REUTERS—A Los Angeles jury found Alphabet’s Google and Meta liable for $3 million in damages on Wednesday in a landmark social media addiction lawsuit that will influence thousands of similar cases against the tech companies.  Punitive damages for the companies will be decided next.  The Los Angeles case involves a 20-year-old woman who said she became addicted to Google’s YouTube and Meta’s Instagram at a young age because of their attention-grabbing design. The jury found Google and Meta were negligent in the design of both apps and failed to warn about their dangers. “Today’s verdict is a referendum—from a jury, to an entire industry—that accountability has arrived,” the plaintiff’s lead counsel said in a statement. Shares of Meta were up 1% and Alphabet shares were up 0.2%, little changed after the verdict. Meta disagrees with the verdict and its lawyers are “evaluating our legal options,” a company spokesperson said. Google did not have an immediate comment. The plaintiffs in the Los Angeles proceeding focused on platform design rather than content, making it harder for the companies to avert liability.  Snap and TikTok were also defendants in the trial. Both settled with the plaintiff before it began. Terms of the agreements were not disclosed Mounting Criticism Large technology companies in the United States have faced mounting criticism in the last decade over child and teen safety. The debate has now shifted to courts and state governments. Congress has declined to pass comprehensive legislation regulating social media. At least 20 states enacted laws last year on social media usage and children, according to the nonpartisan National Conference of State Legislatures, an organization that tracks state laws. The legislation includes bills that regulate the use of cellphones in schools and require users to verify their ages to open a social media account. NetChoice, a trade association backed by tech companies such as Meta and Google, is seeking to invalidate age verification requirements in court.  A separate social media addiction case brought by several states and school districts against technology companies is expected to go to trial this summer in federal court in Oakland, California. Another state trial is slated to begin in Los Angeles in July, said Matthew Bergman, one of the attorneys leading the cases for the plaintiffs. It will involve Instagram, YouTube, TikTok, and Snapchat. Separately, a New Mexico jury on Tuesday found Meta violated state law in a lawsuit brought by the state’s attorney general, who accused the company of misleading users about the safety of Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp and of enabling child sexual exploitation on those platforms.  Originally published by Reuters The post Jury Finds Meta and Google Liable in Social Media Addiction Trial appeared first on The Daily Signal.

A Senate Republican aims to “keep” the “aging community out of poverty” by introducing legislation on Wednesday that would allow Social Security recipients to be able to seek additional income and employment. The Senior Citizens Freedom to Work Act, authored by Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., would repeal “outdated” provisions, such as the Retirement Earnings Test, which Scott believes serve as “punishments to Americans in their sixties who want to keep working. “Social Security was meant to keep our aging community out of poverty, not force some of our most experienced and qualified members out of the workforce,” Scott told The Daily Signal. Under current law, Americans who opt to receive Social Security benefits before their full retirement age, chose to continue to work and earn over $23,400, are restricted by the provision of receiving their full Social Security benefits. “We need to get our budget under control and get government out of the way so that Americans who rely on these programs, and all the Americans who WILL rely on them, can plan for the retirement they want,” Scott added. Sen. Tommy Tuberville, R-Ala., has pledged to cosponsor Scott’s bill, The Daily Sigal has learned. The bill’s House sponsor, Rep. Greg Murphy, R-N.C., echoed Scott’s remarks, telling The Daily Signal that “while certain guardrails are in place” to ensure the viability of Social Security and incentivize participation in the workforce, “bureaucratic hurdles” like the Retirement Earnings Test do “more harm than good.” The bill, which will now be referred to the Senate and House Committees on Aging, could also re-establish the “arbitrary parameters” one must meet to receive Social Security benefits, Murphy said. “American seniors’ ability to earn income and enjoy the dignity of work should not be penalized by arbitrary parameters to receive Social Security benefits,” Murphy concluded. “Current law unnecessarily complicates seniors’ right to access the benefits they paid into for the entirety of their careers and must be done away with.” The post EXCLUSIVE: Rick Scott Aims to Reform Social Security in New Bill appeared first on The Daily Signal.

FIRST ON THE DAILY SIGNAL—Democrats are attempting to redraw the Virginia congressional map to put four of the commonwealth’s five Republican-held seats in their hands. However, new polling finds that Virginia voters, across party lines, largely oppose their efforts.   The Daily Signal obtained a Heritage Action poll which found that 70% of Virginia Democrat voters think that electoral maps favoring one political party should not be allowed. However, Democrats in the state are currently attempting to do just that.   Heritage Action and Stefani Buhajla conducted the bipartisan poll of Virginia voters in hopes of informing voters what they were voting for, let them know this is about gerrymandering, and bring to light that they are being tricked with intentionally confusing language at the ballot box.  “It’s very possible that this can be defeated,” Buhajla told The Daily Signal. “If you look at the numbers right now, Republicans are unified against it.” She believes there are still a few who support it because of confusing language on the ballot.   NBC: “After putting an aggressive redraw of the state’s congressional map before voters, some Virginia Democrats are growing uneasy about its prospects for passage one month out from the special election. … Some supporters of the Virginia referendum acknowledge the challenge of… pic.twitter.com/4KOJNZ0fOu— Steve Guest (@SteveGuest) March 23, 2026 The statewide referendum would allow a new electoral map, drawn by Democrats. The current map allows six Democrats and five Republicans, but the new map would likely result in 10 Democrats and one Republican representing Virginia in the U.S. House of Representatives.  The poll found that 50% of voters were confused by the language on the ballot. Buhajla believes the language is “intentional.”   The ballot states: Should the Constitution of Virginia be amended to allow the General Assembly to temporarily adopt new congressional districts to restore fairness in the upcoming elections, while ensuring Virginia’s standard redistricting process resumes for all future redistricting after the 2030 census?  Buhajla told The Daily Signal voters might be confused with the words “restore fairness” and vote yes while not fully understanding what they are voting for. “I think that’s really unfortunate that voters are being tricked.”   “Nobody wants things to be unfair,” Buhajla continued. She hopes the findings of the poll “inform voters … and let them know that they need to vote and vote early.”  The time for Virginians to stop the partisan electoral map pushed by Democrats is now! Vote NO by April 21!https://t.co/FPRT5LCjoE— Heritage Action (@Heritage_Action) March 15, 2026 Gov. Abigail Spanberger previously opposed amending the state constitution to redistrict out of turn, though now she is in office, she has been supporting the parties’ efforts.  The Heritage Action poll found that 39% of voters disapprove of her performance as governor while 43% still support her.   The post EXCLUSIVE: Poll Finds Virginia Voters Reject Democrats’ Redistricting Push appeared first on The Daily Signal.

In a lawsuit against the Trump administration, immigration advocates insist that an asylum case should take “years” to conclude and want “at least a year” to prepare while applicants remain in the United States. The lawyers claim that the administration is unfairly singling out their clients, Somali asylum seekers, in a “Somali Fast-Track Policy,” giving them a compressed timeline of just four months or less to prepare for hearings—a timeline they argue is “essentially impossible.” Meanwhile, immigration enforcement advocates argue that extending the process enables abuses by asylum seekers. On Tuesday, the Hines Immigration Law firm and the Advocates for Human Rights, both based in Minnesota, sued the Justice Department’s Executive Office for Immigration Review. The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The plaintiffs are represented by Democracy Forward, a liberal legal group whose chairman is veteran Democrat Party lawyer Marc Elias. They argue that immigration judges can accommodate a lengthier timeline. “In the past, IJs [immigration judges] have scheduled merits hearings for as far as two or three years out, with no indication that their calendars could not ‘go out’ that far,” the plaintiffs’ complaint says. The plaintiffs’ complaint accuses the administration of departing from precedent over the past two months “to rapidly set or advance immigration hearing dates” in the cases of Somali nationals. They argue the policy “substantially impedes” their work by speeding up the timeline to prepare for a hearing, leaving attorneys in some cases with “almost no time to gather and submit evidence.” NPR reported that there were 3,254 pending cases of Somalis in immigration court.  However, the plaintiffs’ demand for more time highlights a key defect in the nation’s immigration process, said Ira Mehlman, spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which advocates for enforcement of immigration law. “The demand to spend months and years on cases is precisely the problem,” Mehlman told The Daily Signal. “It’s why so many people abuse the asylum system. They can wait years for their case. Even if they are turned down, they can make another claim that because they have been here so long, they have too many connections to the country.” He added that this was among the problems of President Joe Biden’s administration. “It’s what fueled the border crisis under the Biden administration,” Mehlman said. “In 2023 and 2024, people would come into the country knowing they wouldn’t get a hearing until 2030.” The Justice Department did not respond to The Daily Signal’s request for comment by publication time. In a story on the topic earlier this month, a Justice Department spokesperson told CBS News: “All cases are adjudicated in accordance with the applicable law. Moreover, EOIR [Executive Office for Immigration Review] is required by federal law to adjudicate asylum applications within 180 days. The suggestion that EOIR should delay adjudicating certain groups of cases is contrary to both EOIR’s mission and the law.” Skye Perryman, president of Democracy Forward, called the speedy hearing process of Somali immigrants “the latest harmful step by this administration.” “The president’s targeting of people from Somalia has gone beyond hateful rhetoric – now by singling out Somali immigrants and forcing their cases onto an accelerated timeline that prevents them from being able to access counsel and have a fair hearing, the Trump-Vance administration is, once again, unlawfully trampling on people’s rights,” Perryman said in a public statement. Even if the administration was singling out asylum seekers from one country, it would be within its legal rights to do so, Mehlman said. “Courts have given the executive branch wide latitude, and if a president believes a certain group or groups of people are a priority, that is his right. There have certainly been allegations of fraud related to the Somali community in Minnesota.” Last week, five people involved in a scandal over the use of federal funds in Minnesota pleaded guilty to wire fraud. Mehlman further added that asylum cases are civil and not criminal matters. “They are not being denied their day in court, but are getting their day in court sooner,” he said. The post ‘Precisely the Problem’: Immigration Advocates Want Asylum Hearings Scheduled ‘Years’ Ahead appeared first on The Daily Signal.

In recent years, China’s People’s Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF) has kept a near constant presence around Taiwan. However, from Feb. 28 to March 6 there were no PLAAF sorties near the island for seven days. This was the first time there has been over four consecutive days without PLAAF activity near Taiwan since seven consecutive days of no sorties from June 30 to July 6, 2022. This lull is not an isolated event, but part of a longer running drop of Chinese military activity near Taiwan. This lull in Chinese military activity comes at a sensitive time amid aU.S. conflict with Iran and ahead of a planned summit between President Donald Trump and Secretary General Xi Jinping of China, originally set for the end of March and now postponed until after the United States’ “active part in the Iran conflict is over.” Over the past few years, the Heritage Foundation has tracked the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) continuous presence and military drills around Taiwan. Those efforts complement research that has noted Beijing’s sustained preparation for a possible invasion of Taiwan. Interestingly, China’s military activities have decreased markedly below seasonal averages around Taiwan since the new year. On the other hand, meanwhile PLA Navy levels have remained steady at historic seasonal average levels, averaging around five to seven ships near Taiwan daily. However, this is not the case for the PLAAF, which has seen a precipitous drop in its activities near the island. The first quarter of 2026 saw PLAAF levels below previous seasonal averages. For example, of the first 70 days of 2026, 47 included five or fewer aircraft sorties near Taiwan, and 22 of those days had no PLAAF activity near Taiwan. This is compared to the first 70 days of 2023-2025, which had a combined 3 days of no PLAAF activity and recorded only 13 days of five or fewer sorties. The drop off in Chinese military activity around Taiwan was namely in the second half of February and persisted into the first two weeks of March. Looking at the running 10-day average for this timeframe, PLAAF levels in 2026 were less than half that of the past three years. The levels of activity from this timeframe was more in line with those before the massive increase of PLAAF sorties in response to Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s Taipei visit in August 2022. During this lull there was still a day with 30 PLAAF sorties around Taiwan on Feb. 26. This would follow normal routines of such scaled PLAAF sorties near Taiwan happening about every 1-3 weeks. During this time of low activity came the Chinese Lunar New Year, which ran from Feb.17 to March 3. Nine of the 15 days of Lunar New Year celebrations had no PLAAF activity around Taiwan. This differs from the last two Lunar New Years, which had levels consistent with the seasonal averages at around 10 aircraft sorties in 2024 and 13 in 2025. However, the lull in this year’s celebration persisted even after the holiday. So the lull had to be more than holiday time off. PLAAF activity would rise in the third week of March, returning to levels more in line with previous seasonal averages. Another key event that happened during this lull was Operation Epic Fury. This operation saw combat initiated February 28  against Iran. PLAAF activity around Taiwan was low before the operation and saw no noticeable increase in response despite China condemning America’s actions in Iran. Perhaps instructive, Beijing would express  a desire to continue bilateral relations with America. Therefore, this lull of activity does not seem to be related or in response to Epic Fury. Anther theory behind the previous lull in Chinese military activities was the impact of war with Iran on the supply of oil. Even though the dip in PLAAF activities started before Epic Fury, the operational lull could have been an effort to conserve fuel in case conflict started. Due to the conflict in Iran, oil prices spiked drastically settling in recent days to above $100 a barrel as compared to less than $80 before the war. With an estimated 13% of China’s oil imports are from Iran, China has possibly needed to tap into its massive oil stockpile, an estimated at 900 million barrels. However, Chinese naval patrols near the Scarborough Shoal and the Senkaku Islands and near Taiwan remained unchanged throughout. Additionally, activities would rise to average levels in the third week of March. It’s likely then that oil scarcity was not a leading factor for the lull in PLAAF activities. Another hypothesis for the PLAAF lull is to set conditions for the upcoming Trump and Xi summit; originally planned for March 31 but since postponed. This summit is to held in Beijing, and as such the first for a U.S. president since Trump’s visit in 2017. Both leaders are likely calculating that the summit can have a positive impact on their interests, and both leaders have expressed positive opinions about U.S.-Sino relations in recent weeks. Additionally, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent met with the Chinese vice premier in mid-March leading up to the summit. In the interim, Trump has requested that the summit be postponed due to Operation Epic Fury. However, PLAAF activities around Taiwan were not affected by past summits between Xi and U.S. presidents. For example, PLAAF activities remained the same before and after Xi and President Joe Biden’s meetings in 2022, 2023, and 2024. The one exception would be Trump’s meeting with Xi in October 2025. The ten days prior to that meeting had lower levels of PLAAF activity around Taiwan, which then spiked to 25 sorties the day before their meeting given the significance of that summit intentional; a likely move buttressing Xi’s diplomatic position. Preparing the political context ahead of the summit may be an explanation for the recent PLAAF lull. If this were the case, low activity levels should be expected to persist until the summit. Interestingly, there has been an increase in PLAAF activities from the third week of March. However, this rise of PLAAF levels happened around the same time the White House stated the summit may be postponed. Alternatively, is the possibility that the lull is due to internal Chinese military reasons. One theory is that ongoing political purges in the Chinese military could be affecting operations. However, purges have not caused drastic drops of PLA activities before, even when the head of the Eastern Theater Command was ousted. Or, the PLAAF lull is due to changing operational and training patterns. This would explain why a lowering of activities has only been seen in the PLAAF, and not the PLA Navy. This is more compelling given the Southern Theater Command responsible for the South China Sea is believed to be reforming its training routines. Regardless of Beijing’s reasoning, low PLAAF activity levels are likely temporary and the intention impossible to fully discern outside China. So, vigilance is required to discern Beijing’s next move. Making any reciprocal moves to reduce U.S. military presence in the region would be unwise–especially any reduction in special reconnaissance operations (SRO) in international waters and airspace near China. Even during times of reduced Chinese military activities, Taiwan must remain on guard, and the U.S. must remain vigilant. For more information on PLA activities near Taiwan, see the interactive activity tracker: click here. The post A Diplomatic Gesture or Something Else: Examining the Temporary Lull in Chinese Military Activity Around Taiwan appeared first on The Daily Signal.