Story of the Week (DR):

Meta and YouTube Found Negligent in Landmark Social Media Addiction Case: A jury found the companies harmed a young user with design features that were addictive and led to her mental health distress. DR

Historic Financial Penalties

New Mexico: A jury ordered Meta to pay $375M in civil penalties ($5,000 per violation) for misleading the public about child safety.

Los Angeles: In the first social media addiction trial of its kind, the jury awarded $6M in total damages (compensatory and punitive) to a single 20-year-old plaintiff, with Meta ordered to pay 70% and YouTube 30%.

Section 230 "Immunity" is Cracking

These trials successfully sidestepped Section 230 by focusing on product design (like infinite scroll and autoplay) rather than the content itself. The juries ruled that the "addictive" nature of the apps was a design defect, not a speech issue.

Direct Liability for "Addictive" Features

For the first time, a jury found that features like infinite scrolling, notifications, and video autoplay were intentionally designed to "hook" young users.

In the Los Angeles "KGM" trial, the jury found both Meta and YouTube negligent for creating products that they knew would harm children’s mental health while failing to provide adequate warnings to parents.

Evidence of "Profits Over Safety"

The trials featured internal documents and depositions from Mark Zuckerberg and Instagram head Adam Mosseri. The evidence convinced jurors that executives were warned by their own employees about risks to children—including sexual exploitation and mental health "problematic use"—but chose to prioritize engagement and profits over implementing safety guardrails.

A "Big Tobacco" Moment for Tech

Legal experts are comparing these verdicts to the 1990s lawsuits against the tobacco industry. Because the California trial was a "bellwether" (a test case), the win for the plaintiff opens the floodgates for thousands of similar pending lawsuits from families and school districts. It signals that social media companies can now be sued for the health consequences of their platforms, just like cigarette manufacturers.

Elon Sux 2:

Elon Musk loses big in court; X boycott perfectly legal: X admonished for “fishing expedition” as judge dismisses ad boycott lawsuit.

Elon Musk Found Liable By Jury For Misleading Twitter Investors In $44 Billion Deal, Faces Potential $2.5 Billion Damages

Elon Musk’s Grok ordered to stop creating AI nudes by Dutch court as legal pressure mounts

On March 25, 2026, President Trump officially appointed the first 13 members to his President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST). While the council is designed to hold up to 24 members, the initial "dream team" lineup is dominated by Silicon Valley titans and leaders in AI, crypto, and fusion energy. The Chips and TechBro Clubhouse

Co-Chair David Sacks (the White House AI and Crypto Czar)

Stepping aside from his role as AI and crypto czar for Trump.

Sacks told Bloomberg on Thursday that he has “used up” his 130 days as a special government employee: “I think moving forward as co-chair of PCAST, I can now make recommendations on not just AI but an expanded range of technology topics. So yes, this is how I’ll be involved moving forward.”

Co-Chair Michael Kratsios (Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy).

Mark Zuckerberg: founder/CEO Meta

Jensen Huang: CEO Nvidia

Larry Ellison: Founder/Exec Chair Oracle

Sergey Brin: Co-founder Google

Lisa Su: CEO AMD

Michael Dell: CEO/founder Dell Technologies

Safra Catz: former CEO (current Exec Vice Chair) Oracle

Marc Andreessen: Co-founder Andreessen Horowitz

Fred Ehrsam: Co-founder Coinbase and Paradigm

David Friedberg: CEO of The Production Board (and All-In podcast co-host)

Jacob DeWitte: CEO Oklo (nuclear fission)

Bob Mumgaard: CEO Commonwealth Fusion Systems

John Martinis: Nobel Laureate and physicist (formerly of Google Quantum AI)

Trump’s Billion-Dollar French Boondoggle Gets Even Dumber

The "Billion-Dollar Bribe" to Kill Clean Energy

The Trump administration is paying French energy giant TotalEnergies nearly $928M to walk away from two major offshore wind projects off the coasts of New York and North Carolina. In exchange, the company has pledged to stop developing any new offshore wind in the U.S. entirely.

Paying for Investments Already in Progress

Critics call the deal a "boondoggle" because the $1 billion "refund" is earmarked for natural gas and oil projects—specifically the Rio Grande LNG plant in Texas—that TotalEnergies was already heavily invested in. The article argues the government is essentially handing over taxpayer money for business moves the company was making anyway.

A Tactical Pivot After Court Losses

After the administration's previous attempts to block offshore wind were repeatedly struck down by federal judges, they’ve switched strategies. Instead of using executive orders that get tied up in court, they are now using "settlements" and "refunds" as a backdoor way to dismantle the renewable energy industry.

Economic Irony During a Global Fuel Crisis

The payout comes at a time when global energy prices are spiking due to the war in the Middle East, highlighting the irony of spending $1B to kill domestic, zero-carbon wind power—which would provide long-term price stability—in favor of volatile fossil fuel markets.

The "America First" Paradox