great day for America”.

She also denounced Yiannopoulos’s work with former US Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, a Trump supporter-turned-critic.

“I was the first person to report on the fact that Milo was in the US illegally where he incited violence against President Trump and worked for Marjorie Traitor Greene,” Loomer wrote on the social media platform X. “When Milo called for me to be assassinated, I reported him to ICE and FBI.”

Loomer has publicly sparred with Yiannopoulos for years. He previously exposed what he purported to be Loomer’s mental health struggles in a September 2024 post, claiming she had been involuntarily committed to psychiatric facilities.

Yiannopoulos, known for his online trolling and anti-Islamic postings, was permanently banned by X’s predecessor, Twitter, in July 2016. His account was reinstated when Elon Musk took over the company.

After that, Yiannopoulos returned to the platform with a series of inflammatory posts, including one that called the “Muslim world functionally retarded”.

More recently, the 41-year-old founded a Los Angeles-based talent management called Tarantula that offers, in its own words, “unrivalled connections, capital and expertise” to a host of celebrities and public figures.

The site lists a number of controversial “past and present” clients like Trump, Ye, convicted fraudster “Pharma Bro” Martin Shkreli and rapper Azealia Banks.

Meta has agreed to a landmark $18bn settlement in a major US federal case accusing it of endangering children, the terms of which will force the social media giant to introduce new safety features to platforms including Instagram and Facebook.

The social media giant has faced an avalanche of legal cases against it this year, mostly arguing that it deliberately designed its platforms to be addictive and that they have harmed children. It has already lost two of these and been forced to pay damages.

Under the agreement, child users under the age of 18 will see a slew of changes to their Facebook and Instagram accounts, ranging from night curfews to two-hour usage limits, which Meta must implement as part of the settlement reached on Wednesday with 48 US states.

The agreement could have a global ripple effect as several countries around the world are already taking regulatory action against Meta and other social media companies over their platforms.

So, what is in the settlement Meta has reached in the United States, and how will Instagram and Facebook change for users?

What was the lawsuit about?

Twenty-nine US states sued Meta, accusing it of designing its platforms in ways that “encourage addictive behaviour, fail to verify users’ ages, encourage adolescents to bypass parental controls, and inadequately safeguard against harmful content and/or intentionally amplify harmful and exploitative content”, according to filings at the Court of Appeal in California.

The first four of the states that originally filed their federal lawsuit against Meta in 2023 – California, Kentucky, Colorado and New Jersey – began their cases in a California federal trial last week.

The attorneys general bringing the case also asked the court to order that changes be made to Meta’s platforms to protect young social media users. In particular, they demanded that Meta introduce a process of parental verification for teenage users; change its “dopamine-manipulating” algorithms; remove image filters for users’ personal images; forbid the creation of multiple accounts; and end “disappearing” messages and posts.

The lawsuit also alleged Meta had violated the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act by collecting, ⁠retaining and using personal data from children under 13 without proper parental consent.

In February this year, Meta lost a multimillion-dollar case brought on similar grounds by a young woman referred to as KGM in Los Angeles, over platform features linked to addiction in younger users.

In March, a US jury ordered Meta to pay $375m for endangering children in a case brought by the state of New Mexico.

Last month, a judge in New Mexico also ordered Facebook and Instagram owner Meta to pay a further $567m in a second phase of the trial.

Meta denied wrongdoing but agreed to settle after evidence was heard that Meta knew its products harmed children’s mental health. The total payout – to be paid over 10 years – is a fraction of Meta’s 2025 revenue of $201bn.

The company, which was originally founded as Facebook in 2004 by Mark Zuckerberg, agreed to make maximum payments totalling $16.7bn to 47 US states as well as Washington, DC; Puerto Rico; American Samoa; and the Northern Mariana Islands.

Among those, California could receive a $2.2bn payout, while New York could receive $1.1bn. Texas reached a separate settlement worth more than $1bn. Some states will deposit funds they receive in general accounts, while others will earmark portions to address children’s mental health services.

The settlement does not require Meta to discontinue personalised recommendations or targeted advertising.

It also does not address some content researchers found particularly problematic, including posts that made Instagram users uncomfortable with their body image.

“Ensuring teens have a safe and productive experience on our platforms is an absolute imperative for Meta,” Meta said in a blog post. “We want to get this right for parents and teens.”

What changes will be seen on Instagram and Facebook?

Under the agreement, children under 18 using Meta platforms will be restricted to two hours’ use per day, with a night curfew in place from midnight to 6am. Meta will limit “social comparison” features by hiding likes and reactions to children’s accounts, and will ban “cosmetic procedure filters” that alter the appearance of a user’s image, as a default setting. These settings will only be able to be overruled by parental consent.

The company also agreed to disable the majority of push notifications from the platforms during school hours – 8am to 3pm – for teenage users.

It will also facilitate much closer parental supervision of social media accounts by giving designated adults the ability to more extensively monitor and change settings on a social media account.

Parents and guardians will be able to receive information about time spent on platform apps, and usernames of social connections and accounts sending messages to children.

Supervising parents will also receive daily notifications from Meta any time the teen account messages an adult account for the first time, as well as a link to the adult’s account. Parental accounts will also be notified any time the teen account searches for keywords related to suicide, self-harm or eating disorders.

Meta also agreed to improve the technology used to check children’s ages, using its own as well as third-party tools, with regular outside audits on how well this monitoring is working. This measure is particularly notable because Australia banned under-16s from using social media platforms in December last year. However, the Australian internet watchdog, eSafety, found in August this year that more than eight in 10 young Australian teens and preteens continue to use them – largely because age-check procedures are ineffective.

So far, Meta has only agreed to pay 70 percent of the settlement, or roughly $12.7bn, over the next 10 years. It will only pay the remaining amount, about $5bn, if its rivals – including Snapchat, TikTok and Alphabet-owned YouTube – adopt similar measures and agree to pay the same. It also said it would reduce time restrictions to one hour per day if other platforms do the same.

These changes would be phased over time. Once the court approves the settlement, non-personalised feeds would be introduced within four months; broader compliance measures within six months; and major age-assurance requirements within one year.

While these changes will apply to users in the US, it is unclear if Meta plans to introduce them worldwide. However, Meta is already under rising regulatory pressure in European Union countries and those elsewhere to implement similar changes.

How much difference will these changes make?

Critics and child safety advocates have acknowledged that this settlement has forced landmark changes by Meta, the world’s biggest social media company, which owns Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp and Messenger, each of which has more than two to three billion monthly active users.

However, critics say the central plank of Meta’s latest settlement deal is the move to restrict teens to two hours per day on platforms, rather than fundamentally changing their addictive algorithms.

Sacha Haworth, executive director of The Tech Oversight Project, which campaigns for youth safety online, said the deal is a “historic settlement that will have a lasting impact, but we cannot truly protect all children and teens until these protections are required on every platform and are permanent – that’s something only Congress can do”.

Ella Bradshaw, policy officer for child safety online at the NSPCC, a UK children’s charity, welcomed moves to rein in “addictive” design features like personalised algorithms and likes. “These are the things that we know keep children hooked and feeling out of control of their screen time, so action here is necessary and welcome. However, important gaps remain,” she told Al Jazeera.  

Bradshaw described the settlement as taking “piecemeal action” on tackling risky features and addictive design choices which drive harm of children.

“This means features like disappearing messages, infinite scroll, the ability to gift and livestreaming remain unaddressed. Similarly, little has been announced on how Meta’s AI chatbots will be made safer – better guardrails are needed, particularly when children raise safeguarding concerns.”

Bradshaw also called for stronger protections for younger children as well as protections that “don’t suddenly drop away the moment a teenager turns 18.”   

Furthermore, she said: “Not all children have families they can rely on to oversee their online worlds and help them to stay safe. We know that the issue of patchy online protections extends across the online world.

“This settlement must spur governments and regulators to go further faster; taking stronger action across the online ecosystem including private messaging, AI tools and online gaming. Without that wider shift, children will continue to face avoidable harm.”

What action are other countries taking against Meta?

While action against social media giants in the US is mostly taking the form of lawsuits, elsewhere it is regulators who are leading the charge.

In the European Union, regulators are pursuing several legal and regulatory cases against Meta, covering antitrust rules for artificial intelligence (AI) on WhatsApp, as well as child safety protections and addictive platform features under the Digital Services Act (DSA).

The EU specifically accused the group of designing Facebook and Instagram to be “addictive”, adding that Meta has failed to adequately assess the danger its products pose to users’ physical and mental health.

On Thursday, a European Commission spokesperson said it is waiting on Meta to present changes to limit the addictive designs of its social networks.

“We have been very clear … Meta knows what we are expecting from them. … the ball is in Meta’s court,” Thomas Regnier said. “Now it is for the company to offer these commitments in the European Union to protect our kids here, too.”

In June, the UK government also announced a sweeping ban on social media for those below 16 to come into force next year, following a global trend after Australia pioneered it. The UK is also considering overnight curfews and ways to prevent infinite scrolling for those under 18.

In Brazil, a prominent consumer rights organisation, the Collective Defence Institute, filed twin lawsuits for three billion reais ($525m) in damages against the Brazilian subsidiaries of Meta, TikTok and Kwai in October 2024.

Those lawsuits also accuse the groups of failing to implement safeguards against addiction and use by children and adolescents. Since March this year, platforms have been required to link the accounts of children below 16 to legal guardians under Brazil’s Digital Statute for Children and Adolescents.

South Korea’s media regulator also reacted on Thursday to Meta’s settlement, calling for better protections for young users to be ideally applied worldwide, rather than just in specific markets.

Aug. 26 (UPI) — Meta agreed to pay up to $18 billion to 48 states, the District of Columbia and three U.S. territories on Wednesday, in settlements resolving lawsuits over the mental health risks its social media platforms pose to children as well as spearate privacy claims.

Court filings state that the settlements, pending judicial approval, include payments of $16.68 billion to 51 U.S. jurisdictions, more than $1 billion to Texas and another $459 million to 46 states, Puerto Rico and Northern Mariana Islands to resolve privacy claims tied to the 2018 Cambridge Analytica data scandal.

The filings also state that Meta must implement safeguards on its platform for minors, including limits on daily use, blocking access at night, more parental tools, stricter age-assurance standards, the hiding of likes on posts and banning cosmetic-procedure filters, among other measures.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta announced that his state may receive between $1.5 billion and $2.1 billion in the settlement.

“Today, we have secured a settlement with Meta that will make social media less dangerous for our kids and make a world of difference for children and their families,” Bonta said in a statement. “Meta has agreed to make massive transformations that will reduce the risk of harm from its platforms — and will do it within months.”

Meta said that 70% of the funds will be distributed over a 10-year period, with the remaining 30% to be released only after Alphabet-owned YouTube and ByteDance’s TikTok implement a one-hour dayily limit, night mode and age-assurance measures as well as each pay a matching $5.3 billion.

The Mark Zuckerberg-led Meta said the structure was designed to enforce an industry-wide adoption of the measures it has agreed to and ensure teens receive the same level of protection across major social media platforms.

“Because teens move fluidly across dozens of apps, we need an industry-wide solution. We therefore call on our industry peers, TikTok and YouTube, to implement this new framework, right away,” C.J. Mahoney, chief legal officer at Meta, said in a statement.

As part of the settlement, all parties, including Meta, waive all rights to appeal the final judgment.

“The focus of this case was to protect our kids: stopping notifications and alerts at night and when they are in school, encouraging them to take breaks from social media, protecting them against harmful features,” Phil Weiser, Colorado attorney general, said in a statement.

The cases brought by U.S. states are among several across the globe investigating social media companies over the harms they pose to children. Elsewhere, countries, such as Australia, have implemented age restrictions and called for the end to addictive features that encourage compulsive use, such as endless scrolling.

Meta still faces additional lawsuits in the United States still. Several school districts and individuals have filed lawsuits against Meta and other social media platforms for contributing to mental health problems among children.

Meta settles $16.68bn lawsuit over child addiction claims, agreeing to major changes in Facebook and Instagram features.

Meta Platforms has agreed to settle a lawsuit that accused the company of designing Facebook and Instagram in a way that addicted children, misled consumers about safety, and collected personal data of children on the platform.

On Wednesday, the social media giant agreed to pay a maximum of $16.68bn as part of a settlement to resolve claims brought in the United States case, championed by a coalition of 29 US states. The case, which started on August 18, was expected to last six weeks.

Meta, based in Silicon Valley in California, has also agreed to make changes to Facebook and Instagram nationwide as part of the settlement. Among these are daily usage limits of two hours for those under the age of 18, which can only be removed by a parent, and nighttime blocks.

The California State Attorney General’s Office said that the Mark Zuckerberg-led company would also identify and remove children under the age of 13 from the platform.

Meta denied any wrongdoing as part of the settlement, which still needs court approval. It had faced up to $1.4 trillion in fines in the case, but the coalition had been seeking a penalty closer to $200bn.

The settlement comes after a loss in a comparable landmark case in New Mexico, where a jury ordered Meta to pay $375m in March and another $567m in August.

Meta’s stock tumbled in early trading on Wall Street, down 0.1 percent since the market opened.

The trip is thought to be Ratcliffe’s first trip to Russia as CIA director, although he has maintained contact with his intelligence counterparts in Moscow.

John Foreman, who served as a British military attaché to Moscow between 2019 and 2022, told Radio 4’s PM programme that the visit could be focused on “escalation management” given speculation recent drone activity in Germany could be linked to Russia.

He said: “The Americans don’t normally send such a high ranking official to Moscow unannounced at short notice unless something is up.”

Foreman said the trip could also concern the release of US detainees currently being held in Russia.

Ratcliffe played a role in negotiations for the release of Russian-American citizen Ksenia Karelina’s, who was jailed in Russia for over a year after being accused of providing support to Ukraine.

The CIA was also involved in a 2024 prisoner swap deal with Russia that saw the release of Wall Street Journal reporter Evan Gershkovich, as well as former US marine Paul Whelan and Russian-American journalist Alsu Kurmasheva.

The US has had strained relations with Russia since it launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Since then, Russia has been isolated on the world stage and faced international economic sanctions.

Ratcliffe appears to be one of the highest-ranking US officials to visit the country during President Donald Trump’s second term.

Trump met Russian President Vladimir Putin at a summit in Alaska last year but the meeting did not lead to a breakthrough. Subsequent US-led peace talks between Russia and Ukraine appear to have stalled.

Additional reporting by BBC Verify

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Secret Service has confirmed it is aware that Iranian state media has aired a video that appears to threaten the life of Barron Trump, President Trump’s youngest son.

“The U.S. Secret Service is aware of the video and investigates anything that can be perceived as a threat toward our protectees,” Secret Service spokesman Nate Herring said in a statement. “Out of concern for operational security, we do not discuss matters of protective intelligence.”

Since the U.S. assassination of Iran’s Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iranian media have on multiple occasions circulated content threatening the president and family members. The assassination came at the start of the war in Iran that Trump launched alongside Israel.

CNN previously reported that the Secret Service had knowledge of the Barron Trump threat.

SHE’S been an integral part of the Kardashian family’s success for the last decade. 

But recently it seems things between businesswoman and Dragon’s Den star Emma Grede and the KarJenners – especially Khloe, 42 – have cooled off dramatically. 

Emma, 43, and KoKo partnered to launch denim brand Good American back in October 2016, which made a staggering $1million in its first day.

But fast forward ten years, and while Khloe remains an owner of the fashion line today, she’s since expressed she no longer feels the need to be as involved.

“Good American is doing so well, and Good American is strong enough and stable enough to sustain on its own,” she explained during a recent episode of her podcast Khloe in Wonderland.

With Khloe and Emma now spending less time working together their friendship has essentially dissolved, The Sun understands.

RACING KAR

Kim Kardashian shares intimate new pics with Lewis Hamilton as fans gush

DASHING THEIR HOPES

New Kardashian reality show ‘flops’ before even starts

A well-placed insider tells us: “Over time, Khloe just wasn’t as involved – she started cancelling events and not promoting the brand.

“She has a lot on in her personal life, as fans know, but Emma is a businesswoman first and foremost and that just didn’t wash with her. 

“Khloe has so much going on and it just wasn’t a priority in her life. In theory, Khloe is still the founder of Good American but it’s Emma who does the hard work behind the scenes. I don’t think Khloe & Emma are on speaking terms now.”

Earlier this year, Khloe dropped the biggest hint yet she was ‘consciously uncoupling’ from her friendship with Emma when she unfollowed her on Instagram. 

Our source adds: “They are both smart women who realised it was time to part ways professionally, and they had to navigate it carefully so the brand wasn’t damaged as they are both heavily involved.”

After setting up Good American with Khloe, Emma later teamed up with Kim, 45, to work on her shapewear line SKIMS which debuted in 2019. 

And she also joined forces with Kylie Jenner, 29, in 2023 to launch her fashion brand KHY.

But in recent years Emma’s own star has been on the rise. She joined Dragon’s Den in 2024 and she’s been a recurring guest investor on the American version Shark Tank since 2021. 

She launched her podcast Aspire in 2025 and earlier this year released her book Start With Yourself: A New Vision for Work & Life. 

The Sun understands that, while she was initially happy to fade into the background on projects with the Kardashians, Emma is keen for her hard work to be seen these days. 

“As her profile has grown over the last few years, Emma wants her own hard work recognised,” an insider said. “Good American was Emma’s brain child, but it was Khloe’s investment and her profile that made it happen.

“The fall out with Khloe didn’t affect Emma’s relationship with Kim or the rest of the family, they’ve compartmentalised that off, but it’s very much a business-only relationship. 

“Emma is still very involved with Skims, and despite Kim being a mum of four, she’s still extremely hands on and promotes the brand all the time.”

Fans were left convinced that Emma was taking a swipe at Khloe during an interview with Cardi B on her podcast earlier this year. 

Rapper Cardi, 33, said: “Oh my God, please y’all – if you ever want to build something, please choose good partners.

“Not everybody with money [is a] good partner. I’m telling you.”

Sparking speculation that she was taking aim at Khloe, Emma was quick to quip loudly: “Oh yeah, say that again…”

Our source added: “Going their separate ways professionally has not been easy and it has affected Emma and Khloe’s friendship, because it’s hard to move past ending a working partnership and there are grievances on both sides.”

The Sun has reached out to representatives for Khloe and Emma for comment. 

Bill Rasmussen, the founder of the world’s first 24-hour all-sports cable network ESPN, has died. He was 93.

The sports media company announced his death in a news release on Tuesday and said the cause was from the effects of Parkinson’s disease. The entrepreneur was first diagnosed with the movement disorder in 2014.

“Bill was a remarkable man — a visionary and an innovator who conceived the idea of a network entirely devoted to sports,” said ESPN Chairman Jimmy Pitaro in a statement. “Quite simply, none of us would be here today if it wasn’t for Bill’s passion and all the hard work and entrepreneurial spirit he put into building ESPN in the late 1970s.”

Rasmussen’s creation — which began in the small industrial town of Bristol, Conn., — became an integral part of the new television landscape that emerged from cable and satellite technologies in the 1970s. Before the launch of ESPN, consumers had a limited number of sports viewing options through the handful of local TV stations in their markets.

ESPN launched seven months before Ted Turner unveiled his 24-hour news channel CNN. The two channels became the most valuable assets in building the pay-TV business, as cable and satellite providers expanded across the country, forever changing consumer viewing habits by offering a wide array of choices. ESPN’s continued growth over the decades that followed also showed that viewers have an insatiable appetite for live sports programming.

William F. Rasmussen was born Oct. 15, 1932, in Chicago and raised in nearby Columbus Manor, Ill. As a child, he had a knack for sports and was considered an avid athlete. He attended DePauw University in Indiana and received his bachelor’s degree in economics. After he graduated, he served in the United States Air Force and later earned an MBA from Rutgers University in New Jersey.

He built an entrepreneurial venture in the advertising business and decided to pivot to a career in media in 1962 with a radio position in Massachusetts. A few years later, he moved to WWLP-TV, a broadcast news channel, where he worked for eight years as sports director and two years as news director. After leaving the station, he worked as the communications director for the New England Whalers but was later fired from the role in 1978.

Rasmussen and his son Scott had been chasing the new business of satellite television through the summer of 1978 and had secured space on an RCA transponder — Rasmussen financed the deposit on a credit card, using a $9,000 advance, by his own account. What they lacked was programming. Stuck in traffic on Interstate 84 on a Friday afternoon in August, driving toward the New Jersey shore, Rasmussen floated the idea of filling the channel with nothing but sports.

Their idea soon developed from a local station showing Connecticut sports to state residents to a larger 24-hour national sports network. They received financial backing from the Getty Oil Company, a contract for programming with the NCAA and an advertising agreement with Anheuser-Busch — marking the largest sponsorship deal in cable history at the time. The Entertainment and Sports Programming Network was soon founded in Bristol with around 80 employees.

ESPN officially launched to 1.4 million homes at 7 p.m. Eastern time on Sept. 7, 1979, with a short introduction followed by the opening show, “SportsCenter” hosted by Lee Leonard and George Grande. To this day, “SportsCenter,” remains a vital part of the network’s programming and holds the record for the most episodes in television history.

ABC acquired ESPN from Texaco, which had absorbed Getty for $237.5 million in 1984 after buying a small stake in the network earlier that year. The entity became part of the Walt Disney Co. after the media conglomerate purchased Capital Cities/ABC in 1996. ESPN absorbed ABC’s sports division in 2006.

ESPN currently employs more than 5,900 people worldwide and operates eight U.S. cable channels, according to the company, in addition to programming sports on ABC and running one of the most-used sports apps in the country. Rasmussen himself was gone from day-to-day operations roughly a year after launch, displaced by the professional managers and outside money his idea had attracted.

“Bill was our George Washington and a good friend,” said veteran ESPN anchor Chris Berman in a statement. He joined the network only three weeks after the original launch in 1979. “He was such a grateful person and every sports fan can be grateful for Bill.”

After leaving ESPN, Rasmussen continued to serve as a consultant to sports rights holders and media companies and also maintained his own startup ventures in sports.

He publicly disclosed his 2014 Parkinson’s disease diagnosis in 2019 and became an ambassador for Parkinson’s patients through both the American Parkinson Disease Assn. and the Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson’s Research.

“I’m a positive guy . . . I always look at the positive side of people, projects, ideas, etc. For some reason, Parkinson’s is kind of an orphaned malady — people don’t like to talk about it, as if it were taboo,” said Rasmussen in an essay he wrote for ESPN that year. “Well, 40 years ago, people didn’t want to talk about a 24-hour sports network either as if competing with ‘The Big Three’ broadcast networks was taboo. We never stopped asking questions, solving problems and selling the dream. A lot of really good people did believe and we see the results of that effort today.”

Rasmussen’s wife of 56 years, Lois, died in 2011. He is survived by his three children, Scott, Glenn and Lynn Van Hollebeke, seven grandchildren, Andy, P.J., Wil, MaryAnn, Donna, Jessica and Sarah and two great-grandchildren, Otto and Adelaide.

Social media giant Meta is facing a landmark trial that could impact its future.

Opening statements began on Tuesday in a US federal court case brought by 29 state attorneys general, who have accused Facebook and Instagram’s parent company of designing platforms to encourage infinite scrolling and keep their youngest users hooked, despite allegedly knowing they could fuel addictive behaviour. The company is also accused of collecting data on minors.

The case is expected to last as long as six weeks. If the attorneys general get their way, the Silicon Valley-based tech company might have to make structural changes to its platform and pay as much as $1.4 trillion in fines.

While Meta denies the allegations, the potential consequences of this case could be significant for the company, which is already facing low employee morale, waves of layoffs and a series of lagging investments.

Significant financial impact

The potential exposure to Meta is significant. State penalties could reach as high as $1.4 trillion, Meta has said, although that is unlikely, as the coalition of states said it is seeking $200bn in damages.

To put that in context, the amount is roughly the equivalent of Meta’s revenue last year. In 2025, the tech giant generated nearly $201bn in revenue, and it had $83.2bn in operating income.

The $200bn ask is significantly higher than any penalty the company has had to face so far. In March, a jury in a separate New Mexico lawsuit ordered Meta to pay $375m in civil penalties, and another $567m was ordered by a judge earlier this month.

At the time of the March penalty, financial services firm Morningstar said it was not overly concerned about the impact of the looming court cases on Meta’s valuation, even if governments around the world use these cases as a reason to push for structural changes to the business.

“We think that any algorithmic changes imposed on the firm via legislation are also a manageable risk, given the firm’s monetizable user base, which is overwhelmingly adult, thereby insulating the firm against such legislation,” a Morningstar analyst note said.

While no one can predict which way the coalition case will go, Meta’s problems extend to concerns about significant financial exposure in some of its investments and business units.

For instance, Reality Labs, the division responsible for Meta’s virtual and augmented reality tools and software like the metaverse, has lost $70bn since 2020.

Meta has also ramped up spending to build out AI infrastructure as growing concerns about an AI bubble loom over the sector.

Cash flow for the business fell significantly, from $12bn in the first quarter to $784m in the second quarter, although it did not go into negative territory as some analysts had expected.

“I think it’s [Meta] in an unenviable spot, because it’s facing pressure from multiple fronts,” Aleksandar Tomic, associate dean for strategy, innovation, and technology at Boston College, told Al Jazeera.

“These verdicts are going to put pressure on their advertising business. The AI development seems to have stalled, and the virtual reality thing seems to be dead on arrival, at least for now. So the only bright spot is that they might be able to get into the AI infrastructure game, but that is no guarantee.”

Meta itself is worried about the financial strain. “There can be no assurances that a favorable final outcome will be obtained in all our cases, and defending any lawsuit is costly and can impose a significant burden on management and employees,” the company said in a January Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filing.

Can the lawsuit impact its core product?

While financial penalties might be a strain, a legal requirement to fundamentally alter the machinery that makes Instagram and Facebook so valuable to advertisers would be much harder for Meta to absorb.

The lawsuit calls for changes to its business model, including eliminating the infinite scroll that allows users to continually look at new posts. Meta’s advertising business is dependent on impressions, or the number of times a content appears on a user’s screen. The longer someone is on the app, the more impressions they can see.

“Our financial performance has been and will continue to be significantly determined by our success in adding, retaining, and engaging active users of our products that deliver ad impressions, particularly for Facebook and Instagram,” the company said in an SEC filing.

“User growth and engagement are also impacted by a number of other factors, including competitive products and services, such as TikTok, that have reduced some users’ engagement with our products and services,” the filing added.

In 2025, Meta reported 12 percent more advertisement impressions than in 2024, while the average price per advertisement jumped by 9 percent.

The plaintiff states want the company to make other changes, including getting rid of algorithms and AI models made from data compiled from minors. The states are also asking the court to compel the company to promote the wellbeing of its users and set time restrictions for its youngest consumers.

Meta has introduced features that have reminded teens of their time use on their platforms. In January 2023, it gave teens ways to manage the kinds of advertisements they could see on Instagram and Facebook. In June 2023, it introduced a feature to notify teen users that they have spent more than 20 minutes on the platform and to set daily time limits.

“We stand by our record of creating strong protections for teens, and look forward to making our case in court,” Stephanie Otway, a Meta spokesperson, told Al Jazeera.

But the lawsuit says that is not enough, alleging that teens could easily dismiss the notification and continue scrolling.

How will this impact future lawsuits?

Meta is currently facing lawsuits from more than 100,000 different parties, according to its SEC filings, including individuals, cities, states, and school districts around the US.

“These first few cases going out are really going to set the standard,” Tre Lovell, a Los Angeles-based media law and entertainment lawyer, told Al Jazeera.

Lovell predicted that, ultimately, there will be a combined settlement.

“We’re going to get close to some type of global settlement, a global resolution. I think, ultimately, that’s where this is going to end.”

Snap, TikTok, and Google’s YouTube have also faced litigation amid allegations that their products are built to encourage compulsive use by young people, Tomic told Al Jazeera. The claims could open the floodgates to the type of litigation that challenged the tobacco industry in the late 1990s, he said.

“This is the tobacco litigation of the information age. They [the plaintiffs in the Meta lawsuit] have identified this addiction component of social networks. Now that there is a judgement against Meta, I would be shocked if we don’t see everybody else getting sued, and once they get sued, it will be pretty much the same,” Tomic said.

In 1998, 46 states settled lawsuits with major cigarette makers over health costs and forced the companies to impose restrictions on advertising, especially targeting younger audiences.

Opening statements in a landmark US case brought by a bipartisan coalition of 29 states against Meta – the parent company of Facebook and Instagram – began on Tuesday, with Colorado, California, New Jersey and Kentucky arguing that the company’s popular social media apps were designed in ways that harmed the mental health of young users.

The trial, which is expected to last several weeks, began in a US federal court in California before District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers. While there is an eight-person jury, the group is serving in an advisory role as Judge Rogers will ultimately decide the case.

Megan O’Neill, a deputy California attorney general, in her opening statement said that the company designed its products to “hook the users, hold them for as long as they can, harvest their data, and then hide the truth from the public”.

She added that it worked “especially well for kids”.

The lawsuit, which was first filed in 2023, alleges that Meta made decisions to design its apps to hook users and facilitate excessive use among the platforms’ youngest users. The coalition also alleges that the company collected data on children under the age of 13 in violation of federal law.

“Meta needed kids, and it needed to reassure the people who cared about those kids that the kids are safe,” O’Neill said.

‘Limited claims’

Meta has long pushed back on allegations against the Silicon Valley social media behemoth.

In a statement before the trial, a Meta spokesperson said the states’ claims are unsubstantiated, and the company stands by its record of creating strong protections for teenagers, including launching Instagram Teen Accounts in 2024, which limit who can contact underage users, as well as a feature that allows parents to set time limits on usage.

“The State AGs may call this a landmark case, but their limited claims are unsubstantiated and their financial demands are vastly disproportionate,” Stephanie Otway, a Meta spokesperson, told Al Jazeera in a statement.

“The AGs offer no proof anyone in their states was misled, claim benign features like having an additional Instagram account somehow harmed their residents, and attempt to penalize Meta for industry-wide challenges like age verification. Rather than sticking to the facts or the law, the states have instead decided to chase an outlandish payout.”

The potential impact on Meta’s bottom line is existential. The company could face fines as high as $1.4 trillion, which is just shy of its $1.5 trillion market cap. However, the coalition is seeking fines of roughly $200bn.

Meta has already been ordered to pay $942m in fines in a separate New Mexico lawsuit – $375m in civil penalties in a March jury verdict and $567m ordered by a judge earlier this month.

Meta has acknowledged that the lawsuits it faces, including those related to youth social media addiction, could lead to “substantial monetary damages or fines” in a Securities and Exchange Commission filing in January.

A long time coming

Meta, along with other social media giants, has faced a growing slate of cases across the United States, including from cities, states, school districts and even individuals.

The coalition of states is asking Meta to make changes to its platforms, including introducing new age restrictions and cutting the infinite scroll.

The case’s impetus came from a US Senate committee hearing in 2021, when whistleblower Frances Haugen, a former data scientist at Facebook, claimed that the company knowingly pushed products that could impact the health of young users as the Mark Zuckerberg-led company pursued higher profits.

Meta has repeatedly tried to end the coalition lawsuit, including in 2024 and as recently as June, when it sought summary judgement – a decision that a court might make without going to trial – which would have ended the lawsuit.

The case is impacting the company’s stock. On Wall Street, the social media giant is down more than 3 percent in midday trading.

FCC faces scrutiny as Disney claims licence renewal order is tied to political motives against ABC’s coverage.

Disney has filed a lawsuit against the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) amid efforts to stop an early licence review for eight ABC-owned and -operated stations around the United States.

In the lawsuit filed in a federal court in Washington, DC, the media giant alleged the early renewal is an effort by the administration of US President Donald Trump to intimidate the company after infuriating the president.

In April, the FCC ordered the network’s stations, which include its affiliates in New York and Los Angeles, to file their licence renewals ahead of schedule despite the fact that for six of its stations, the current term isn’t even halfway finished. The station with the closest deadline is WTVD in Durham, North Carolina, but that is not until December 2028. The network says the move is part of a political “retaliatory campaign”.

“Again and again, the Administration has attacked ABC’s speech – the stories its journalists report and the viewpoints its network programs air. Over time, those attacks have escalated into express demands that ABC be stripped of its broadcast licenses because of its speech,” the 46-page complaint said.

The suit presented a wave of Truth Social posts that the president posted in 2025 threatening the network, among them one saying that the network “should lose their Licences for their unfair coverage of Republicans and/or Conservatives”.

The FCC said the April licence renewal call was a result of diversity, equity and inclusion practices at ABC’s parent company, Disney, and an investigation into the ABC network’s talk show programme The View.

In March, FCC Chairman Brendan Carr threatened broadcasters, saying stations airing “fake news” could lose their licences amid Trump’s frustration with coverage of the US-Israel war on Iran.

Not long after, Trump demanded that ABC fire late-night host Jimmy Kimmel over comments he made before the White House correspondents dinner shooting in which he called first lady Melania Trump an “expectant widow”. Trump responded to them after the shooting, characterising them “a call to violence”.

Free speech advocates have praised ABC for the lawsuit.

“It’s about time for someone to take Brendan Carr and his FCC to court over their endless campaign of intimidation and retaliation against journalism that displeases Carr’s thin-skinned boss,” Seth Stern, director of advocacy at the Freedom of the Press Foundation, told Al Jazeera.

“No matter what pretexts he asserts, Carr’s modus operandi is clear: to serve as Trump’s censorship tsar and abuse his office to repeatedly and exclusively target Trump’s perceived adversaries in the media, whether through sham proceedings or threatening letters and X posts.”

The network called for a “speedy hearing” in the complaint as well as a temporary restraining order.

News of the lawsuit sent Disney’s stock surging in morning trading by 1.1 percent.

CRUZ Beckham left fans blindsided as he shared a throwback photo with his two brothers Romeo and Brooklyn.

In what at first appeared to be a regular post of recent snaps, Cruz included a photo of when he and his brothers were children, posing together while on holiday.

The photo of happier times was simply captured “Brothers” with a blue heart emoji.

This surprised his followers, given Brooklyn is currently estranged from the rest of the Beckhams amid their very public fall-out.

Brooklyn has not been pictured with the rest of the family since then – but Cruz’s inclusion of the childhood throwback set tongues wagging in the Instagram comments.

“Brothers forever Cruz!” one person penned, followed by another who wrote: “Precious memories forever!”

ICE GIRL

David and Victoria Beckham enjoy quality time with Harper, 15, & grab ice cream

block-lyn

Brooklyn and Nicola in new feud with comic as they are accused of ‘blocking her’

Elsewhere, Cruz’s sister-in-law Nicola Peltz also shared a series of snaps, captioning them “summer magic”.

Amid a slew of snaps featuring luxury homes and bouquets of flowers, was a picture of her husband Brooklyn, grinning happily.

Brooklyn declared in January that he was not speaking to his family, claiming they had tried to interfere with his marriage to Nicola, and that they “humiliated” him at their 2022 wedding.

He stated that he was not interested in reconnecting with mum and dad Victoria and David Beckham, and his siblings Cruz, Romeo and Harper Beckham were seemingly dragged into the feud as a result.

Just last week, fans believed Cruz had taken a swipe at Brooklyn in a TikTok post.

Cruz’s clip showed him cracking an egg into a pan, before removing and throwing away the shell.

He struggled to crack the egg, having to scoop out pieces of shell with his fingers.

Cruz captioned the post: “The shell is the best part.”

Meanwhile, the lyric “I wanna wear you down” from Cruz’s single Wear & Tear played over the video.

Cruz’s followers believed he was referencing aspiring chef Brooklyn’s own cooking videos.

This includes fans recently being left baffled with Brooklyn’s bizarre cooking hack on a yacht, when he used seawater to cook tomato pasta during a holiday with his wife.

Writing underneath Cruz’s video, one fan penned: “Second best cook in the family after ya dad….”

While another added: “It took me a minute, but this has to be a dig. The cooking and the song lyrics.”

Earlier this month, David and Victoria missed bumping into Brooklyn by minutes after the whole clan holidayed in St. Tropez separately.

The Beckhams enjoyed a summer break away in the South of France but estranged son Brooklyn was enjoying his own outing with wife Nicola Peltz just around the corner.

The clan have been split for over a year with Posh and Becks attempting to extend an olive branch on numerous occasions.

The decisions mark both a victory and a setback for President Emmanuel Macron, who had championed both policies.

France’s Constitutional Council has upheld a law passed by parliament to legalise assisted dying in specific circumstances, while striking down a separate bill that sought to ban under-15s from using social media.

The council, France’s highest constitutional authority, issued its rulings on Friday. The decisions mark both a victory and a setback for President Emmanuel Macron, who had championed both policies.

France is set to join several European countries that have already legalised assisted dying, including Belgium, Germany and Luxembourg, among others.

“This decision marks the culmination of a long democratic and parliamentary effort, conducted with listening, respect, and rigour,” Elisabeth Borne, MP and former French prime minister, said in a post on X about the assisted-dying decision.

“I welcome this definitive validation of a text that guarantees everyone the freedom to choose, within a strict and protective framework.”

The council upheld the law in its entirety while clarifying three provisions, including the so-called conscience clause, under which pharmacists may refuse to assist a patient in ending their life.

Private treatment centres can also refuse to participate in the procedure if it goes against their mission, and other centres can serve local needs. Lastly, in the case of protected patients, the opinion of the person responsible for their welfare must be taken into account.

French citizens and legal residents can request medical support in ending their lives under strict conditions. The legislation stipulates that the patient must be “suffering from an incurable, life-threatening illness in an advanced or terminal phase”, and that the illness must cause “constant physical or psychological suffering that is untreatable or unbearable”. Lastly, the patient must exercise free and informed consent.

The French National Assembly passed the bill last month by a majority of 50, with 291 voting in favour and 241 against.

Meanwhile, the Constitutional Court struck down legislation banning under-15s from social media, citing freedom of expression.

“By prohibiting minors under the age of fifteen from accessing certain online services, the law inherently requires every person, even an adult, to prove their age before accessing them,” the court said in its decision.

“However, by failing to specify the conditions and limits under which such proof must be provided, the legislature has not established the legal safeguards necessary to ensure compliance with these requirements,” it added. The court also said that the law fails to safeguard people’s privacy.

The bill was one of Macron’s flagship policies and was passed by parliament last month.

It stipulated that everyone in France would have to verify their age to access social media sites, and it was supposed to come into effect in January 2027. Macron was eager for the bill to be passed before the presidential election next year.

After Friday’s ruling, Macron asked Prime Minister Sebastien Lecornu to work on a new “legally robust draft” of the legislation.

Last month, Amnesty International responded to the French parliament’s decision to impose the social media ban on teens, urging lawmakers to focus their efforts on forcing companies to redesign their apps, including what it described as “addictive features”.

“There is no doubt that regulating platforms to protect children is an imperative of our time. We commend states for taking social media harms seriously but rather than pursuing blanket bans, efforts should be on forcing platforms to abandon their reckless pursuit of profit to the detriment of human rights,” Secretary General Agnes Callamard said.

“Building safe platforms requires a robust response. To ensure platforms are spaces where children can access community, connection and knowledge in a healthy and safe way, governments should first focus on banning the features that drive harm, including engagement-based algorithms that Amnesty International’s research has shown can draw children into rabbit holes of depressive and suicidal content.”

People got up at 6.30am on their holidays to stand in line for a picture opportunity

The grim reality of a tourist hotspot has been exposed as ‘thousands’ of holidaymakers were filmed queueing for an Instagram picture at 6.30am. Tayyba Adeel woke up early to secure a cinematic sunrise snap on her trip abroad.

Unfortunately, it seems like every other visitor on the holiday island had the same idea. The Brit was left stunned after joining a queue of ‘thousands’ of tourists waiting to get a picture in front of the iconic blue dome.

According to Tayyba, tourists flooded the streets of Santorini, known for its whitewashed cave houses, blue-domed churches, and vibrant sunsets. Santorini sees around 3.4m visitors every year – with the huge number of travellers creating long queues for the perfect holiday photo.

Posting the clip online, the video racked up over 110,000 views. Tayyba said: “The famous Santorini blue dome photo spot at 6.30am. The whole internet got the same travel tip. Social media ruined it (Santorini). You only see people without noticing the beauty of the place.”

The footage shows Tayyba walking up the huge line, where she claimed ‘thousands’ of tourists waited. One woman in her wedding dress with her photographer was also sitting waiting for her turn to get her dream snap.

Members of the public have slammed the long queues. One viewer said: “I’d be p*ssed if this was outside my home or rental.”

Another commenter said: “What a waste of a holiday.”

One other person added: “People are so embarrassing.”

Another viewer said: “This makes me never want to go to Santorini. Why do people just ruin everything for likes on social media.”

One person commented: “Surely there’s a better way to spend your time on holiday than that?”

PlayOn Sports continues to expand its high school sports empire in California, winning the bidding for broadcast rights for state playoff games and state championships.

The 10-year deal was announced Thursday by the California Interscholastic Federation, the governing body for high school sports in the state.

Previously, Spectrum signed a 15-year contract for $8.1 million in 2011. The contract expired this summer, with the CIF receiving bids from several organizations.

The CIF will be receiving $165,000 from the NFHS Network in the first year of the agreement that has a 3% escalator each year. PlayOn Sports will pay $810,000 in the first year that also escalates 3% each year of the contract. The total will be $11.1 million.

PlayOn Sports has become a powerful force in the state, now owning MaxPreps, NFHS (National Federation of State High School Assns.) Network, GoFan.co and state playoff broadcast rights. The NFHS Network will be the exclusive content distribution partner. State football, basketball and girls volleyball will be put on linear television.

MaxPreps is the last one standing in California after SB Live (formerly Scorebook Live) stopped sponsoring the CIF following the 2024-25 season and laid off its full-time writers in California while turning to freelancers who get paid by their story clicks as part of a digital agreement with the owners of SI.com.

CIF media rights contract with PlayOn Sports and the NFHS Network.

(Los Angeles Times)

MaxPreps is a free site driven by individual schools uploading their rosters, scores and stats. It has started streaming games with the help of the NFHS Network. GoFan.co has been adopted by most schools as the way to buy digital tickets to games and charges a fee to those buying tickets.

What the new CIF contract means is more opportunities for the NFHS Network, an on-demand high school sports site that streams games for a fee in which fans can buy access to watch one game or pay a monthly or yearly fee for unlimited access. Sometimes the NFHS Network uses automatic cameras supplied to schools or were purchased by schools. Unlimited online access is $99.99 a year.

Nine of the 10 sections in the state leave it up to schools to decide regular-season broadcasts. The Southern Section is the one section that has its own media contract and requires schools to pay a fee for streaming and then returns compensation to the schools later.

For those who worry that PlayOn Sports has so much control it could easily raise prices and face little pushback, CIF Executive Director Ron Nocetti said, “Any deal we have with any company that involves cost [with schools], we always get to be part of that conversation.”

Paramount CEO David Ellison may pull his operations out of California if the state does not end its attempt to block the company’s merger with Warner Bros Discovery and agree to settlement talks as soon as October.

The rumours were first reported by the publication Variety on Tuesday. They signal Ellison may be willing to leverage economic pressure on California’s ailing film industry in order to push through the merger.

Al Jazeera was not able to independently confirm the validity of the report.

In July, California Attorney General Rob Bonta announced that he was leading a coalition of 12 state attorneys general in an antitrust lawsuit to block the consolidation.

Should Paramount and Warner Bros Discovery combine, Bonta warned that the resulting company would control 27 percent of theatrically released films in the United States and a third of the country’s basic-cable output.

“Consolidation here not only leads to higher prices,” Bonta said. “It also leads to fewer opportunities for important stories to come to life, and fewer ways for audiences to encounter stories, ideas, and perspectives beyond their own experiences.”

But Variety reported that Ellison told Paramount’s senior executives that he would begin the process of moving the company out of California on October 1 if Bonta does not agree to settlement talks.

There could be downstream effects as well. The report also alleged that Ellison would pull Warner Bros Discovery out of California, too, if the $110bn merger goes through.

Variety indicated that Paramount is considering relocating to the US states of Tennessee, Texas or Georgia — none of which are involved in the ongoing antitrust lawsuit.

A growing enterprise

The dispute over Warner Bros Discovery’s fate stretches back to late 2025, when the company’s sale was first announced.

Critics quickly observed that the sale had the potential to shift the balance of power in Hollywood, with Warner Bros Discovery wielding influential properties including the news channel CNN, the production company New Line Cinema and the television-streaming service HBO.

The streaming giant Netflix initially emerged as a frontrunner to take over Warner Bros Discovery, but by February, Paramount succeeded in inking an agreement.

It was the second major merger Paramount had lined up in less than a year. In 2025, it had also succeeded in consolidating with the media production company Skydance, in a deal that generated scrutiny about the editorial independence of its subsidiaries.

Paramount’s decisions that year to cancel The Late Show with Stephen Colbert and enter into a $16m settlement with US President Donald Trump were widely perceived as efforts to curry government favour for the merger.

Paramount is considered a titan in US filmmaking and media production, as one of the oldest studios in the country. Its portfolio includes CBS News and Paramount Pictures.

A pair of lawsuits

The impending merger with Warner Bros Discovery has led to a fresh round of scrutiny for Ellison and the Paramount leadership.

Last week, Ellison addressed some of those concerns in an opinion column in The New York Times.

In it, he questioned whether the states’ antitrust lawsuit was “really about market share”, speculating that it was instead about control over major news outlets like CNN. He also sought to portray himself as politically independent.

“I have regularly voted for candidates of both parties; I hold some views that would be called conservative and others that would be called liberal, just like most Americans,” Ellison wrote.

“When it comes to our news operations, I do not aspire to lead these companies to bend their newsrooms to my views.”

But the states have argued that combining Warner Bros Discovery and Paramount would create a monopoly, stifling competition.

If the merger succeeds, the states say that only four distributors would control 86 percent of the country’s films.

The merger could also mean job losses. As of the end of 2025, the headcount at Paramount stood at 17,600, while Warner Bros Discovery had 35,500 employees.

A day after the 12 states filed their lawsuit, the Writers Guild of America (WGA) followed suit.

In its July 14 complaint, the guild argued that the merger would mean fewer jobs and more pressure on writers to accept less favourable working terms, owing to reduced competition in the media market.

“Writers will be paid less and have fewer employment opportunities,” the WGA complaint said.

In Los Angeles County alone, the merger could result in a loss of nearly 2,500 jobs, according to an analysis by the Los Angeles County Department of Economic Opportunity, published in June.

As many as 6,000 employees around the world could also see their positions cut.

By comparison, when the Paramount and Skydance merger was completed in 2025, the company laid off roughly 2,000 people.

Costly standoff

On July 24, Paramount Skydance agreed to pause the merger until a ruling in the states’ case is ultimately made or until June 1, 2027 — a move the WGA celebrated.

“It remains our view that this merger is unlawful, and we will continue the fight to block it,” WGA said at the time.

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

Slowing the merger could be costly for Paramount Skydance. Under the terms of the merger, the company would have to pay a so-called ticking fee of $7m per day, or $650m per quarter, if the deal does not close by September 30.

But the standoff with Ellison could also be costly for California, which is experiencing a downturn in the number of productions filmed in the state. New York, another state involved in the lawsuit, could see a backlash, as it houses studios for CBS News and Paramount’s executive offices.

Representatives for the state of California and Paramount Skydance did not respond to Al Jazeera’s request for comment.

Paramount Skydance’s stock is trending upward on the heels of Tuesday’s report. The stock was up 0.4 percent in midday trading, while Warner Bros Discovery was up 1.1 percent.

Critics say the 39 percent cap was a safeguard against excessive concentration of media ownership in the US.

The United States Federal Communications Commission has voted to rescind the rule that bars local broadcast station owners from reaching more than 39 percent of the total number of US TV households in a move that could help spark industry consolidation.

The FCC on Thursday voted 2-1 to lift the cap in favour of a new case-by-case approach. The commission’s sole Democrat, Anna Gomez, said the proposal was illegal and argued only the US Congress can lift the cap. Many critics argue the move will lead to excessive market power among station owners.

Under the rules, stations with weaker over-the-air signals can be partially counted against a company’s ownership cap. The FCC has limited ownership of local broadcast stations since 1941 and most recently raised the cap to 39 percent in 2004.

FCC Chairman Brendan Carr said the move is about helping local broadcasters survive and pointed to the sharp decline in local newspapers.

“We should stop hamstringing this one segment of the broader market with outdated restrictions,” Carr said.

“The FCC kept a rule on the books in the name of localism that contributed to the gutting of local newspapers … I don’t want local broadcast TV to go the way of local newspapers.”

The FCC said the new rule would consider applications on television company mergers that would go above 39 percent on an individual basis to determine if they are in the public interest. The agency said it would “remove artificial restrictions on opportunities for broadcast television to attract capital and generate revenue”.

Gomez said the decision is “an invitation to bring in a lot of transactions”.

‘More control’

Lifting the cap hands “more control of the public airwaves to a small number of companies whose coverage pleases this administration … It is putting its thumb on the scale in favour of content that this administration likes,” she added.

Carr has said the change would allow local television owners to increase investment in local programming and give them more leverage against national networks.

In March, the FCC approved the $3.54bn sale of ‌local television station owner Tegna to Nexstar despite objections from Democratic-led states.

The acquisition, if not reversed by courts, will expand Nexstar’s presence to cover 80 percent of US TV households. The FCC has said it was waiving the 39 percent rule in approving the deal.

Senate Commerce Committee Chair Ted Cruz, a Republican, said last month that he is sceptical the FCC can hike the 39 percent cap without an act of Congress.

Clayton Weimers, executive director at Reporters Without Borders North America, said in a statement that with this latest move, the FCC has “abandoned” one of the last significant safeguards against excessive concentration of media ownership in the US, which ensured that “no single company or individual should be allowed to dominate what millions of Americans see, hear, and understand about the world”.

“Today’s vote eliminates that safeguard and only benefits a handful of already powerful media conglomerates. This is not deregulation in the public interest. It is consolidation in the interest of the powerful,” Weimers said.

He said that the action exceeds the FCC’s legal authority and that Reporters Without Borders was evaluating every available legal avenue to challenge this decision.

Britain’s new Prime Minister Andy Burnham is using social media to reshape Labour’s public image and challenge the growing online influence of populist parties, particularly Reform UK. By combining informal, relatable content with government messaging, Burnham is seeking to connect with younger voters while projecting a more approachable leadership style.

A New Digital Approach

Since taking office, Burnham has rapidly expanded his presence on TikTok, X, and Instagram through light-hearted videos, behind-the-scenes content, and policy announcements packaged in an accessible format.

Unlike traditional political messaging, Burnham’s posts often feature humor and everyday topics, ranging from debating popular pub snacks to joking about his own appearance. Communications experts say this approach presents him as relatable without undermining the seriousness of his office.

Labour Seeks to Close the Digital Gap

Burnham’s strategy reflects Labour’s effort to compete in an online space where Reform UK and its leader Nigel Farage have built significant audiences over several years.

Political analysts argue that while former Prime Minister Keir Starmer struggled to connect through digital platforms, Burnham’s communication style is more natural and engaging. Early polling suggests Labour has narrowed Reform UK’s lead since Burnham became prime minister, although the next general election remains years away.

Positive Messaging Over Polarisation

Communications specialists describe Burnham’s strategy as one focused on inclusion rather than confrontation. Instead of relying on divisive rhetoric, Labour is attempting to broaden its appeal through optimistic messaging and accessible political communication.

Videos highlighting government policies such as tax relief for hospitality businesses have attracted millions of views, demonstrating how policy announcements can gain wider attention when presented through social media trends.

Building a Professional Digital Operation

The government has expanded its investment in digital communications, recruiting specialists in content production, strategy, and social media engagement.

Burnham’s online campaign is being coordinated by experienced digital strategists, reflecting a broader recognition that political influence increasingly depends on platforms where younger audiences consume information.

Analysis: Social Media Is Becoming a Core Political Battleground

Burnham‘s early success illustrates how political communication is evolving beyond traditional speeches and television appearances. Social media has become a central arena where leaders compete not only on policy but also on personality, authenticity, and accessibility. While Burnham’s informal style may help Labour regain ground against populist rivals such as Reform UK, digital popularity alone is unlikely to determine long-term political success. As analysts note, sustained public support will ultimately depend on whether the government delivers tangible improvements on the economy, living standards, and public services. If policy outcomes fail to match the positive online narrative, social media momentum could prove difficult to maintain.

With information from Reuters.

Bangladeshi journalist and fact-checker Qadaruddin Shishir investigates extrajudicial killings and disinformation following the student-led protests that ousted former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina in 2024.

As Bangladesh continues a political transition under new governance, he turns his focus towards debunking fake news and misleading narratives spreading online. Determined to safeguard his nation’s democratic integrity, he launches an independent organisation to expand his work and mentor a new generation of fact-checkers.

As Bangladesh struggles to rebuild trust after political turmoil, Shishir pins his hopes on a new generation willing to defend the truth.

A new study by Australia’s internet regulator has revealed that more than eight in 10 young Australian teens and preteens are continuing to use social media platforms despite the government’s prohibition for children under 16.

The ban came into effect in December last year.

Here is what we know about how it’s going.

What did the latest report find?

Australia’s internet regulator, eSafety, said it had found that more than eight in 10 Australian under-16s are continuing to use social media despite being banned from doing so.

The report also found that most of those children aged 10 to 15 were using social media just as frequently in March as they had been before the ban came into force on December 10 last year.

“Most under-16s who had social media accounts before commencement were able to either retain them or create new ones at the three-month ⁠mark, with social media platforms’ failure to implement effective age assurance measures cited as the main reason,” eSafety said in a statement.

About half the children who retained their accounts said platforms had not checked their age, the most common reason they were able to stay on the services. Others said that their accounts listed them as aged 16 or older or ‌that age-checking ⁠systems had incorrectly determined they were older.

Prior to the ban, nearly 86 percent of children surveyed reported using at least one age-restricted platform. Three months later, that figure remained above 81 percent, the eSafety report said.

Around 58 percent of teenagers reported using social media daily, the report found. Before the ban, the number was roughly 60 percent.

The report showed minimal change in “sports and physical activity, arts and music, spending time with friends and family, and attendance at community events”.

At the time the new rule was introduced, experts warned that enforcing it would be extremely difficult.

Joanna Orlando, a researcher in digital wellbeing and the author of Generation Connected: How to Parent in a Digital World, told Al Jazeera in December last year: “Tech-savvy teens simply use VPNs, fake birth photos for face scans, or migrate to less regulated platforms like Lemon8, or to platforms not part of the ban like video games. Enforcement is proving to be difficult in the days leading up to the ban.”

In December 2025, Australia prohibited children under 16 from using social media platforms, becoming the world’s first country to do so. Video game platforms are not included in the ban.

The government said this was prompted by increasing concerns about the effects of cyberbullying, sexual exploitation and self-harm content on the mental and physical health of children and young people.

Research commissioned by the Australian government in 2023 found four out of five children aged eight to 16 use social media, often beginning between the ages of 10 and 12. That report was led by former National Australia Bank CEO Andrew Thorburn, who recommended age restrictions.

Under the law, 10 of the biggest social media platforms face $33m in fines if they fail to take “reasonable steps” to block Australian-based users younger than 16. Such steps include using age-verification tools to determine how old users are.

As of January 16, social media companies had revoked access to about 4.7 million accounts identified as belonging to children in Australia, according to officials.

“We stared down everybody who said it couldn’t be done, some of the most powerful and rich companies in the world and their supporters,” Australian Communications Minister Anika Wells told reporters in January.

However, several months later, it now appears that youngsters have been able to open new accounts with relative ease.

Days after Australia’s ban took effect, Reddit, one of the 10 platforms required to block minors, lodged a challenge to the ban in the High Court, while still complying with it. The case is still ongoing.

How has the Australian government responded to the latest findings?

On Saturday, Andrew Leigh, Australia’s assistant minister for productivity, competition, charities and treasury, defended the new law, arguing that the social media ban has already reshaped the “national debate” about the use of social media by children.

The ban has been “an important game changer in the conversation among parents”, Leigh said in televised remarks.

“We’ve had millions of accounts shut down,” he said.

“We never expected that this would have 100 percent compliance. We don’t get 100 percent compliance out of minimum drinking age laws, but it’s still appropriate that we have that law on the books.”

While social media has long provided easy access to unregulated and often harmful content, misinformation and hate speech, the recent explosion of AI‑generated material poses new risks to the wellbeing of children and young people, experts say.

The American Psychological Association published an advisory last year warning that generative artificial intelligence (AI) systems can amplify harmful content such as violent or sexual videos.

It also added that adolescents are less likely than adults to question the accuracy of AI-generated content. “They may also be unaware of the persuasive intent underlying an AI system’s advice or bias,” the advisory stated.

AI can also amplify pre-existing societal prejudices, according to Ayo Tometi, co-creator of the US-based antiracist movement Black Lives Matter.

Children worldwide are also worried about the misuse of AI for online child sexual exploitation and “deepfakes”, according to research by the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) on children’s perspectives and AI, which it published in October 2025.

Following the introduction of Australia’s landmark law, some other countries are contemplating similar bans.

In the United Kingdom, the government has announced that it also plans to introduce a ban on social media platforms such as TikTok, Snapchat and Instagram from spring 2027 onward. 

Messaging platforms such as WhatsApp and Signal, educational tools, and e-commerce and music streaming will be excluded.

The government will announce the new regulations by the end of this year.

In November 2025, Denmark’s government said it also plans to prohibit social media platforms for children under 15, saying it had secured majority support in parliament. The ban is due to come into effect later this year.

Around the same time, Malaysia said it would ban social media accounts for people under 16 from this year.

In April, Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis formally announced plans to prohibit social media access for children under 15 from January 1, 2027, subject to parliamentary approval.

Truth Social, the social media firm owned by Trump Media & Technology Group (DJT), on Saturday launched Truth API, a licensed data feed that enables real-time access to posts from its high-profile users, including President Donald Trump.

With Trump Media & Technology