Summary: US Supreme Court rejects Meta’s jurisdiction challenge Vermont Attorney General Charity Clark leads lawsuit Meta faces similar lawsuits in Massachusetts and New Mexico The U.S. Supreme Court declined on May 26 to hear a bid by Meta Platforms to avoid a lawsuit brought by Vermont’s attorney general accusing the company of designing its Instagram social media app to be addictive to young users, as big technology companies face mounting legal risks over child and teen safety. The justices turned away Meta’s appeal of a lower court’s ruling that let the lawsuit proceed, rejecting the company’s argument that courts in Vermont lack jurisdiction over the dispute. The case is part of a wave of litigation by individuals, municipalities, states and school districts nationwide amid a global backlash over the effects of social media on young users, with lawsuits focusing on the way companies designed and operated their platforms. Vermont argued that Instagram was designed to “exploit teenagers’ developing brains” to foster addiction and sell more advertising space, including ads that target Vermont markets and teens, and that Meta also intentionally misled consumers about the safety of its product. Meta said the state did not allege that it designed the app or its features in Vermont, or that any of the alleged misrepresentations about Instagram’s safety or addictiveness were made in Vermont. Testifying in February at a youth social media addiction trial in California, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg denied that Instagram targets kids. Vermont’s Democratic Attorney General Charity Clark sued Meta in 2023 in state court under the state’s consumer protection law, claiming that Instagram has even studied teens’ neurological, cognitive and psychological vulnerabilities to cause them to use the app compulsively and excessively, harming their mental health. The lawsuit was part of a coordinated effort involving 42 state attorneys general filing enforcement actions in both state and federal courts around the country. Meta sought to have the Vermont case dismissed. Meta has argued that allowing the case to proceed in Vermont is unfair, violating its right to due process under the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment, because it could subject the company to such legal challenges in all 50 states. The Vermont Supreme Court rejected this concern in 2025, noting that because the state sued Meta for allegedly pushing a harmful design and misleading users about it – harnessing personal information and generating revenue as a result – any due process concerns are “clearly extinguished.” “A company that reaches out and purposefully avails itself of a forum state’s market for its own economic gain can expect to be haled into court in that jurisdiction to account for its conduct related to those business activities,” the Vermont Supreme Court said. Meta’s appeal at the U.S. Supreme Court follows recent, unfavorable outcomes for the company in state courts. In April, the top court in Massachusetts ruled that Meta must face a similar youth addiction lawsuit by that state’s attorney general. In March, a jury ordered Meta to pay $375 million in civil penalties in a lawsuit by New Mexico’s attorney general, accusing the company of misleading users about the safety of Facebook and Instagram and of enabling child sexual exploitation on those platforms. Also in March, a separate jury in Los Angeles found Meta and Alphabet’s Google negligent for designing social media platforms that are harmful to young people, awarding a combined $6 million to a 20-year-old woman who said she became addicted to social media as a child. In May, Meta settled a lawsuit brought by a school district in Kentucky, one of thousands seeking to make social media companies cover the costs that schools say they have incurred to combat a mental health crisis allegedly fueled by platforms. (Reporting by Andrew Chung in New York; Editing by Will Dunham)

Summary: Justice Department files to lift injunction on ballroom project U.S. District Judge Richard Leon issued injunction in April National Trust for Historic Preservation opposes lawsuit dismissal The U.S. Justice Department has again asked a federal judge to lift an injunction holding up progress on President Donald Trump's ballroom project, saying the May 23 shooting outside the White House showed an urgent need for improved security. The Justice Department, in a five-page court filing on Sunday, said the incident underscores the critical need for "top level, state of the art security at the White House, including the ballroom," adding that it was vital for national security. It also asks for the lawsuit challenging the project to be dismissed. The court filing stated: "This is a terrible, tremendously harmful case to the United States of America, and all it stands for!" U.S. District Judge Richard Leon, an appointee of former President George ​W. Bush sitting in Washington, ruled in April that Trump lacked legal authority to ‌build the ⁠ballroom without congressional approval. Leon issued an injunction that halted "above-ground construction of the planned ballroom," but his order was quickly put on hold by an appeals court. Construction has continued. The DOJ had previously asked Leon to dissolve his injunction and throw out the lawsuit over the ballroom after a foiled attack at the White House Correspondents' Association dinner in April. Leon has not acted on that request. The lawsuit was filed by the National Trust for Historic Preservation, a congressionally chartered nonprofit organization. It said it would not drop its lawsuit after the attack in April, despite the Justice Department's request. The gunman who fired at a White House ‌checkpoint on May 23 was shot by officers and died after being taken to the hospital that evening, the Secret Service said. (Reporting by Arathy Somasekhar in Houston, editing by Deepa Babington, Rod Nickel)

Summary: Federal court raised X's fine to A$650,000 plus A$100,000 legal costs X admitted contravening Australia's Online Safety Act for 38 days Dispute stemmed from inadequate response to eSafety regulator's information request     An Australian court upheld a regulator's fine against Elon Musk's social media company X Corp after it admitted violating the law by failing to supply information about its online child protection measures, ending a nearly three-year dispute. After the eSafety regulator, a frequent target of online attacks by Musk, fined the company in October 2023 for what it called an inadequate response to a standard request for information about anti-child exploitation processes, the company resolved the dispute on May 21 by admitting wrongdoing. "The respondent admits that it contravened the Act," said Christopher Tran, a lawyer for the eSafety Commissioner, referring to Australia's Online Safety Act, in a Federal Court hearing. "There was ongoing noncompliance for some 38 days." The resolution ends a legal battle which began when the regulator fined the company formerly called Twitter A$610,500 ($437,000) over its answers to some 25 questions. X Corp initially sought to overturn the penalty on grounds that the company had changed its name since being acquired by Musk for $44 billion in 2022. The regulator later took a separate legal action to recover the fine. On May 21, Judge Michael Wheelahan raised the payout to A$650,000 and ordered X to pay another A$100,000 to cover some of the regulator's legal costs. The resolution ties up a loose end for the company which earlier this year was folded into Musk's sprawling technology conglomerate SpaceX ahead of a planned trillion-dollar initial public offering within weeks. X's lawyer Perry Herzfeld said the dispute boiled down to "historic issues relating to the timeliness of provision of information". The contravening conduct took place during a "period of change and transition for the company", he told the court. Tran, for eSafety, acknowledged there was no loss resulting from X's actions but said that "not providing information when requested by a regulator impedes a regulator when doing her work". ($1 = 1.3986 Australian dollars) (Reporting by Byron Kaye; Editing by Kim Coghill and Lincoln Feast.)