 |
|
|
|||||
For years, social media companies have disputed allegations that they harm children’s mental health through deliberate design choices that addict kids to their platforms and fail to protect them from sexual predators and dangerous content. Now, these tech giants are getting a chance to make their case in courtrooms around the country, including before a jury for the first time.Some of the biggest players from Meta to TikTok are facing federal and state trials that seek to hold them responsible for harming children’s mental health. The lawsuits have come from school districts, local, state and the federal government as well as thousands of families.Two trials are now underway in Los Angeles and in New Mexico, with more to come. The courtroom showdowns are the culmination of years of scrutiny of the platforms over child safety, and whether deliberate design choices make them addictive and serve up content that leads to depression, eating disorders or suicide.Experts see the reckoning as reminiscent of cases against tobacco and opioid markets, and the plaintiffs hope that social media platforms will see similar outcomes as cigarette makers and drug companies, pharmacies and distributors.The outcomes could challenge the companies’ First Amendment shield and Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, which protects tech companies from liability for material posted on their platforms. They could also be costly in the form of legal fees and settlements. And they could force the companies to change how they operate, potentially losing users and advertising dollars.Here’s a look at the major social media harms cases in the United States. The Los Angeles case centers on addiction Jurors in a landmark social media case that seeks to hold tech companies responsible for harms to children got their first glimpse into what will be a lengthy trial characterized by dueling narratives from the plaintiffs and the two remaining defendants, Meta and YouTube.At the core of the Los Angeles case is a 20-year-old identified only by the initials “KGM,” whose case could determine how thousands of similar lawsuits will play out. KGM and the cases of two other plaintiffs have been selected to be bellwether trials essentially test cases for both sides to see how their arguments play out before a jury.“This is a monumental inflection point in social media,” said Matthew Bergman of the Seattle-based Social Media Victims Law Center, which represents more than 1,000 plaintiffs in lawsuits against social media companies. “When we started doing this four years ago no one said we’d ever get to trial. And here we are trying our case in front of a fair and impartial jury.”On Wednesday Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg testified, mostly sticking to past talking points, including a lengthy back-and-forth about age verification where he said “I don’t see why this is so complicated,” reiterating that the company’s policy restricts users under the age of 13 and that it works to detect users who have lied about their ages to bypass restrictions.At one point, the plaintiff’s attorney, Mark Lanier, asked Zuckerberg if people tend to use something more if it’s addictive.“I’m not sure what to say to that,” Zuckerberg said. “I don’t think that applies here.” New Mexico goes after Meta over sexual exploitation A team led by New Mexico Attorney General Raśl Torrez, who sued Meta in 2023, built their case by posing as children on social media, then documenting sexual solicitations they received as well as Meta’s response.Torrez wants Meta to implement more effective age verification and do more to remove bad actors from its platform.He also is seeking changes to algorithms that can serve up harmful material, and has criticized the end-to-end encryption that can prevent the monitoring of communications with children for safety. Meta has noted that encrypted messaging is encouraged in general as a privacy and security measure by some state and federal authorities.The trial kicked off in early February. In his opening statement, prosecuting attorney Donald Migliori said Meta has misrepresented the safety of its platforms, choosing to engineer its algorithms to keep young people online while knowing that children are at risk of sexual exploitation.“Meta clearly knew that youth safety was not its corporate priority that youth safety was less important than growth and engagement,” Migliori told the jury.Meta attorney Kevin Huff pushed back on those assertions in his opening statement, highlighting an array of efforts by the company to weed out harmful content from its platforms while warning users that some dangerous content still gets past its safety net. School districts head to trial A trial scheduled for this summer pits school districts against social media companies before U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in Oakland, California. Called a multidistrict litigation, it names six public school districts from around the country as the bellwethers.Jayne Conroy, a lawyer on plaintiffs’ trial team, was also an attorney for plaintiffs seeking to hold pharmaceutical companies responsible for the opioid epidemic. She said the cornerstone of both cases is the same: addiction.“With the social media case, we’re focused primarily on children and their developing brains and how addiction is such a threat to their well-being and the harms that are caused to children how much they’re watching and what kind of targeting is being done,” she said.The medical science, she added, “is not really all that different, surprisingly, from an opioid or a heroin addiction. We are all talking about the dopamine reaction.”Both the social media and the opioid cases claim negligence on the part of the defendants.“What we were able to prove in the opioid cases is the manufacturers, the distributors, the pharmacies, they knew about the risks, they downplayed them, they oversupplied, and people died,” Conroy said. “Here, it is very much the same thing. These companies knew about the risks, they have disregarded the risks, they doubled down to get profits from advertisers over the safety of kids. And kids were harmed and kids died.” Resolution could take years amid dueling narratives Social media companies have disputed that their products are addictive. During questioning Wednesday by the plaintiff’s lawyer during the Los Angeles trial, Zuckerberg said he still agrees with a previous statement he made that the existing body of scientific work has not proven that social media causes mental health harms.Some researchers do indeed question whether addiction is the appropriate term to describe heavy use of social media. Socil media addiction is not recognized as an official disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, the authority within the psychiatric community.But the companies face increasing pushback on the issue of social media’s effects on children’s mental health, not only among academics but also parents, schools and lawmakers.“While Meta has doubled down in this area to address mounting concerns by rolling out safety features, several recent reports suggest that the company continues to aggressively prioritize teens as a user base and doesn’t always adhere to its own rules,” said Emarketer analyst Minda Smiley.With appeals and any settlement discussions, the cases against social media companies could take years to resolve. And unlike in Europe and Australia, tech regulation in the U.S. is moving at a glacial pace.“Parents, education, and other stakeholders are increasingly hoping lawmakers will do more,” Smiley said. “While there is momentum at the state and federal level, Big Tech lobbying, enforcement challenges, and lawmaker disagreements over how to best regular social media have slowed meaningful progress.”AP Technology Writer Kaitlyn Huamani contributed to this story. Barbara Ortutay, AP Technology Writer
Category:
E-Commerce
This year has been volatile for brands. With tariffs taking effect, the job market slowing, and consumer spending barely keeping pace with inflation, its no surprise that ad spend has slowed in tandem. Amidst economic uncertainty and an onslaught of unanswered questions, brands are increasingly looking for demonstrable ROI in their marketing and design budgets. Some may choose to invest in a costly new campaign or commit to a new brand identity, while others will default to slashing their budgets altogether. Cutting marketing dollars is more of a short-term band-aid than a long-term solution. Research by Analytic Partners following the 2008 financial crisis found that 60% of brands that increased their marketing investment during that period generated a positive ROI. While AI disruption, political polarization, and evolving consumer behaviors are contributing to todays economic challenges, the core lesson still holds: Even in uncertain times, stepping off the marketing gas is rarely the answer. This undeniable power of attraction is hard to come by. But its not impossible when considering a series of five crucialand measurablefactors that, once met, can be part of a strategy to increase an overriding choice decision that sometimes can be determined spontaneously or irrationally. 1. Resonance. You must find ways to resonate with your consumers. The companies that resonate the most are the ones that go out of their way to tell emotive stories and bring them to life through every aspect of their brand expression. They develop heartfelt narratives that forge emotional connections with their audiences. These connections increase brand love and go the distance in fostering a consumers relationship with a brand. Brands like Dove set the standard here. By tapping into a deep human need for self-acceptance and belonging, Dove created an emotional connection that went far beyond functional benefits. 2. Relevance. Never underestimate the importance of staying relevant. While resonating with customers requires tapping into their emotional center, relevance speaks more to a clear sense of utility. Does your brand matter to consumers by being both useful and timely? We know that when inflation rises, wages stagnate, and purchasing power fades, consumers spend only on what they deem most important. For Olipop, the unmet need was gut health and soda enjoyment. Using nostalgic yet modern design and uplifting brand world, it gave consumers permission to reintroduce soda into their daily lives. 3. Differentiation. Most marketers would consider this their professional reason for being but outlining a distinct market position and effectively executing it are two inherently different things. Its important to be both unique and recognizable, but if you dont express it with clarity and confidence, you will get lost in the mix. Oatly didnt just market oat milk as another dairy alternativeit defined a cultural position: irreverent, planet-positive, and anti-establishment. 4. Unification. Brands must build a comprehensive toolkit of assets that are united across every touchpoint and channel through which a consumer might interact. But that doesnt mean being rigid or inflexible. For example, McDonalds maintains global consistency in its core messaging, design, and product offerings while adapting locally and offering country or culture-specific menu options. 5. Authenticity. Authenticity should always be top of mind when connecting with consumers. Its not just about defining a clear set of values or beliefs. Its about ensuring each message your brand shares are as close to those beliefs as possible. More than two-thirds (70%) of consumers spend more with authentic brands. From press releases to tweets to Super Bowl spots to new logos, consumers know when theyre being sold a lineand they respond in kind. Brands like Patagonia and Ben & Jerrysliteral poster children for principle-led brandscontinue to lead their categories by acting on their values in visible, credible ways. FINAL THOUGHTS What will separate the winners from the losers over the next year is knowing how to precisely focus marketing investment on places where a company needs that added push the most. This requires a company to harness the ability to magnetize their brand, fostering deep emotional attraction, and turning consumers into loyal advocates by making their company the one consumers want above all others. Jonathan Ford is the founding partner and group chief creative officer of Pearlfisher.
Category:
E-Commerce
Behind its glittery facade, Claire’s is a financial mess. The tween retail icon behind millions of ear piercings and Y2K accessories filed for bankruptcy in August 2025, closing hundreds of stores and selling its North American business for just $104 million. So how does a brand with $1.4 billion in global sales end up with more than $500 million in debt? Fast Company staff writer Elizabeth Segran has been covering the company’s ups and downs for years. In this episode of FC Explains, she breaks down the full Claire’s story, from its mall-era dominance and surprising pandemic comeback to its failed IPO, crushing debt load, tariff difficulties, and the rise of sleeker competitors like Lovisa, Studs, and Rowan.
Category:
E-Commerce
The National Governors Association is pulling out of an annual meeting at the White House after President Donald Trump declined to invite two Democratic governors, undercutting one of Washington’s few remaining bipartisan gatherings.Trump is still expected to meet with governors at the White House on Friday but the event will not be facilitated by an organization founded more than a century ago to help state leaders from both parties advocate for their interests in Washington. The Republican president had refused to include Democratic Govs. Jared Polis of Colorado and Wes Moore of Maryland and recently blasted them on social media as “not worthy of being there.”In a brief interview Thursday, Polis said he does not have “any ability to get in (Trump’s) head.” Polis said he was nonetheless meeting with governors from both parties while he is in the nation’s capital.“I’ve spent quality time with my colleagues this morning and really learning from one another and taking best practices that Republican or Democratic governors have launched in their state,” he said. “It’s really what these meetings are about.”The episode underscores the confrontational approach Trump has taken during his second term toward state leaders he does not like. He has at times threatened to withhold federal money or send in troops over the objections of local leaders. Now, even a ceremonial White House dinner has become a flashpoint and fellow Republicans openly acknowledge that Trump’s aim as president is not to unify the country.“He’s not putting his mind to it,” Gov. Spencer Cox, R-Utah, said at an event sponsored by Politico. “He’s said very clearly that that’s not who he is.”In an interview Wednesday, Moore said he has “no desire to have beef with the president of the United States.”“I didn’t run for governor like, man, I can’t wait so me and the president can go toe to toe,” said Moore, the NGA’s vice chair. “But the fact that he is waking up in the middle of the night and tweeting about me, I just, I pray for him and I just feel bad for him because that has just got to be a really, really hard existence.” Governors try to stay above the partisan fighting The dynamics are a far cry from the air of bipartisanship that Moore and Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt, a Republican who chairs the NGA, sought to portray as governors began to assemble in Washington. Moore and Stitt shared a stage several times this week swapping jokes and praise.“I have gotten, through the National Governors Association, a really good chance to know the heart of this man and how much he is a great American, loves his country, loves his citizens and is just trying to do the best he can for Maryland,” Stitt said Thursday at the Politico event.After Stitt tried to resolve the standoff between the White House and the Democratic governors last week, Trump blasted him as a “RINO,” short for Republican In Name Only, and accused him of misrepresenting his position. Stitt struck a conciliatory tone Thursday, noting he would participate in White House events.“Politics has a way of just beating you down over time so I can’t imagine being president of the United States,” Stitt said. “He’s got a tough job to do.”Former Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan, a Republican who occasionally disagreed with Trump, said it was a “mistake” for the White House not to include all governors.“There never was a huge amount of real work that got accomplished but it was a nice thing annually to bring all the governors Republicans and Democrats together,” he said in an interview. “I know there’s a lot of friction but it just seems in everybody’s best interest even if you passionately disagree and you don’t like the other person or you’re mad about whatever, it can’t hurt to be in the same room together.”Beyond the White House meeting, some governors also shared pointed criticisms of the administration’s ever-expanding power. They bemoaned the unwillingness of the Republican-controlled Congress to limit Trump’s ambitions and they cast themselves as counterweights to the executive.“Presidents aren’t supposed to do this stuff,” Cox said. “Congress needs to get their act together. And stop performing for TikTok and actually start doing stuff. That’s the flaw we’re dealing with right now.”Cox added that “it is up to the states to hold the line.” Presidential buzz runs alongside the conference As governors cycled through panels and interviews, one question hovered: Who among them might seek the presidency in 2028?Moore and Gov. Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania were among the potential Democratic presidential contenders in Washington this week. Other Democrats, including Govs. Gavin Newsom of California and JB Pritzker of Illinois, were not in town.Stitt and Moore, during a panel discussion, both declined to rule out a future bid and emphasized their focus on their home states.Gov. Andy Beshear, D-Ky., took a more open approach. He arrived in Washington days after announcing he would release a book this fall and fielded questions at a Center for American Progress event about how he might campaign for president if he enters the race.Asked afterward about his timeline for a decision, Beshear said his focus this year remains on Kentucky and “then after that, I’ll sit down with my family and we’ll consider it.” Joey Cappelletti and Steven Sloan, Associated Press
Category:
E-Commerce
The biggest drama in Hollywood in recent months hasnt been on the silver screen but in the boardrooms of two of the most powerful companies in the industry. In December, streaming giant Netflix announced its intention to acquire legendary Hollywood studio Warner Bros. after its planned separation from Discovery Global. The proposed merger has sparked heated debate in Hollywood about the future of the cinema industry, and now, one of the most successful filmmakers in the world, James Cameron, has entered the fray. Titanic director calls proposed merger disastrous Many in Hollywood have not publicly spoken out against the proposed Netflix-Warner Bros. merger, fearing it could hurt their future employment prospects should it go through. However, as one of the most successful and profitable filmmakers of all time, James Cameron doesnt have to worry about any potential blacklisting. On February 10, Cameron sent a letter to Republican Senator Mike Lee of Utah, who is chairman of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy, and Consumer Rights, and thus has significant sway over mergers the size of the one proposed by Netflix. In the letter, which was first reported by CNBC, the Avatar director did not mince words, saying “the proposed sale of Warner Bros. Discovery to Netflix will be disastrous for the theatrical motion picture business that I have dedicated my life’s work to. Camerons three main arguments against the megamerger Cameron’s letter is comprehensive in detailing his opposition to a Netflix-Warner Bros. merger, but most of his points center around three main arguments. First, Cameron says that if the Netflix-WB deal goes through, it will significantly harm the cinema industry. The business model of Netflix is directly at odds with the theatrical film production and exhibition business, which employs hundreds of thousands of Americans, he points out. He noted that Netflix co-CEO Ted Sarandos has in the past called cinemas “an outdated concept. Cameron argues that if Netflix acquires Warner Bros. and, as a result, pushes more of WBs films to streaming instead of a theatrical release, that will result in movie theaters having fewer films to show, which will not only hurt theater chains but also their employees and thus local communities. Cameron notes that while Netflix has committed to maintaining a theatrical window for releases for 17 days, that timeframe is ridiculously short compared to historic norms. Second, Cameron says the merger would likely result in fewer motion pictures being made, which would dramatically impact those who work in the film industry, from PAs to visual effects (VFX) artists to caterers. For instance, on a major film like Avatar, Cameron said that he frequently employs 3,000 people for up to four years. These types of job-creating big-budget films are highly dependent on a healthy exhibition community. If such films are no longer green-lit because the market contracts further, which the Netflix acquisition of Warner Brothers will certainly accelerate, then many jobs will be lost, Cameron wrote. Theaters will close. Fewer films will be made. Service providers such as VFX companies will go out of business. The job losses will spiral. Finally, the Aliens director contends that the Netflix-WB deal would hurt Americas soft power and cultural impact across the globe. At a time when the US trade deficit is a major concern, one of America’s largest export sectors will be negatively impacted,” Cameron wrote. “Which is to say nothing of the cost to our greatest cultural export: movies. “The US may no longer lead in auto or steel manufacturing, but it is still the world leader in movies,” he added. “That will change for the worse. Fast Company has reached out to Netflix and Warner Bros. Discovery for comment. As industry awaits outcome, Netflix stock continues to sink While Camerons letter opposing the Netflix-WB merger likely gives a lot of weight to those who share his arguments, the outcome of the proposed merger is still far from certainnot least of which because Netflix isnt the only one interested in acquiring Warner Bros. Paramount Skydance has launched a hostile bid for Warner Bros. that would also include Discovery Global. Any final agreement would of course need to be approved by regulators. Yet one thing is clear: Since the proposed Netflix-WB merger was announced in December, Netflixs stock price (Nasdaq: NFLX) has taken a beating. On December 5, the day the deal was announced, Netflix stock closed at just above $100 per share. As of market close yesterday, NFLX shares were trading at $77. Thats a 23% drop. On the other hand, shares of Warner Bros. Discovery, Inc. (Nasdaq: WBD) have leapt in the same timeframe. The day before the proposed merger was announced, WBD shares were trading at around $24.55. As of yesterdays close, those shares are sitting at $28.53, a jump of more than 16%.
Category:
E-Commerce
Sites : [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] next »