This article is part of <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/introducing-upstream-a-lifestyle-and-culture-section-of-the-daily-wire">Upstream,</a> The Daily Wire’s new home for culture and lifestyle. Real human insight and human stories — from our featured writers to you.
***
When news broke about <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/verdict-reached-in-landmark-social-media-media-addiction-trial">Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube</a> forking over $3 million to a 19-year-old user caught in the spider’s web, my first thought was something like, “Yeah! Screw Mark Zuckerberg!” A tech giant takedown warms the heart. 
My second thought was, “Wait, so can we all sue Facebook now?” What about “Keeping Up With The Kardashians,” espresso martinis, Ben &amp; Jerry’s, Reddit comment sections, IKEA, pressure washing videos, Chick-fil-A, Roblox, weed gummies, March Madness, and Amazon Prime? There are countless other things we can’t quit.
With roughly <a href="https://youtu.be/iwPbm2To4Qw?t=97">10,000</a> other cases in the works against social media at large, it’s game on in the courts. “We’re figuring out that there is a causal connection between cancer and cigarettes,” tech journalist <a href="https://youtu.be/iwPbm2To4Qw?t=416">Jacob Ward</a> told CNN, likening the moment to the <a href="https://www.publichealthlawcenter.org/topics/commercial-tobacco-control/master-settlement-agreement">Big Tobacco</a> settlement of the &#8217;90s. “We’re at the beginning of an absolutely new era in thinking about how social media is really working on kids.” 
Using this analogy, despite raging against the machine, all the kids are still holding full packs of “cigarettes” and “chain smoking.” 
A <a href="https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2026-03-25/social-media-lawsuit-trial-meta-google-verdict">Los Angeles Times</a> headline read: “Landmark L.A. jury verdict finds Instagram, YouTube were designed to addict kids.” Oh really? Was it the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/mar/14/meta-and-google-trial-are-infinite-scroll-and-autoplay-creating-addicts">infinite scroll</a>, autoplay, <a href="https://ioufinancial.com/financial-insights/10-social-media-engagement-tactics-that-can-help-you-grow-your-audience-2/">polls</a>, quizzes, reels, algorithms, notifications, FOMO, or <a href="https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11594359/">dopamine dumps</a> that gave it away? Maybe it’s a little confusing since most of us describe our social media feeds as “addictive,” while social media calls this business model “<a href="https://bitly.com/blog/how-to-increase-social-media-engagement/?gad_source=1&amp;gad_campaignid=20610041883&amp;gbraid=0AAAAAC3Maq4pYCZkL2FiRyXbdXH2hxDwC&amp;gclid=CjwKCAjwspPOBhB9EiwATFbi5PLOH9cbbGJVhE56QWJTyENp_urJ-Q3hU4hy3GOj_0_Ywy12R73pwBoCQmcQAvD_BwE">engaging</a>.” Tomato, to-mah-to.
It all made me wonder when the responsibility for making good decisions floated off of our own shoulders and onto the desk of Deborah in HR. This is America. We’re free to like what we like and do what we want, and then sue the crap out of the companies that give us what we desire.
Has anyone ever sued Doritos for being too delicious? Yes. In 2025, <a href="https://cen.acs.org/policy/ultra-processed-food-pfas-pesticide-antibiotic-resistance-atrazine-cancer/103/web/2025/12">San Francisco</a> went after a bunch of snack companies, including Doritos’ parent PepsiCo, for “cheap, colorful, flavorful, and addictive” products, like they were looking directly at a bag of <a href="https://www.doritos.com/products/doritos-dinamita-flamin-hot-queso-flavored-rolled-tortilla-chips">Doritos Dinamita Flamin’ Hot Queso</a>.
Bringing a lawsuit against hot coffee before it was cool, <a href="https://www.caoc.org/?pg=facts#:~:text=At%20least%20one%20juror%20later,attaching%20enough%20importance%20to%20that.%E2%80%9D">79-year-old Stella Liebeck</a> famously won $3 million in damages from <a href="https://www.tortmuseum.org/liebeck-v-mcdonalds/">McDonald’s in 1992</a> after she spilled coffee in her lap, giving herself third-degree burns. It sounds terrible. But McDonald’s didn’t pour hot coffee on Stella; Stella did, while holding it between her legs to add cream and sugar. 
Three years later, the bit appeared on “<a href="https://youtu.be/Qpru2vsqdN8?t=98">Seinfeld</a>” when Kramer scalded his groin with hot coffee in a movie theater. “We got a chance?” Kramer asks his defense attorney, Jackie Chiles. “You get me one coffee drinker on that jury, you’re gonna walk out of there a rich man,” says Chiles.
The scalding liquid lawsuits kept coming. There was the <a href="https://www.jacksonville.com/story/news/2017/05/19/starbucks-must-pay-jacksonville-woman-100000-hot-coffee-spill/15755762007/">$100,000 Starbucks payout in 2017</a> after Joanne Mogavero spilled hot coffee on herself. And a high-profile settlement in 2025 paid out <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/man-awarded-50-million-starbucks-hot-tea-rcna196616">$50 million</a> to 25-year-old Postmates driver <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2025/03/14/business/starbucks-hot-coffee-driver-verdict#:~:text=the%20US%20market-,Starbucks%20ordered%20to%20pay%20$50%20million%20to%20delivery%20driver%20burned,and%20onto%20Garcia%2C%20Parker%20said.">Michael Garcia</a>, who spilled hot Starbucks tea in his lap and will be best known by strangers for his “<a href="https://www.inc.com/bill-murphy-jr/starbucks-just-got-some-very-bad-news-its-a-timely-warning-for-every-other-company/91164537">penis injury</a>.” 
We also sue for the drugs we misuse. In 2022, Johnson &amp; Johnson and three major distributors finalized a <a href="https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-business-health-opioids-camden-dec0982c4c40ad08b2b30b725471e000">$26 billion</a> settlement, set to be paid out to just about every state in the U.S. in light of the opioid crisis. In 2025, Purdue Pharma and its owners agreed on a <a href="https://www.attorneygeneral.gov/taking-action/ag-sunday-announces-historic-settlement-with-purdue-pharma-and-sackler-family-regarding-manufacture-distribution-of-opioids-that-fueled-addiction-epidemic/">$7.4 billion</a> settlement for their part in the drug epidemic that continues to <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/overdose-prevention/about/understanding-the-opioid-overdose-epidemic.html#:~:text=The%20rise%20in%20opioid%20overdose,2">rage on</a>. 
But are these high-profile settlements doing anything other than temporarily stinging the pockets of megacorporations? Will people decide to do less drugs, be more careful with their coffee, and skip the Doritos if there’s a federally mandated warning label on the package? We were already eating bright orange, cheese-dusted corn chips. It’s not like we thought they were carrots. 
When one 2024 <a href="https://www.brookings.edu/articles/latino-parents-support-policies-addressing-social-medias-impact-on-childrens-mental-health/">study</a> shared a warning about social media use before asking Latino parents if they were now likely to monitor or limit their kids’ time on the platforms, 76% of them said yes. By then, we’d all heard about the <a href="https://www.mayoclinichealthsystem.org/hometown-health/speaking-of-health/social-media-risks-tips-to-keep-your-children-safe">dangers</a>. So what were those parents waiting for?
Sometimes, even severe warnings can have the opposite effect. When I stopped by a bistro in Seattle, forced to weave through a gaggle of duck-costumed PETA protestors holding gruesome posters, I asked the bartender if the anti-foie gras crowd outside affected business. “Every time they’re here, we sell a ton of foie gras,” he said. Zing. 
Mulling over the concept of phone addiction in the middle of the night, I came across a <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-27053-2">study</a> showing that some adults assume we’re addicted to social media when we’re actually not. (Yes, I found it on my phone.) Overuse of social media is commonly called “addiction” without looking at the full range of symptoms. 
In <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-27053-2">substance abuse</a>, that looks like “impaired control, craving and dependence, withdrawal when not using, conflict with other activities, and hazardous or risky use,” according to Scientific Reports. But some social media “addicts” described benefits, too: “Facebook users who self-reported greater life conflict and lack of control (two symptoms of addiction) also reported greater positive impacts of Facebook use.”  
There’s a difference between forming a <a href="https://relevancerecovery.com/habit-vs-addiction/">habit versus an addiction</a>. Addiction is always harmful, but habits are not. And calling yourself an addict when you’re engaging in a bad habit lessens your ability to change the behavior. It also increases <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-27053-2">self-blame</a>, which doesn’t help.
Like <a href="https://youtu.be/b1kbLwvqugk?list=RDb1kbLwvqugk&amp;t=48">Taylor Swift</a> sang in “Anti-Hero,” when it comes to getting lost in the doomscroll, “It&#8217;s me. Hi. I&#8217;m the problem, it&#8217;s me.” Maybe it’s time to bring personal responsibility back.
“Accountability is not a dirty word,” licensed professional counselor <a href="https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/stress-fracture/202002/it-was-me-i-did-it-why-no-one-takes-accountability-anymore">Jamie Cannon</a> says. “By admitting to our own faults and mistakes, we jettison the victim role and take back the power to change.”
Social media addiction is not yet a formally recognized <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352853225000215">disorder</a>. But the question remains as to whether a multimillion-dollar settlement lets irresponsible adult users off the hook. <a href="https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/psychiatrys-think-tank/202501/coping-with-problematic-effects-of-social-media">Set time limits</a>, turn off notifications, and know your triggers. Praising the benefits of going phone-free with people you love, <a href="https://med.stanford.edu/profiles/anna-lembke">Stanford University</a> psychiatrist <a href="https://youtu.be/D34KyceGhPE?t=53">Dr. Anna Lembke</a> told the Huberman Lab podcast, “Our collective challenge, and it should be our mission, is to make sure that we are preserving and maintaining offline ways to connect.”

GettyImages-2248540801

Big Tech Made Social Media Addictive, But That’s Not The Whole Story

Facebook

Lawsuit

social media addiction

Upstream

There is a not-so-secret war being waged for control of your kid&#8217;s mind.
Who owns your child&#8217;s mind? Social media companies? The government?
Or is it you?
A landmark lawsuit that just sent a gigantic shockwave through Silicon Valley. Meta (Facebook) and YouTube (Google) were found negligent in facilitating social media addiction.
Let’s break down the case that could upend Big Tech, reshape AI regulation, and force a national reckoning over parenting power and responsibility.
The legal case found both companies were negligent in facilitating social media addiction. According to <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/25/technology/social-media-trial-verdict.html">The New York Times</a>:
<blockquote>The bellwether case, which was brought by a now 20-year-old woman identified as K.G.M., had accused social media companies of creating products as addictive as cigarettes or digital casinos. Citing features like infinite scroll and algorithmic recommendations, K.G.M. sued Meta, which owns Instagram and Facebook, and Google’s YouTube, claiming they led to anxiety and depression. &#8230; 
K.G.M., whose first name is Kaley, filed her lawsuit in 2023 against Meta, Snap, YouTube and TikTok. Kaley, who lives in Chico, Calif., said she had begun using social media at age 6 and claimed the sites caused personal injury, including body dysmorphia and thoughts of self harm. </blockquote>
Variety said that the verdict was rooted in an argument around cigarette addiction. Back in the 1990s, there were settlements with the big tobacco companies where it was found that the tobacco companies fraudulently marketed products they knew were addictive as non-addictive, and that drew millions of people into serious health risks like lung cancer.
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/bss-ep-2396-sub?elementPosition=1&amp;row=0&amp;rowHeadline=Recent+Episodes&amp;rowType=Horizontal+Show+Episodes+Carousel"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="size-large wp-image-974957 aligncenter" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-1024x171.webp" alt="DailyWire+" width="1024" height="171" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-1024x171.webp 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-300x50.webp 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-768x128.webp 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-1536x256.webp 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-2048x341.webp 2048w" sizes=" (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" /></a>
That doesn&#8217;t seem like a crazy take. We were told originally that social media would be a gigantic benefit for all of us. It would open “new vistas.” We&#8217;d all experience “new worlds.” We&#8217;d have “so many friends.” (Yeah, they&#8217;d be Facebook friends, but they were still friends.) We&#8217;d never have to go outside again. We&#8217;d all live in the metaverse, etc.
All of that was untrue. All of these social media companies are clickbait machines. That is what they are designed to do, in Pavlovian style.
Stanford psychiatrist Anna Lembke, who wrote a book called “Dopamine Nation,” speaks about this. She writes:
<blockquote>We&#8217;re wired to connect. It&#8217;s kept us alive for millions of years in a world of scarcity and ever-present danger. Moving in tribes safeguards against predators optimizes scarce resources and facilitates pair bonding.
Our brains release dopamine when we make human connections, and that incentivizes us to do it again. Social connection has now become drugified by social media apps, making us vulnerable to compulsive overconsumption. These apps can cause the release of large amounts of dopamine into our brains’ reward pathway all at once, like heroin. meth or alcohol. They do that by amplifying the feel-good properties that attract humans to each other in the first place.</blockquote>
It&#8217;s not just the social connection. It&#8217;s also because when you scroll on X, it&#8217;s literally designed to provide a brief dopamine rush. That&#8217;s why there&#8217;s that little sound effect. It&#8217;s almost a literal Pavlovian response. A Pavlovian response was established when you rang a bell in front of a dog and fed it a piece of meat at the same time. Eventually, when you rang the bell, the dog would start to salivate even if the meat wasn&#8217;t there because the brain had now been trained: Bell means meat, so bell causes salivation.
Social media companies do that too. This is why when you scroll, there&#8217;s a little sound effect. You&#8217;re going to get a dopamine hit, even if nothing new appears, just because you hear that little sound effect. 
Social media companies are arguing that they&#8217;re not the ones who are actually causing the addiction to really serious stuff. They say, “Sure, our algorithms are designed to make you click, but it&#8217;s the videos themselves that are responsible for the harm, not the design of the product.” 
In other words, if you were watching lots of cooking videos on social media and it fed you an infinite loop of cooking videos and not skinny influencers, you&#8217;d be totally fine. You&#8217;re the one who decides whether you are clicking on skinny influencers or whether you&#8217;re clicking on cooking videos. And what&#8217;s more, it turns out, these social media companies aren&#8217;t the ones who are actually making the content. The social media companies say, &#8220;We&#8217;re a platform, like a phone line.&#8221;
Yes, they make money by featuring viral content, but the consumer picks which content to actually watch. The person posting the content is actually responsible for the content, unless it&#8217;s an AI or a bot these days.
Until now, social media companies have been avoiding legal culpability by citing Section 230. Section 230 says that if you&#8217;re a platform and your website has a comment section, you&#8217;re not responsible for what&#8217;s in the comments.
If you&#8217;re YouTube, you&#8217;re not responsible for the content of the videos that are on YouTube because you&#8217;re just providing the platform on which others can post.
Section 230 says that all of these platforms ought not be held liable for content produced by others.
But that&#8217;s not on point.
The actual argument here is that these social media sites are, by their very nature, addictive, and that almost no matter what the content is, the medium is damaging to kids.
This raises a broader question for parents. Are you responsible for your children and their social media use?
The answer here should be yes.
My kids aren&#8217;t on social media because they are banned from using social media. Kids who are addicted to TV also don&#8217;t have great lives, but we don&#8217;t actually hold TV companies responsible for that fact. Nobody&#8217;s suing Apple because your kid is watching Apple TV all day.
That&#8217;s a point made yesterday by Meta&#8217;s president, Dina Powell McCormick, who said, “You know, as a mom, this is really important to me and very personal. I see firsthand just how hard the company is trying to ensure that there&#8217;s not harmful content, to ensure that we are empowering parents to the best of our ability. And it&#8217;s something that I watch being focused on every single day. We respectfully disagree with that decision, and we&#8217;re appealing.”
She&#8217;s not totally wrong here. The fact is that as a parent of four kids, going on five, I&#8217;m all over what my kids are consuming. I decide what movies they watch. I decide what TV shows they watch. They&#8217;re not allowed on social media. They do not have interactive capability on social media, anything like that.
This issue is kind of a sticky wicket, as social media companies are responsible for part of the problem because of the dopamine response. And yes, parents are also responsible for the problem.
Here&#8217;s the actual solution: not gigantic lawsuits. The answer is governmental legislation banning social media for kids under 18. Period.
That is what we should be doing. It&#8217;s what a lot of countries are doing right now — and they are correct to do so.
Users should have to register as over 18. Companies that don&#8217;t do it should be held legally accountable.
If we&#8217;re going to actually carry this analogy all the way through, if we&#8217;re going to treat social media like tobacco or alcohol, then the answer historically wasn&#8217;t to sue tobacco companies for kids smoking, it was to ban kids from smoking. The same is true for alcohol.
The reason I&#8217;m a little bit averse to lawsuits like these is because I think it will be extended to adults. I think what&#8217;s going to happen is that this will be used as a broader argument, not just against social media, where I’m relatively indifferent, but to actual useful technologies like AI, because this is a big societal question: Should we blame technology for our own failures as adults?
Kids are a different story. The reason that this particular lawsuit is emotionally appealing is because it&#8217;s about a kid who got addicted. And kids do get addicted. And honestly, I blame the parents as the primary source.
I don&#8217;t let my kids get addicted to things. It&#8217;s my job to prevent that. I don&#8217;t give my kids candy bars even though they want candy bars every single day, all the time. And if I decide to feed that to them, and they get Type 2 diabetes. I don&#8217;t think that&#8217;s on the candy company. I think it&#8217;s on me.
My biggest problem here is that we start blaming technologies for our failures as adults.
We have to look to ourselves to solve some of these problems.

Meta And Youtube Found Liable In Social Media Addiction Lawsuit

Did Social Media Destroy The Kids?

Big Tech

Opinion

Social Media

Teenagers

YouTube

A Los Angeles County jury found that Meta and YouTube have contributed to growing mental health problems stemming from social media use.
The social media giants must now pay $3 million in damages over personal injury caused by its platforms. The verdict is expected to influence similar suits throughout the country filed against social media companies.
The <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/bellwether-social-media-addiction-trial-puts-instagram-youtube-and-tiktok-in-the-crosshairs">case</a> in the California Superior Court centered on a 19-year-old woman, referred to as K.G.M., who argued that social media platforms have knowingly designed their platforms to get children and young users addicted. The California jury found Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram, 70% responsible for the harm to K.G.M. and YouTube 30% responsible, NBC News <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/verdict-reached-landmark-social-media-addiction-trial-rcna263421">reported</a>.
The verdict comes after a New Mexico jury handed Meta a $375m bill in civil penalties after it found the company misled consumers about the safety of its platforms. Like the landmark case in Los Angeles, the New Mexico verdict is historic on its own as the first jury trial to find Meta liable for acts committed on its platform. Like the Los Angeles Court Verdict, Meta has said it will appeal the ruling.
“We respectfully disagree with the verdict and will appeal. We work hard to keep people safe on our platforms and are clear about the challenges of identifying and removing bad actors or harmful content,” said a Meta spokesperson. “We will continue to defend ourselves vigorously, and we remain confident in our record of protecting teens online.”
In a statement to The Daily Wire in January, YouTube said the allegations it faces in social media addiction suits “are simply not true.”
“Providing young people with a safer, healthier experience has always been core to our work,” said YouTube spokesman José Castañeda. “In collaboration with youth, mental health and parenting experts, we built services and policies to provide young people with age-appropriate experiences, and parents with robust controls. The allegations in these complaints are simply not true.”
K.G.M.&#8217;s social media addiction, which started when she was a minor, resulted in crippling depression, body dysmorphia, and suicidal thoughts, according to the lawsuit. The suit was also filed against Snapchat and TikTok, but those platforms settled with K.G.M. before the trial started. K.G.M.’s case is just the first of many that are expected to trial this year, targeting Snapchat, Meta, TikTok, and YouTube, which is owned by Google.
Social media platforms, including Meta and YouTube, have touted online safety features in recent years, such as Instagram&#8217;s &#8220;Teen Accounts&#8221; and YouTube &#8220;Kids,&#8221; which are meant to create safer and more controlled experiences for children. Yet even with these additional features, social media use for children remains a hotly debated issue.

Social Media Platforms –  Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, Pinterest, X, LinkedIn, Reddit, TikTok, Threads

Verdict Reached In Landmark Social Media Addiction Trial

Instagram

Actor Bill Cosby, 88, has been ordered to pay almost $60 million in damages to a woman who accused him of sexually assaulting her in 1972, a Southern California jury ruled on Monday.
The civil case was brought by Donna Motsinger in 2023 under a California law allowing certain decades-old sexual abuse claims to proceed. The former waitress alleged that Cosby followed her home from work, invited her into his limousine, and gave her a pill he identified as aspirin. She said she began to lose consciousness after taking the pill and awoke nearly naked at her home, according to <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/woman-sued-bill-cosby-sexual-battery-awarded-192-million-rcna264800">NBC News</a>.
“She woke up in her house with all her clothes off, except her underwear on — no top, no bra, and no pants. She knew she had been drugged and raped by Bill Cosby,” the lawsuit alleged.
&#8220;This verdict is not just about me — it’s about finally being heard and holding Mr. Cosby accountable,&#8221; Motsinger said in a statement via her lawyers. “I have carried the weight of what happened to me for more than 50 years. It never goes away. Today, a jury saw the truth and held him accountable.&#8221; 
Cosby has denied the allegations and plans to appeal the verdict, his attorneys said.
The case is one of several civil lawsuits filed against the formerly beloved star of “The Cosby Show” in recent years.  Dozens of women have <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/bill-cosby-found-liable-for-sexual-battery">accused Cosby</a> of harassment, rape, and sexual misconduct, though many claims were previously barred by statutes of limitations. 
Cosby was convicted in 2018 on three counts of aggravated indecent assault against Andrea Constand. However, his conviction was overturned in 2021 by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, leading to his release after nearly three years in prison.
In 2022, a Los Angeles jury found Cosby liable for sexually assaulting Judy Huth at the Playboy Mansion in the 1970s and awarded her $500,000 in damages. Additional lawsuits in Nevada remain pending.
Cosby has consistently denied all allegations against him.

Bill Cosby

Bill Cosby May Be Out Of Prison But A Decades-Old Case Just Came Roaring Back

Celebrities

Entertainment

Sexual Assault

A Michigan father has filed a federal lawsuit against the Grosse Pointe Public School System, alleging the district launched a campaign of &#8220;constitutional retaliation&#8221; after he publicly objected to the display of rainbow and transgender flags inside his child’s middle school.
The <a href="https://www.michigannewssource.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/complaint.pdf">complaint</a>, filed on behalf of Gary Shane Pruitt, argues the district violated his First Amendment rights by issuing a &#8220;no-trespass&#8221; order barring him from school property. According to the lawsuit, the dispute began in September 2024 when Pruitt attended a back-to-school night at Parcells Middle School and noticed a proliferation of Pride flags.
When he raised concerns with school officials, the complaint alleges he was met with dismissive shrugs. It also cites a comment attributed to school board member Valerie St. John: “If you are concerned that your child is seeing the colors of the rainbow, I would suggest sending them with tinted sunglasses so they aren’t subjected to the full spectrum.”
Pruitt later returned to the school after hours, which the lawsuit claims was done with permission, and recorded video of the displays. He posted the footage to a parent Facebook group with verbal commentary criticizing the flags as &#8220;radical programming&#8221; and a &#8220;display of sexuality&#8221; pushed by &#8220;groomer teachers,” as <a href="https://www.michigannewssource.com/2026/03/exclusive-michigan-dad-heading-to-federal-court-after-middle-school-bans-him-for-objecting-to-rainbow-and-trans-flags/?utm_source=home-headline">Michigan News Source</a> reported.
In an email to parents, Principal Jason Wesley said the video contained &#8220;no threatening content&#8221; and was &#8220;political in nature.&#8221;
The lawsuit alleged the district took several actions in response: ’
<ul style="font-weight: 400;">
<li>Increasing police presence at the school, a move Pruitt’s attorneys say falsely painted him as a physical threat.</li>
<li>Issuing a &#8220;no-trespass&#8221; order barring him from school grounds, with potential criminal penalties for violations.</li>
<li>Displaying a photograph of Pruitt in the school office branding him a &#8220;trespasser,&#8221; which his legal team has described as an attempt to &#8220;publicly shame&#8221; him.</li>
</ul>
The lawsuit pulls no punches. It levels claims of First Amendment retaliation, defamation, and violations of the Michigan Constitution. It argues the district&#8217;s actions were not driven by safety concerns but by disagreement with Pruitt&#8217;s views.
The heart of the legal battle centers on whether a public school district can restrict a parent&#8217;s access to school property based on speech made off campus. The complaint emphasized that Pruitt&#8217;s video was recorded after school hours with permission from administrators, and the commentary was posted on a private Facebook page—not delivered during a school function.
&#8220;The chilling effect that would result if parents can be banned from school property for merely criticizing the school or its board is self-evident,&#8221; the filing states. &#8220;It is not hard to imagine all of the abuses of power that could be committed by the state if public schools are permitted to punish any speech by any parent, at any time, on any device, and at any location, so long as the school found the speech to be &#8216;offensive.'&#8221;
The lawsuit also alleges the situation has affected Pruitt&#8217;s child, claiming the student has been &#8220;stigmatized, ridiculed, and harassed&#8221; by peers following the district&#8217;s actions.
Despite Pruitt’s attempt to resolve the matter quietly in early 2026, the district reportedly refused to budge, leaving the &#8220;no-trespass&#8221; order in full effect. Now, Pruitt is asking a federal judge to step in, seeking an immediate rescission of the order, the removal of his photo from the office, and compensatory damages for the violation of his rights.

Brighton Beach Pride march in Brooklyn, New York City

Dad Doesn’t Go Quietly After School District Bans Him Over Pride Flag Showdown

LGBT

Michigan

Middle School

An Ohio company was ordered to pay $22.5 million to a woman whose baby died after her company denied her request to work from home during a high-risk pregnancy.
Per <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ohio-firm-must-pay-225-million-mom-whose-baby-died-was-denied-work-hom-rcna264321?cid=sm_npd_nn_tw_ma&amp;taid=69bc55cb9ac2060001303ea5&amp;utm_campaign=trueanthem&amp;utm_medium=social&amp;utm_source=twitter">NBC News</a>, Chelsea Walsh requested to work from home beginning on February 15, 2021, for her job with Total Quality Logistics, but was denied. Walsh had just undergone an operation on her cervix when she made the request and was recommended to be put on bed rest due to the high risk nature of her pregnancy.
A <a href="https://www.woltermanlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/2026-03-18-Larkin-v.-Total-Quality-Logistics-press-release-1-2.pdf">press release</a> from Walsh’s attorney said her doctors “instructed her to limit activity, remain on modified bed rest, and work from home.”
“TQL presented Walsh with an impossible choice — work at the office and put additional strain on her child, or take an unpaid leave of absence and lose the income and health insurance she needed,” the lawsuit said.
Her husband Joel Walsh then had a conversation with the company’s human resources manager, who is friends with an executive at TQL, the lawsuit says. The unnamed executive allegedly said, “Thank you … you just saved us a lawsuit.”
This led to Walsh’s request being granted on February 24, which is the same day she went into premature labor and gave birth to a daughter, named Magnolia. The baby was born at 20 weeks and four days.
&#8220;Magnolia had a heartbeat, was breathing, and exhibited fetal movement,&#8221; the lawsuit says, per NBC. &#8220;Magnolia was placed on Walsh’s chest so that Walsh could hold her. Magnolia died in Walsh’s arms approximately one hour and thirty minutes later.&#8221;
The jury ruled in Walsh’s favor and ordered the company to pay $22.5 million in damages for what they determined to be a wrongful death.
“This is a heartbreaking outcome for a young family,” one of Walsh&#8217;s lawyers said in a statement. “The evidence showed that Chelsea Walsh was following her doctors’ instructions for a high-risk pregnancy and simply asked to work from home.&#8221;
&#8220;The jury found that TQL’s denial of that reasonable request led to the death of her daughter,” he said.
Julia Daugherty, a rep for TQL, said the company disagreed with the verdict, arguing that “the way the facts were characterized at trial&#8221; were not accurate. “We are evaluating legal options and remain committed to supporting the health and well-being of our employees,” the rep said.

Baby feet

Firm Must Pay $22.5M To Woman Whose Baby Died After Work-From-Home Request Denial

Business

Courts

Death

Motherhood

Ohio

U.S.

Planned Parenthood’s Illinois chapter has agreed to pay $500,000 after the federal government investigated allegations that the branch discriminated against its white employees. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) said there is reasonable cause to believe the organization segregated its employees by race into “affinity networks.”
Many firms have “affinity networks,” which allow employees to join employee groups with those to whom they feel similar. However, at other companies, these networks are voluntary, not mandatory. Planned Parenthood had mandatory &#8220;affinity caucuses” segregated by race, and employees of other races were not allowed to participate.
Every week, staff were required to attend one- to two-hour sessions of segregated racial affinity caucuses or DEI training. At DEI training sessions, white employees were reportedly the target of harassment and derogatory statements such as: they “are white and do not feel racism the same way that non-white patients feel” and “white supremacy is exerted at every level of oppression.&#8221;
EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas said, “Segregating employees by race violates the core promise of our nation’s civil rights laws.” Lucas added in her statement that Title VII guarantees equal treatment for every employee and “those protections equally apply to white workers.”
Planned Parenthood employees alleged that the company even restricted the benefits of white employees. “Planned Parenthood also denied white employees access to time off that it granted only to black employees,” the report read. Along with the $500,000 settlement, Planned Parenthood fired the manager responsible for the misconduct that the investigation uncovered. The EEOC says the investigation was prompted after multiple employees brought forward their concerns.
The Daily Wire <a href="https://www.plannedparenthood.org/planned-parenthood-illinois/newsroom/statement-in-response-to-august-21-article-from-buzzfeed-news-statement-in-response-to-august-21-article-from-buzzfeed-news?utm_source=chatgpt.com">obtained</a> a press release from the Illinois Planned Parenthood affiliate that may have been the start of the organization’s discriminatory practices.
Planned Parenthood of Illinois said in a response to a BuzzFeed News article, &#8220;Despite not having the details of this particular incident, we recognize that Planned Parenthood has been complicit in upholding systemic racism. Moving forward, [Planned Parenthood of Illinois] is deeply committed to being anti-racist and ensuring that our work is not performative, that there is no divide between our words and actions.”
They added, “As part of this work, we’ve created spaces for honest conversations about race and are providing multiple channels through which staff have opportunities to share their lived experiences with leadership.”
The Illinois Planned Parenthood is not the only affiliate to release statements on racism in their organization. Nineteen out of the 49 Planned Parenthood affiliates have issued statements.
Planned Parenthood of the Pacific Southwest said, “We must confront how white supremacy of the past and present continues in the institutions we are a part of today including our own organization.&#8221;
The Virginia affiliate said that they acknowledge “our past and our present participation in white supremacy and are committed to stopping, learning, growing and living our values through the hard and uncomfortable work of progress.”
None of the statements released by the Planned Parenthood chapters specifically addressed discrimination allegations against white employees or white patients.

Bill Tompkins  Planned Parenthood signage Archive

Planned Parenthood Chapter Hit With $500K Settlement Over Discrimination Against White Employees

Abortion

Discrimination

Planned Parenthood

Racism

The Justice Department announced Monday that it may have reached a settlement in its antitrust lawsuit against Ticketmaster and parent company Live Nation Entertainment.
Though nothing is confirmed yet, the DOJ announced in Manhattan federal court that the case was likely nearing a conclusion after the term sheet was signed on Thursday, per the <a href="https://apnews.com/article/livenation-antitrust-justice-department-0a6ef66f497e5f626096de753bfff8ce">Associated Press</a>.
An unnamed official told the outlet that the terms included Live Nation paying a fine of up to $280 million and divesting some properties to allow for more competition in the ticket sales industry. The official said the settlement was a “win-win for everybody.”
Certain states were allegedly not on board with the proposed terms, however, and Judge Arun Subramanian called the terms “entirely unacceptable.”
New York Attorney General Letitia James said in a statement that the settlement “fails to address the monopoly at the center of this case.” 
“My attorney general colleagues and I have a strong case against Live Nation, and we will continue our lawsuit to protect consumers and restore fair competition to the live entertainment industry,” she said, adding that she preferred to move forward with the trial.
Washington State Attorney General Nick Brown has a similar take, saying, “[the] case against Live Nation is strong, and the state coalition is committed to holding the company accountable for its illegal behavior, protecting consumers and restoring competition to this market,” the outlet noted.
The lawsuit was originally filed in 2024 under the Biden administration, as WSJ <a href="https://www.wsj.com/us-news/law/live-nation-reaches-settlement-in-federal-antitrust-case-9f0c6fb7">reported</a>. About 40 states came together to sue the entertainment company.
U.S. Justice Department lawyer David Dahlquist summarized the charges during opening statements last Tuesday, as The Daily Wire previously <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/doj-opens-landmark-antitrust-trial-against-ticketmaster-calls-concert-ticketing-broken">reported</a>.
“This case is about power, the power of a monopolist to control competition,” Dahlquist said. “Today, the concert ticket industry is broken.”
Attorney David Marriott, who is representing Live Nation, said it wasn’t so. “We’ll let the numbers do the talking. We do not have monopoly power,” he said in response.
The complaint alleges that the company engages in “anticompetitive conduct” that results in higher fees, fewer opportunities for artists, and limited ticketing options. The filing occurred after the infamous 2022 incident when Taylor Swift’s Eras Tour pre-sale tickets caused the Ticketmaster site to crash, with thousands of fans — and bots — swarming the site all at once.
This Taylor Swift incident led to congressional hearings beginning in January 2023.
Ticketmaster was founded in 1976 and merged with Live Nation in 2010. Over the years, the company has clashed with fans and artists, with many accusing the company of having predatory prices. The rock band Pearl Jam testified before Congress on the issue all the way back in 1994, but their efforts ultimately led nowhere.

Taylor Swift

Ticketmaster Case Sparked By Taylor Swift Ticket Meltdown Enters Key Stage

Department of Justice

Music

New York

Ticketmaster

A landmark antitrust trial against Live Nation began this week in New York with the Department of Justice seeking to prove that the entertainment company, which owns Ticketmaster, maintains an illegal monopoly over the concert ticket industry.
U.S. Justice Department lawyer David Dahlquist summarized the charges during opening statements on Tuesday, per the <a href="https://apnews.com/article/live-nation-ticketmaster-antitrust-trial-ecfd6cb3e77459412584ed002653bc8f">Associated Press</a>. 
“This case is about power, the power of a monopolist to control competition,” Dahlquist said. “Today, the concert ticket industry is broken.”
Attorney David Marriott, who is representing Live Nation, said it wasn’t so. “We’ll let the numbers do the talking. We do not have monopoly power,” he said in response.
The complaint alleges that the company engages in &#8220;anticompetitive conduct&#8221; that results in higher fees, fewer opportunities for artists, and limited ticketing options. 
Per <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/live-nation-ticketmaster-antitrust-trial-doj-what-to-know-rcna261400">NBC News</a>, Live Nation controls 400 musical artists and owns or controls 265 concert venues in North America. 
“Through interconnected agreements associated with Live Nation’s various roles as ticketer, promoter, artist manager, and venue owner,” the complaint states. “Live Nation has created a feedback loop that pushes ticketing and ancillary fees higher while allowing Live Nation to be on all sides of numerous transactions and thereby double-dip from the pockets of fans, artists, and venues.”
This trial, expected to last six weeks, came about after a 2024 lawsuit alleged that Live Nation unfairly dominated concert ticketing and promotion, leaving no room for competitors. The filing occurred after the infamous 2022 incident when Taylor Swift&#8217;s Eras Tour pre-sale tickets caused the Ticketmaster site to crash, with thousands of fans and bots swarming the site all at once.
This Taylor Swift incident led to congressional hearings beginning in January 2023.
“To have a strong capitalist system, you have to have competition. You can’t have too much consolidation. Something that unfortunately for this country — as an ode to Taylor Swift, I will say — we know all too well,” Minnesota Democrat Sen. Amy Klobuchar said at the time, as The Daily Wire previously <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/twitter-loses-it-over-senators-quoting-taylor-swift-songs-at-ticketmaster-hearing">reported</a>.
Ticketmaster began in 1976 and merged with Live Nation in 2010. Over the years, the company has been at odds with fans and artists at various points, with many accusing the company of having predatory prices. The rock band Pearl Jam testified before Congress on the issue all the way back in 1994, but their efforts ultimately led nowhere.
Marriott argued during the trial’s opening day that the company supports the music industry and is “all about bringing joy to people’s lives.”
He also said the amount of revenue Ticketmaster and Live Nation rake in is highly exaggerated, as AP noted.

DOJ Opens Landmark Antitrust Trial Against Ticketmaster, Calls Concert Ticketing ‘Broken’

Ticketmaster Antitrust Trial Begins Today, DOJ Says Concert Ticket Industry Is 'Broken'

Democratic lawmakers are twisting the federal judiciary’s arm to restore a controversial climate science chapter that was recently removed from its flagship reference guide for judges, a move that comes amid broader scrutiny over the intersection of climate litigation, judicial education, and political advocacy.
At stake is not merely a single chapter in a reference book, but the perception of neutrality in how federal judges are trained to evaluate complex scientific claims, particularly when those claims sit at the center of high-dollar, politically charged litigation campaigns still unfolding in courts across the country.
According to reporting from <a href="https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/eenews/2026/03/02/democrats-urge-judicial-group-to-restore-deleted-climate-chapter-cw-00804211">Politico</a>, a group of Senate Democrats led by Ron Wyden (D-OR) sent a letter Friday urging the Federal Judicial Center (FJC) to reinstate a deleted climate chapter from the latest edition of the Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence. The lawmakers argued that removing the chapter “sends a clear and chilling message that the federal judiciary is susceptible to partisan political pressure.”
The FJC is the research and education wing of the judicial branch. It guides and trains federal judges, gives resources, publishes materials, and maintains resources on federal judicial history and procedures.
The Reference Manual is widely used by federal judges as a guide to evaluating complex scientific and technical evidence. The now-removed climate section had drawn objections from a group of state attorneys general who argued that it adopted contested climate attribution methodologies and liability theories that mirror arguments currently being advanced in active climate lawsuits against energy companies. Critics contended that including such material in an official judicial reference guide risked lending institutional credibility to one side of ongoing litigation.
The FJC has not publicly characterized the removal as politically motivated, but the timing followed the objections, prompting Democrats to frame the move as capitulation to outside pressure.
Senator Wyden’s advocacy for restoring the chapter has also drawn attention because of his financial and public ties to a climate litigation attorney whose courtroom tactics have faced scrutiny.
<a href="https://www.fec.gov/data/receipts/individual-contributions/?contributor_name=Roger+worthington&amp;contributor_state=OR">Federal Election Commission records</a> show Wyden has received approximately $11,000 in campaign contributions from Roger Worthington, an Oregon-based attorney involved in climate liability cases.
Worthington has been associated with legal strategies seeking to hold fossil fuel companies financially responsible for climate-related damages. He has also donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to Democratic campaigns and causes in the reliably blue state over his career.
Worthington’s litigation conduct has itself become a point of ethics concerns. As reported by <a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/news/lead-counsel-in-52-billion-big-oil-lawsuit-facing-ethical-misconduct-allegations-over-climate-activism/">National Review</a>, a court filing alleged that Worthington introduced scientific studies in litigation that he had helped fund without disclosing his involvement, presenting them instead as independent research. During a hearing on the matter, Multnomah County Circuit Judge Benjamin Souede rebuked the lack of transparency, stating, “It is not acceptable to submit a declaration by an expert that is based in part on a reliance on a scientific article that plaintiff’s counsel helped to fund without pointing out to the Court that that is so.”
The judge added that “no lawyer in the history of American jurisprudence thought it appropriate to submit an expert declaration relying on an article that the plaintiff’s lawyer helped buy.”
Additional <a href="https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/energy/celebrity-scientist-michael-mann-co-authors-paper-partly-funded-attorney">reporting</a> noted that a draft of a climate liability study appeared on Worthington’s firm&#8217;s website prior to publication and was later cited in court filings. The draft contained a watermark reading “DO NOT DISTRIBUTE UNDER REVIEW” while the link was later removed, the <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20250923213615/https://www.worthingtoncaron.com/documents/Carbon-majors-and-the-scientific-case.pdf">archived version</a> is accessible online to verify this. The motion cited in that reporting argued the circumstances suggested involvement beyond that of a neutral observer.
As an attorney with a specialized background in climate litigation, Worthington has much to gain, as do other donors like him, from the reinstatement of the chapter. This dense web of donations, misdirection, and unethical behavior forms just a small part of the broader national backdrop to the dispute over the climate chapter’s inclusion in the Reference Manual.
The core question now confronting the judiciary’s education wing is whether incorporating new, novel, and actively litigated climate liability theories into official guidance risks blurring the line between neutral scientific explanation and advocacy-aligned framing.

US-POLITICS-CONGRESS-ENVIRONMENT-CLIMATE

Fight Over Climate Chapter Exposes Tensions Between Judicial Neutrality And Activist Lawfare

Democrats

Environmentalism

Bayer said on Tuesday its Monsanto unit had reached an agreement worth as much as $7.25 billion to resolve tens of thousands of current and future lawsuits claiming that its Roundup weedkiller caused cancer.
The German company said the proposed nationwide settlement, filed on Tuesday in state court in St. Louis, Missouri, would establish a long-term claims program funded by capped annual payments over up to 21 years.
The company, which acquired Roundup as part of its $63 billion purchase of agrochemical company Monsanto in 2018, is facing claims over Roundup from approximately 65,000 plaintiffs in U.S. state and federal courts.
The plaintiffs say they developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma and other forms of cancer after using the weedkiller, either at home or on the job.
Following the announcement, Bayer shares rose as much as 7.7% to reach their highest level since September 12, 2023. Frankfurt-listed Bayer shares were up 7.2% by 1839 GMT.
Bayer said it expects its provisions and litigation liabilities to rise from 7.8 billion euros ($9.24 billion) to 11.8 billion euros. It anticipates around 5 billion euros in litigation-related payouts in 2026, and now expects negative free cash flow for the year.
Roundup is among the most widely used weedkillers in the United States. Bayer has said decades of studies have shown Roundup and its active ingredient, glyphosate, are safe for human use.
The deal covers the bulk of the lawsuits, but requires a judge&#8217;s approval and a minimum number of plaintiffs to opt in. It does not require Bayer to admit liability or wrongdoing and allows the company to back out if too many plaintiffs decline to participate.
It is also designed to head off future lawsuits, and allows people who can prove they have been diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma and were exposed to Roundup prior to Tuesday to file claims to receive a portion of the settlement up to 21 years from now.
The agreement was negotiated with Motley Rice, Seeger Weiss and other law firms that would represent a nationwide class of plaintiffs, if the court allows the deal to proceed.
Bayer CEO Bill Anderson said on a call with investors and reporters that he is confident the proposed class action settlement will resolve the vast majority of the claims, although he declined to say how many people currently support the deal.
Attorneys who negotiated on behalf of the plaintiffs said the deal represents the best path forward. Payouts will be determined by a tiered system that considers exposure, age at diagnosis and cancer type. Individuals could receive up to $198,000 or more, according to attorney Eric Holland.
The company said it had separately reached confidential settlements to resolve other Roundup cases with specific law firms, although the company would not name the firms or specify the amount of those deals.
Tuesday&#8217;s proposed settlement comes after the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal in a case that Bayer argues will sharply limit its liability in the litigation.
The company said the Supreme Court case, scheduled for oral arguments at the end of April, remains essential to resolving the Roundup litigation.
Bayer is arguing that consumers should not be able to sue it under state law for failing to warn that Roundup increases cancer risk because the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has found no such risk and requires no such warning. Bayer argued that federal law does not allow it to add any warning to the product beyond the EPA-approved label.
A favorable ruling would wipe out several large verdicts that remain on appeal and could also prevent future claims from individuals who choose to opt out of the nationwide settlement.
Bayer investors welcomed news of the proposed settlement but some, like Markus Manns, portfolio manager at Bayer shareholder Union Investment, cautioned it was &#8220;not yet the breakthrough that many investors had hoped for.&#8221;
&#8220;The settlement buys Bayer time, but without a win in the Supreme Court, a new wave of lawsuits could roll over Bayer in a few years,&#8221; Manns said.
The company had previously paid about $10 billion to settle most of the Roundup lawsuits that were pending as of 2020, but failed to get a settlement then covering future cases.
It has had a mixed record with cases that have gone to trial. It prevailed in a series of Roundup trials, but has been hit with large jury awards in the past few years, including a $2.1 billion verdict in a case in the U.S. state of Georgia in March.
The verdicts shattered both investor confidence and company hopes that the worst of the Roundup litigation was over, and put pressure on Bayer to find a comprehensive solution to the lawsuits.
(Reporting by Diana Jones and Kirsti Knolle; Additional reporting by Dietrich Knauth; Writing by Linda Pasquini and Friederike Heine; Editing by Alexander Smith, Alexia Garamfalvi and Jan Harvey)

Roundup

Bayer Proposes $7.25 Billion Plan To Settle Roundup Cancer Cases

Cancer

Monsanto

NPR host and veteran podcaster David Greene has sued tech giant Google after he thought an AI voice in one of the company’s tools mimicked him nearly perfectly.
Greene’s lawsuit is one of the first in what is expected to quickly become a quagmire of legal actions and court rulings over the use of artificial intelligence and the extent of protections around copyright and ownership.
The host of NPR’s “Morning Edition” said he came across the AI tool, which involves two AI voices of a man and woman talking with each other, after a former coworker sent it to him. The coworker had wanted to know if Greene had given Google authorization to use his likeness because of the similarity. After the coworker’s note, Greene was bombarded with similar messages from friends and family asking him if he lent his likeness to Google for use in its AI tool.
“I was, like, completely freaked out,” Greene told <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2026/02/15/david-greene-google-ai-podcast/">The Washington Post</a>, which first reported on the lawsuit. “It’s this eerie moment where you feel like you’re listening to yourself.”
Google told the Post that Greene’s likeness was not used for the tool, called NotebookLM.
“These allegations are baseless,” Google spokesman José Castañeda said. “The sound of the male voice in NotebookLM’s Audio Overviews is based on a paid professional actor Google hired.”
Guessing whom the NotebookLM voices most resemble has become somewhat of a niche parlor game online, with some people claiming that it most sounds like Greene. Others have suggested other names, such as former tech podcaster Leo Laporte. Others have suggested that the AI model most closely resembles the “Armchair Expert” podcast co-hosted by Dax Shepard and Monica Padman.
Some AI court cases have the potential for massive payouts. One of the most significant cases in law around AI was settled last year in Bartz v. Anthropic. Anthropic, an AI company, trained its model on thousands of illegally downloaded books pirated online. The company faced a class-action lawsuit from the creators of those works and, in August, <a href="https://copyrightalliance.org/participating-bartz-v-anthropic-settlement/">agreed</a> to pay out the largest copyright settlement ever: $1.5 billion.
After the Anthropic settlement, other court cases followed suit. Some resulted in partnerships such as in the case of Universal Music Group (UMG) and the AI music platform Udio. In a settlement that ended a series of copyright disputes, UMG and Udio <a href="https://www.universalmusic.com/universal-music-group-and-udio-announce-udios-first-strategic-agreements-for-new-licensed-ai-music-creation-platform/">announced</a> an agreement to collaborate “on an innovative, new commercial music creation, consumption and streaming experience.”

Google

Familiar Voice Sparks Legal Showdown Between NPR Host And Google

Artificial Intelligence

Menu