Summary: Teen plaintiff identified as P. M-Y. drops claims Lawsuit consolidated among 3,300 cases in California Meta defends against addiction and safety allegations A teen whose lawsuit was a test case in litigation accusing social media companies of deliberately addicting young people and fueling a mental health crisis dropped her claims against the owners of Instagram, Facebook, YouTube and Snapchat on Aug. 20, according to a court filing. The plaintiff, a 15-year-old girl from New Jersey identified in California court records as P. M-Y., had alleged the platforms' owners — Meta Platforms, Google and Snap Inc. — contributed to her social media addiction, depression and self-harm. The companies said she dropped her claims without any payment. TikTok, which was also a defendant in her case, had previously settled her claims. Emily Jeffcott, an attorney for P.M-Y., said in a statement her client chose to dismiss the remainder of her claims out of a desire to resume her life. She "initiated this process with the goal of holding social media companies accountable and to push for changes to protect young people like herself," Jeffcott said. Meta, owner of Facebook and Instagram, is defending itself at two trials over claims from states that it designed its platforms to be addictive to children and misled the public about their safety. One trial, which began the week of Aug. 17 and deals with the claims of 29 states, is proceeding in federal court in Oakland, California, while another, over claims brought by Tennessee, is ongoing in state court in Nashville. The lawsuits are among thousands brought by individuals, states and school districts against social media companies over claims their platforms harm children. The companies have denied the allegations and say they take extensive steps to keep teens and young users safe on their platforms. P. M-Y.'s lawsuit was among more than 3,300 personal injury cases brought by individuals that were consolidated in California state court in Los Angeles. It was selected as one of three "bellwether" cases scheduled to go to trial in October. “This plaintiff had a significant mental health condition that pre-dated her use of social media, and it's clear that many of these cases fit the same pattern,” Meta said in a statement, adding that it would vigorously defend against the remaining cases. In a statement, Google-owned YouTube said the decision to drop the case affirms “our longstanding position that we provide safe, age-appropriate experiences and strong parental controls for young people and families.” A Snap spokesperson said in a statement the company remains focused on strengthening safeguards, tools and educational resources to support users' safety, privacy and well-being. Two other cases brought by teens making similar claims against the same companies are scheduled for trial in October, according to court records. TikTok has already settled those cases. Another bellwether case ended before trial in July, when a teenage plaintiff dropped his claims against Meta after the other defendants settled. The first individual trial ​in the litigation, which ended in March, resulted in verdicts amounting to $4.2 million against ​Meta and $1.8 million against Google in a case brought by a woman who said she became addicted to social media platforms at a young age because of their attention-grabbing design. TikTok and Snap settled that ⁠case before ​trial.  (Reporting by Diana Novak Jones, Editing by Alexia Garamfalvi and Cynthia Osterman)

Summary: Harvard agrees to $53 million settlement Massachusetts Superior Court preliminarily approves class action Cedric Lodge sentenced to eight years for organ theft   Harvard University has agreed to pay $53 million to resolve lawsuits by families alleging it mishandled the bodies of loved ones donated to its medical school and whose parts were then sold on the black market by the former manager of its morgue. A Suffolk Superior Court judge on Aug. 18 preliminarily approved a class action settlement that would resolve lawsuits filed against the institution following the arrest in 2023 of Cedric Lodge, the former manager of Harvard Medical School’s morgue. Lodge, who had worked in Harvard’s morgue for almost three decades, was sentenced by a federal judge in December to eight years in prison for stealing and selling organs and other parts of cadavers that were donated to the school for medical research and education. Prosecutors said that since 2018 he had been stealing parts from cadavers, including heads, faces, brains, skin and hands, and transporting them from Harvard’s morgue in Boston to his home in Goffstown, New Hampshire, where he and his wife sold them. Dozens of relatives of individuals whose bodies were donated to Harvard filed lawsuits accusing the school of negligence, contending it turned a blind eye to Lodge’s years-long misconduct until he was indicted in 2023. A judge initially dismissed the cases, but the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in October revived them, saying the plaintiffs had sufficient claims that Harvard failed to act in good faith in handling the bodies, whose “horrific and undignified treatment continued for years.” George Daley, Harvard’s dean of the faculty of medicine, and Bernard Chang, dean for medical education at Harvard Medical School, said in a message to the school’s community dated Aug. 17 that Lodge’s conduct was “despicable, abhorrent, and a flagrant betrayal of our values as a medical community.” They said the settlement, in addition to monetary provisions, included Harvard Medical School’s pledge to provide a statement to the families via live webinar “confirming that Lodge’s criminal acts were morally reprehensible.” Beginning in the 2027-2028 academic year, Harvard Medical School will also establish an annual scholarship for medical students in honor of all of its anatomical donors, the school said. “We hope that this resolution ensures that this never happens to another family ever again,” John Morgan, whose law firm Morgan & Morgan represented families in the litigation, said in a statement. (Reporting by Nate Raymond in Boston; editing by Edmund Klamann)

Summary: Disney and ABC file lawsuit in U.S. District Court Washington FCC ordered early license reviews for eight ABC stations Lawsuit alleges Trump administration retaliation and First Amendment violations   Disney and its ABC unit sued the Federal Communications Commission on Aug. 18 to block an early review of licenses for eight ABC stations, arguing the Trump administration is trying to punish the network over its broadcast content. President Trump has ​repeatedly urged broadcasters ⁠to drop comedy or news programs he dislikes or which have been critical, pressing the FCC on numerous occasions to revoke ABC's licenses. In a lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Washington, Disney said the FCC was seeking to coerce and retaliate against "a network that refuses to bow to the administration's demands". Disney and ABC asked the court to quickly issue a temporary restraining order halting the license renewal proceedings and preventing the FCC from scheduling a hearing. The company said the public comment period ended earlier this month and the FCC could act at any time. The lawsuit alleges the administration is violating the company's First Amendment free speech rights. "Again and again, the administration has attacked ABC's speech — the stories its journalists report and the viewpoints its network programs air," the lawsuit said. The White House did not immediately comment. FCC Chair Brendan Carr, who did ​not immediately comment on Aug. 18, ordered the reviews in April even though the stations' license renewals were not scheduled to be ​considered before October 2028. The FCC had not ordered an early review in more than 50 years before April. The reviews were ordered a day after Trump urged ABC to fire late-night ​host Jimmy Kimmel. Broadcast stations need FCC licenses to use public airwaves. While license revocations are ​extremely rare, critics say the ​threat of losing a license ⁠can pressure broadcasters and raise concerns about government interference in editorial and programming decisions. Networks have broad First Amendment protections over programming choices. Trump called in November for the FCC to revoke ABC's licenses after he criticized an ABC News correspondent for asking ⁠Saudi Arabia's ​crown prince about the 2018 killing of a Washington Post columnist, in ​a question he described as "insubordinate." The FCC is also investigating ABC daytime talk show "The View," which discusses U.S. politics, after saying it may be subject to federal ​rules requiring broadcasters to provide equal opportunities to political candidates. (Reporting by David Shepardson; Editing by Susan Fenton and Mark Potter)