Social Media

Paris: The French government submitted a reworked proposal to ban social media for children, after its previous ban was struck down by the country’s top constitutional authority, President Emmanuel Macron said on Monday.

“After rigorous technical work the government today is notifying” the European Commission of the new draft, Macron wrote on X. The notification is a key step, as it ensures that the legislation is in line with European Union laws.

MONTANA Brown has left her fans baffled AGAIN after she fumed over being unable to get her son an EpiPen – despite having no diagnosis for him.

The Love Island star, 31, often ruffles the feathers of fellow parents with her social media videos, and today was no different.

Speaking in her latest TikTok video, Montana began: “Guys, I’m about to have a rant, so beware.

“I went to the GP last week because basically Jude had this really random skin reaction, it was an allergic reaction, but we hadn’t actually given him any food.

“So I was like, This is weird,’ like his eyes were like swelling out of his head. I was like, He’s definitely allergic to something, but not sure what it is because we haven’t given him any food?

“So I went to the GP to basically say, ‘Look, I’ve got a nut allergy. You can see that on my records. I have anaphylaxis, so I’m worried that he’s now developed an allergy to something that I’m not quite sure what it is yet.

MONTANA’S JOURNEY

Montana Brown reveals devastating health diagnosis

WEIGH TO GO

Montana Brown shows off before and after weight loss transformation

“I’d like to get two kids’ EpiPens so that I can be prepared if he does have a worse reaction to whatever it is. Like in the meantime, like before we figure out, you know, get him allergy tested.”

Continuing her story, the reality star said: “Guess what they said? ‘No’.

“I was like, ‘Why? It’s just so painful.’ Like, I understand that there is a process to these things. But to me, I’m like, what am I going to do with an EpiPen apart from be safe with it?’

“Like, what are the dangers of me having an EpiPen? And I’m like, am I going to have to try and get an EpiPen off the deep dark web?

“Is that what this is coming to? I’m trying to safely protect my child in case he has an anaphylactic shock in my care to buy him enough time to get him to hospital. Like, is it me? Is it me?”

However, fans couldn’t believe what they were hearing, with one said: “They can’t just give you a medication without a diagnosis.”

A second shared: “Are you actually for real?”

A third added: “She’s is honestly on another planet!”

This isn’t the first time Montana has ruffled the feathers of fans.

The mum-of-two recently left her fans fuming after revealing the “privileged” reason why she didn’t plan to send her son to school.

And earlier this year a comment she made about food pouches in stores being “c***” for children left busy mothers who saw them as a convenient option feeling patronised.

As many as 20 million children in 21 countries have experienced online sexual abuse or exploitation each year, according to new findings from the United Nations children’s agency, UNICEF.

More than one in five children aged 12 to 17 in countries in Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean, and Eastern Europe have been targeted on digital platforms, according to the UNICEF report released on Thursday.

Researchers surveyed 21,000 children aged 12 to 17 who used the internet across 21 countries between 2020 and 2021, and then again between 2024 and 2025. They also conducted in-depth interviews with 100 young people who have experienced childhood abuse.

Social media facilitated more than half of the abuse cases, according to UNICEF, which cautioned that figures could be inaccurate due to underreporting by children. Less than 1 per cent of all abusive incidents were reported to authorities, the researchers found.

Last week, US social media giant Meta agreed to a landmark $18bn settlement in a major US federal case accusing the company of endangering children. Meta has faced an avalanche of legal cases this year, most arguing that it has deliberately designed its platforms to be addictive and that they have harmed children. The company has now agreed to make major changes to the features of its social media platforms.

What are the key findings of the UNICEF report?

The report estimated that in the periods studied, more than 15 million children were exposed to unwanted sexual content, nine million were asked to engage in sexual conversations or share sexual images against their will, and four million children had sexual images of themselves shared without their consent.

UNICEF said the issue is compounded by the fact that children often don’t recognise abuse or know who to report it to, and fear repercussions if they do. Formal systems can feel distant, complex or intimidating, the report noted.

“The report reveals a painful reality. More than 20 million children across the countries studied were subjected to unwanted explicit sexual content or exploitation online, often in the digital spaces where they learn, play, and connect with friends,” said UNICEF Executive Director Catherine Russell. “These experiences cause profound emotional and mental distress. Many children suffer in silence, unsure where to turn for help. We cannot look away.”

Where was data collected?

Information for the report was based on nationally representative survey data collected between 2020 and 2025 from approximately 21,000 internet-using children from the following countries:

• Eastern and South Africa: Ethiopia, Kenya, Mozambique, Namibia, Tanzania and Uganda 
• Southeast Asia: Cambodia, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam
• Latin America and the Caribbean: Brazil, Colombia, the Dominican Republic and Mexico 
• Eastern Europe: Armenia, Montenegro, North Macedonia and Serbia
• South Asia: Pakistan

Where are children being abused?

Abuse often begins in public spaces, such as in schools or local neighbourhoods, before moving to digital spaces which can further facilitate harm.

Social media and messaging platforms enable different stages of abuse, “including initial contact, relationship-building, sexual solicitation, image-sharing, coercion, blackmail and the continued circulation of sexual content”, the report said.

Sometimes abuse takes place solely online.

According to the report’s findings, more than 60 percent of cases occurred on social media platforms, with the majority on Facebook (50 percent), WhatsApp (29 percent), Instagram (24 percent), SnapChat (13 percent) and TikTok (12 percent).

Do children report abuse?

Most children do not seek help if they are being abused. Less than one percent of cases are reported to the police, a social worker or a helpline, while more than four in 10 cases not being disclosed to anyone at all.

“Children are not failing to report; they have correctly worked out that there is nowhere to report to,” Nighat Dad, executive director of the Pakistan-based Digital Rights Foundation, told Al Jazeera.

Dad, whose NGO works to provide safe online spaces in Pakistan, noted that incidents repeatedly occur online because of a “design problem – the message request, the move to a private chat, the reshare, the ability to return after being blocked”.

Many children minimise their experiences or do not recognise when they’ve been abused, she said.

Even when children do speak out, to a close friend, sibling, or parent, doing so may not necessarily stop the abuse or bring perpetrators to account.

UNICEF emphasised that its research interviews were the first time many of the children it interviewed had spoken to someone about the abuse they were subjected to.

Dad also cautioned that Pakistan, for example, is a “low-disclosure country” where notions of family “honour” and other cultural barriers prevent children from disclosing the harm they’ve experienced.

“A girl who speaks risks her phone, her schooling and sometimes her safety, and a boy is expected to cope in silence,” Dad said.

How does gender factor into online abuse?

Perpetrators often play on gender norms when exploiting children. Stigma and blame are used against girls to keep them silent, while boys are expected to cope alone, or threatened by perpetrators.

“Peer cultures and harmful norms around gender or masculinity can further normalise behaviours that cause significant harm, making abuse harder to recognise and address,” UNICEF noted.

What kind of impact does online sexual abuse have on children?

The repercussions are severe, UNICEF said: Children exposed to technology-facilitated sexual abuse and exploitation are four times more likely to have suicidal thoughts and to self-harm, along with higher levels of anxiety.

In Mexico or North Macedonia, for example, the risk of suicidal thoughts or behaviours was more than eight times higher among children who experienced abuse, while in Pakistan the risk of self-harm was more than seven times higher than average, the report found.

Abuse extends well beyond the digital sphere, seeping into children’s everyday lives, schooling and relationships.

What should be done about this?

UNICEF said the onus to protect children online must be placed on governments and technology companies, which must change how online spaces are designed and regulated.

It also highlighted that while children often take steps to protect each other, societies, schools and families must work to shift the burden of protection away from children.

Citing Meta’s recent settlement, Dad acknowledged that design changes, such as better age verification and parental controls, can and should happen.

“For years those of us working outside the US were told these defaults would break the product. Meta has now shown the product can change.”

A spokesperson for Meta told Al Jazeera, “This report is based on surveys from as far back as 2020, before we introduced the protections UNICEF recommends, like automatically defaulting teens into private accounts and preventing adults from messaging teens they’re not connected to.

“While the report doesn’t provide any specific evidence of abuse, we’ll continue to fight child exploitation aggressively across our apps and support law enforcement in prosecuting the criminals behind it.”

The spokesperson also pointed out that Meta-owned WhatsApp is a private messaging service rather than a social media platform. “We don’t have algorithms that make a piece of content more or less likely to be viewed, and you need someone’s phone number or exact username to connect with them for the first time.”

Snapchat and TikTok have not responded to requests for comment for Al Jazeera.

MAYA Jama cheekily vowed to ‘shake her money maker’ as she stunned in a racy red dress at Notting Hill Carnival on Sunday.

The Love Island presenter, 32, shared what she got up to at the world-famous street party on her social media.

Maya headed out to the streets of Notting Hill in west London in a taxi with her pals before busting some moves on an elevated platform.

She was captured holding a sign that said ‘shake my money maker’ by a fan and she reposted the picture to her Instagram story.

The star was in high spirits showing off her moves in a red and black striped dress and sunglasses.

In another repost, Maya was all smiles as she waved to a fan on the ground and made a love heart sign with her fingers.

MAYA’S MIAMI MR NICE

‘Flirty’ Maya Jama ‘comforted’ by ‘playboy’ financier during World Cup

SNEAK PEEK

First look at Celebrity Traitors as Maya Jama and Ross Kemp attend sad FUNERAL

Before the party, Maya told her 3.3 million followers: “Merry carnival to those who celebrate.”

Notting Hill Carnival takes place every year from the 29th to 31st of August after it first took place in 1966.

It is one of the largest festival celebrations of its kind in Europe, celebrating Caribbean culture.

It comes after Maya stripped down to a bikini and let off steam on a wild holiday with pals.

She took to Instagram on Wednesday evening to share a series of pictures from her fun holiday.

In one snap, the ITV favourite showed off her sexy body in a blue two piece.

Yair Netanyahu, a podcaster and right-wing activist, had been living in the US for several years prior to his departure.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu‘s eldest son was flown back to Israel from the United States after a threat to his life, according to Israel’s domestic intelligence agency.

The Shin Bet said in a statement on Saturday evening that, “there was a significant threat to harm Yair Netanyahu, and in light of this and after an assessment, a decision was made to urgently evacuate him along with his security team and return him to Israel”.

The agency did not specify the source of the threat.

US broadcaster Newsmax reported earlier this week that Yair Netanyahu was the target of an alleged Iranian assassination plot last December, while he was living in Florida.

Israeli intelligence informed US authorities after it had learned of the alleged plot, the broadcaster reported, citing a US law enforcement official.

The report surfaced after Benjamin Netanyahu told Israel’s Channel 14 that “Iran targeted one of my sons. Iran tried to kill, to murder one of my sons”.

Yair Netanyahu, who was constantly accompanied by an Israeli security team, was ordered to leave the area immediately, Newsmax reported. He left without taking his personal belongings and returned directly to Israel.

Netanyahu’s eldest son has lived in Florida for several years, where his “reportedly luxurious lifestyle and the state-funded security provided to him repeatedly drew public attention in Israel”, reported The Times of Israel.

His continued residency in the US after the Hamas-led October 7, 2023 attacks on Israel provoked criticism from many Israelis. They questioned the double standard of Netanyahu’s son remaining overseas while hundreds of thousands of Israeli reservists were called up, the Israeli newspaper reported.

The right-wing activist and podcaster is active on social media, frequently commenting on Israeli politics and attacking his father’s political opponents, government critics and journalists.

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.

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.

Meta, parent company of Instagram and Facebook, is on trial over claims it sought to hook young users on its platforms despite mental health concerns.

The top executive at Instagram has admitted that few teenagers have used a feature meant to counter addiction before it was turned on by default, as hearings in a landmark trial against its parent company, Meta, continue in the United States.

Adam Mosseri testified on Tuesday as Meta’s trial – over accusations that it designed its platforms, including Facebook, to be addictive to young people – entered its second week.

Mosseri, who has led Instagram since 2018, denied any suggestion by US states suing Meta that Instagram had stalled by not making the “Take a Break” feature the default setting for teenagers until September 2024, nearly three years after its launch.

“Most teens didn’t want it,” Mosseri said. “We decided to push forward with it anyway.”

Mosseri is a central witness in the lawsuit brought by 29 US states, in what experts call the biggest legal test yet of social media’s effects on young users.

Four of the states – California, Colorado, Kentucky and New Jersey – have accused Meta of designing the platforms to hook young users, driving anxiety, depression and even suicide, while misleading consumers about the platforms’ safety.

All 29 states say Meta violated US federal law by improperly collecting and employing the personal data of children under 13 while they used its platforms.

The states are seeking approximately $200bn in damages from Meta.

‘Designed to fail’

Meta has rejected accusations that it sought to addict children, saying its research showed no clear link between adolescents’ social media use and a lack of wellbeing.

Under questioning from Jason Slothouber, a lawyer for Colorado, Mosseri acknowledged that the percentage of teenagers using Take a Break was in the low single digits before Instagram made it ⁠the default.

Take a Break encourages teenage users to close the app after a certain amount of time. Mosseri had estimated in a December 2021 blog post that more than 90 percent of teenagers who turned the feature on kept it on.

That number, however, referred to the number of those who had turned on the feature.

When asked whether Meta had disclosed its low adoption, which had reached only 1 or 2 percent of accounts, Mosseri admitted the company had not, but said the safety features were later turned on by default in Teen Accounts, which launched in 2024 and have parental controls.

Former Meta employees have said that features such as Take a Break and Quiet Mode were difficult to find and not widely used, casting doubt on whether they represented a serious effort by the company to limit screen time for young users.

“In my experience, Take a Break is a feature that’s designed to fail,” Arturo Bejar, a former Meta engineering director, testified last week.

George Volichenko, a data scientist who worked on safety features at Instagram in 2022 and 2023, likewise stated on Monday that adoption rates of such features were “very low” and that company leadership had declined to approve turning on Quiet Mode by default for young teenagers.

He added that turning on such features automatically would have had a “notable negative impact” on user engagement.

The trial could last six weeks.

Jurors are expected to issue an advisory verdict. US District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers will decide whether Meta is liable and, if so, determine any civil penalties and changes to Facebook and Instagram.

KATIE Price has spoken out on her 26-year feud with Victoria Beckham as a throwback clip goes viral on social media.

The media personality, 48, has famously been long-rumoured to be at loggerheads with Posh Spice since the early 2000s when Victoria admitted they’ll never be “best friends”.

But Katie has now re-shared Victoria’s interview clip to her Instagram story as it continues to go viral.

Putting an end to any speculation, Katie shared her love for Victoria with a simple message.

Katie wrote online: “I have no problem with @victoriabeckham either [red love heart emoji].

“She is [an] amazing business woman.”

TOUGH TIMES

Katie Price posts cryptic ‘I survived’ comment amid Lee Andrews marriage drama

PRICE’S FIGHTS

Inside Katie Price’s biggest feuds from rival model to Kerry Katona bust up 

In the clip from T4 in 2000, Victoria was asked about Katie, then known as Jordan, amid reports the pair were feuding.

Victoria clarified that they “used to” know each other as Katie’s boyfriend at the time, Another Level singer Dane Bowers, worked closely with Victoria to create her debut solo album after leaving the Spice Girls.

When Victoria was asked if she would ever form a friendship with Katie, she appeared to politely decline and explained her reasons as to why.

She said on the old Channel 4 morning show: “I actually used to know her.

“She was going out with Dane and I was working with Dane and she was very sweet.”

Victoria then added: “Now, I don’t really know her anymore.”

That comment was used as fuel in the fire as to their apparent rowing.

Posh Spice went on to add: “I very much doubt we would ever become best friends.”

Since early August 2026, several Venezuelan media outlets that have reported on businessman Alejandro Betancourt and his role at the helm of oil company North American Blue Energy Partners (NABEP) have faced attacks on X from a group of accounts defending his activities, praising Delcy Rodríguez’s administration, and disparaging María Corina Machado.

Hundreds of these responses came from inauthentic accounts that do not appear to be operated by regular users.

Cazadores de Fake News identified at least 75 such accounts on X, resembling trolls, whose activity led to 13 newly created websites posing as Venezuelan regional news outlets. On Instagram, another previously documented network of fake news accounts known as La Fábrica de Desinformación (“The Disinformation Factory”) has also published favorable content about Betancourt and his activities, acting as another front in the same communications strategy.

The analysis found that an influence operation in Betancourt’s favor began to be deployed in August, seeking to improve his reputation while discrediting journalistic coverage of the businessman amid his contacts with Rodríguez’s administration.

The operation remains active, and the number of accounts and fake outlets could grow.

Trolls attack Venezuelan media covering Betancourt

Beginning August 11, journalists and Venezuelan media outlets reported to Cazadores de Fake News that posts about Betancourt were receiving large numbers of hostile responses, sometimes insults, almost simultaneously. The accounts questioned the posts and defended the businessman.

Among those targeted were journalists and social media personalities like Germania Rodríguez Poleo, Norbey Marín, and Emmanuel Rincón, as well as Armando.info, El Pitazo, EVTV, VPI TV, and Spain’s El País. The same accounts also respond to other users discussing Betancourt and, in some cases, to unrelated news.

Under different headlines, the fake outlets reproduced only the favorable portions of the article that portrayed him as an intermediary for Washington.

Based on their behavior and attack patterns, Cazadores de Fake News considers them part of a troll network: a group of fake accounts covertly and selectively spreading propaganda in Betancourt’s favor without appearing automated.

The accounts mix attacks with memes, sports comments, and everyday posts, making them appear more like ordinary users. This allows them to intervene in and discredit legitimate conversations without immediately being recognized as propaganda.

The network’s messages revolve around three main narratives. The first promotes and defends Betancourt and NABEP, the private oil company he leads and which operates Venezuelan fields under new concessions granted by the Rodríguez administration. The accounts portray the company’s activities as an opportunity for Venezuela’s economic development.

The second expresses optimism about Venezuela’s economy and, while celebrating Nicolás Maduro’s capture, simultaneously supports Rodríguez’s performance as acting president. The third, promoted less frequently, rejects Machado’s leadership of the Venezuelan opposition.

The 75 accounts fall into two groups: 62 that appear to be real people, with names, profile pictures, and short biographies, and 13 posing as news outlets.

The apparent personal accounts share a striking pattern: 61 were created between 2011 and 2015, with more than half created in 2013 or 2014.

Most follow between 90 and 200 accounts, have 80 to 120 followers, and have fewer than 300 posts. Some have no posts predating August 2026, despite having been created more than a decade ago. Cazadores de Fake News considers it likely that the accounts were purchased in bulk, a common practice for giving inauthentic networks an appearance of age and avoiding newly created profiles that are more vulnerable to suspension under X’s platform-manipulation policies.

The other X accounts do not present themselves as individual users. Instead, they pose as Venezuelan news outlets with generic names. As of August 19, 13 such accounts had been identified.

Several accounts posing as individuals have posted favorable comments beneath the fake outlets’ posts, creating the appearance of organic approval. Legitimate X users could interpret these exchanges as genuine conversations, even though both sides belong to the same network.

Twelve of the fake news profiles were created between January 2024 and July 2026 and have already accumulated between 5,681 and 18,900 followers. Yet none has published more than 157 posts. Their coverage repeatedly advances the same narratives as the accounts posing as individuals: favorable coverage of Betancourt and NABEP, support for Rodríguez, and attacks on Machado.

The operation extends beyond X. Almost all of the fake outlets link to websites using the same name as their X profiles. The sites are designed to resemble legitimate Venezuelan digital media, with sections for politics, crime, business, sports, and regional news.

Under Maduro, Cazadores documented similar campaigns favoring other Venezuelan oligarchs and their businesses, such as Alex Saab (2020) and José Simón Elarba (2026), the owner of waste-management company Fospuca.

The 13 domains were registered between July 26 and 27 using the same hosting provider, about a week before the coordinated X activity began. All operate on WordPress, and none has a contact page, editorial team, legal notice, advertising, or audience-measurement tools. In several cases, the same image appears on four or five different sites.

One of the clearest examples was the coordinated amplification of a Bloomberg article about Betancourt published August 17. The fake outlets reproduced, under different headlines, only the favorable portions of the article that portrayed him as an intermediary for Washington. They omitted other details mentioned by Bloomberg, including financial sanctions imposed in the United States on one of his partners and allegations involving the supply of power-generation equipment in Venezuela.

Content supporting the same narratives was also published by five fake news accounts and one influential account belonging to La Fábrica de Desinformación, a network of anonymous Instagram news accounts aimed at opposition audiences that Cazadores de Fake News has documented since 2020 as a recurring source of disinformation and pro-government propaganda.

Digital reputation operations benefiting businessmen linked to political power were a recurring feature under Nicolás Maduro. Cazadores de Fake News documented one deployed in favor of Alex Saab beginning in 2020, and in May 2026 identified a network of inauthentic accounts that attacked media outlets investigating José Simón Elarba while praising Fospuca, his company.

The evidence documented here indicates that such operations continue under Rodríguez’s administration.

Who commissioned the operation and how it was financed remain unanswered questions. What is documented is that, in four weeks, someone purchased dozens of old accounts, registered 13 domains, and activated six profiles from a previously exposed network—all serving the same purpose.

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.