Summary: A Los Angeles jury found Meta and Google liable for a young woman's depression linked to Instagram and YouTube addiction, awarding $6 million. A New Mexico jury ordered Meta to pay $375 million for misleading users about product safety and enabling child exploitation. Both verdicts challenge Section 230 immunity by focusing on platform design decisions rather than user-generated content.     By Diana Novak Jones Jurors in the first two trials in the U.S. from a growing wave of lawsuits targeting social media firms over harm to children have found Meta and Alphabet's Google liable, potentially teeing up an appeals fight that could reshape how U.S. law shields tech companies from lawsuits. In California, a Los Angeles jury on Wednesday found Meta and Google liable for a young woman’s depression and suicidal thoughts after she said she became addicted to Instagram and YouTube at a young age, ordering them to pay a combined $6 million in damages. In a separate New Mexico case, jurors on Tuesday ordered Meta to pay $375 million after finding the company misled users about the safety of its products for young users and enabled the sexual exploitation of children on its platforms. The verdicts pierce a legal shield that plaintiffs suing tech companies have long struggled to overcome: Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a 1996 federal law that generally protects online platforms from liability over user-generated content. In both cases, the plaintiffs sidestepped that hurdle by arguing the companies harmed young users through decisions they made about the platforms' design rather than the content itself. “Courts are increasingly trying to distinguish claims about platform functionality or platform conduct from claims that would really just impose liability for third-party speech,” said Gregory Dickinson, an assistant professor at the University of Nebraska College of Law who studies the intersection of tech and the law. Meta and Google have denied the claims, arguing they have taken actions to protect young people. META, GOOGLE CLAIMED LIABILITY SHIELD In both cases, Meta urged the judge to dismiss the lawsuit, as did Google in the Los Angeles case, claiming they were shielded from liability by Section 230. The judges rejected the argument, saying the cases could move to trial. “We respectfully disagree with the verdicts and will appeal,” a Meta spokesperson said in a statement. “We remain committed to building safe, supportive environments for young people and will defend our record vigorously." Google has said it plans to appeal in the Los Angeles case, but did not respond to a request for comment. Those appeals are almost certain to center on Section 230 – and they could have broad implications. Meta, Google, Snapchat parent Snap Inc, and TikTok parent ByteDance are facing thousands of lawsuits in both state and federal court over claims their design choices have led to a mental health crisis for teens and young people. More than 2,400 cases have been centralized before a single judge in California federal court, while thousands of cases are consolidated in California state court. Legal experts say courts have been moving toward a narrower view of Section 230’s liability shield. Several lower courts have ruled that companies’ platform design choices are not protected by the law, but no appellate court has weighed in. Appellate courts, not trial judges, are the ones whose rulings bind other courts. IMPLICATIONS BEYOND SOCIAL MEDIA An appellate ruling on Section 230 could have implications beyond social media, legal experts say, shaping lawsuits against other online platforms that host content used by children. More than 130 lawsuits are pending in federal court against Roblox Corporation, for example, accusing the popular gaming site of failing to protect users from sexual exploitation. Roblox denies the claims. “I think the internet is on trial, not social media,” said Eric Goldman, co-director of the High Tech Law Institute at Santa Clara University School of Law. "If the theories work, they will be deployed elsewhere." Appeals in both cases would be heard first by appeals courts at the state level. But they could go to higher courts after that. The U.S. Supreme Court has shown a willingness to potentially decide the scope of Section 230. In 2023, the court heard a challenge involving Google's video-sharing platform YouTube, but ultimately sidestepped a ruling on the legal protections for internet companies. In 2024, the high court declined to hear a Texas teen's bid to revive his lawsuit accusing Snapchat owner Snap of failing to protect underage users of its social media platform from sexual predators. Two conservative justices - Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch - dissented from that decision, however, warning of further delays in addressing the issue. "Social-media platforms have increasingly used (Section) 230 as a get-out-of-jail free card," they wrote in a dissent. Meetali Jain, director of the Tech Justice Law Project, which brings litigation against tech companies, said she thinks the U.S. Supreme Court may now be open to weighing in on the scope of Section 230. “I personally think that the Supreme Court is even ready for a case like this, for the right case,” Jain said. (Reporting by Diana Novak Jones in Chicago, additional reporting by Andrew Chung in New York, Editing by Alexia Garamfalvi and Rod Nickel)

Summary: Minnesota filed a lawsuit on March 24 seeking federal evidence in ICE shootings of Renee Good, Alex Pretti, and Julio Cesar Sosa-Celis. The lawsuit alleges the federal government obstructed investigations by denying access to key evidence and ignoring Touhy requests. Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty and Attorney General Keith Ellison lead the case against the Department of Justice and Homeland Security. Minnesota prosecutors escalated their fight with the Trump administration over Operation Metro Surge on March 24, filing a lawsuit seeking to force the federal government to turn over evidence in the fatal shootings of two U.S. citizens and the wounding of a third person by federal immigration agents. “Minnesotans are seeing their federal government hide evidence and obstruct investigations into these incidents. We will not sit by and let that happen,” Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty said during a news conference. The lawsuit, filed in federal court in the District of Columbia, is the latest and most aggressive of a series of actions taken by Moriarty and Attorney General Keith Ellison to secure key pieces of evidence in the killings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti as well as the shooting of Julio Cesar Sosa-Celis. That includes the car in which Good was killed on Jan. 7, the names of the agents who killed Pretti on Jan. 24, and the guns in all three cases. Ellison and Moriarty said they were stepping into uncharted territory by suing the federal government for access to evidence, since federal and local authorities usually coordinate closely in criminal investigations. “All we want is to conduct a fair, impartial and thorough investigation,” Ellison said. “The federal government has refused to cooperate … which is unique, rare and simply cannot be tolerated.” The lawsuit was filed by the state of Minnesota, Moriarty and state Bureau of Criminal Apprehension Superintendent Drew Evans against the U.S. Department of Justice, the Department of Homeland Security, Attorney General Pam Bondi, and former Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, who was replaced by U.S. Sen. Markwayne Mullin. The lawsuit was filed with the pro bono assistance of the Washington Litigation Group and the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection at Georgetown Law School. The Bureau of Criminal Apprehension typically investigates police shootings and was on the scene in Minneapolis collecting evidence after ICE officer Jonathan Ross shot and killed Good and after an ICE agent shot Sosa-Celis, a Venezuelan national, in the leg a week later on Jan. 14. In both cases, federal agents led state BCA investigators to believe that they would carry out a joint investigation but then denied them access to evidence, according to the lawsuit. President Trump justified the decision to freeze out local law enforcement from investigating the Good killing by calling Minnesota officials “crooked.” Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche then said there would be no investigation into Good’s killing. Instead, federal officials were directed to investigate Good’s wife for her connection to groups that observe and protest ICE activity, which the New York Times reported led to a wave of resignations in the U.S. Attorney’s Office. After federal agents shot and killed Pretti, BCA agents were physically blocked from entering the scene by federal officials, despite obtaining a judicial warrant. The lawsuit says the BCA continued to press for cooperation, and in early February, an attorney from the DOJ’s Washington office flew to Minnesota for a meeting. But the attorney told the BCA that the federal government wanted the BCA to share its evidence in the Pretti killing investigation with federal authorities but the federal government would not share its evidence with the BCA. Moriarty and Ellison also made multiple “Touhy” demands for evidence, which are akin to subpoenas. They either went unanswered or were denied. In the lawsuit, Minnesota officials argue the federal government acted illegally by ignoring those Touhy requests. They also argue the Trump administration is violating the 10th Amendment, which entitles states to investigate and enforce criminal law. Some of the evidence local prosecutors are seeking includes the guns and shell casings; interviews with federal agents; and Pretti’s cellphone, which likely has video he took of his interactions with federal agents moments before his death. Moriarty said her office has received important pieces of evidence after asking the public for help, receiving over 1,000 submissions to a portal. Her office is now investigating more than a dozen other incidents involving federal agents during Operation Metro Surge, including former Border Patrol Commander Gregory Bovino, for possible criminal charges. Moriarty said she is prepared to make charging decisions even if they don’t receive evidence from the federal government. Prosecuting federal agents isn’t easy — they have some protections under the Supremacy Clause for reasonably carrying out their duties, though legal experts note they are not immune from charges for serious misconduct. “We share jurisdiction with the federal government,” Ellison said. “These incidents happened in Minnesota and fall under Minnesota state law.” This article originally appeared on St. Cloud Times: “Minnesota sues federal government for evidence in ICE shootings” Reporting by Max Nesterak, Minnesota Reformer / St. Cloud Times USA TODAY Network via Reuters Connect

Summary: The Pentagon adopted new press restrictions on journalists following a federal court order blocking previous limits. Journalists must now be escorted by authorized Defense Department personnel on Pentagon grounds. The Pentagon Press Association and the New York Times have criticized the new policy and plan further legal action. The U.S. Defense Department said on Monday it was adopting new restrictions on journalists, after a court blocked a previous press access policy, and would close an indoor workspace in favor of an area on grounds outside the main Pentagon building. Press freedom advocates have criticized policy changes under President Donald Trump's administration that have limited journalists' access to the Pentagon, saying they suppress freedom of speech. On Friday, a federal judge blocked the press access changes implemented by the Pentagon last year, which threatened journalists with being ​branded security risks if they seek information not authorized for public release. "The Department always complies with court orders but disagrees with the decision and is pursuing an appeal," spokesman Sean Parnell said on Monday in a statement, adding that revised restrictions would be effective immediately. Under the revised policy, all journalists' access to the Pentagon will require escort by authorized Defense Department personnel. The "Correspondents' Corridor" at the Pentagon, where journalists have worked for years, was being closed immediately and a new press workspace will be established on grounds outside the main building, and will be available when ready, the Defense Department added. The Pentagon Press Association said Monday's announcement "is a clear violation of the letter and spirit of last week's ruling by a U.S. federal court." The association added that it was consulting with its legal counsel on the matter. Friday's order came after a lawsuit brought by the New York Times alleged that the policy changes by the Defense Department in October 2025 gave the Pentagon free rein to freeze out reporters and news outlets over coverage the department did not like, in violation of the Constitution's free speech and due process protections. The government said the policy was reasonable for national security. The changes approved under Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth stated that journalists can be deemed security risks and have their press badges revoked if they solicit unauthorized military personnel to disclose classified, and in some cases unclassified, information. Of the 56 news outlets in the Pentagon Press Association, only one agreed to sign an acknowledgment of the previous policy, according to the Times' lawsuit. Reporters who did not sign surrendered their press passes. The New York Times said on Monday the latest Pentagon policy does not comply with the judge's order and continues "unconstitutional restrictions." "We will be going back to court," it added. (Reporting by Kanishka Singh, Ismail Shakil and Jasper Ward; Editing by Caitlin Webber and Michael Perry)