Latest news with #JamesBoasberg
The Herald Scotland
5 days ago
- Politics
- The Herald Scotland
Deaf Americans sue Trump over loss of ASL translators at briefings
The lawsuit says Trump stopped using sign language interpreters upon taking office a second time, violating the 2020 ruling by Judge James Boasberg, who at the time said providing closed captioning or written transcripts is insufficient. Boasberg is the chief judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, and has been repeatedly criticized by Trump over unrelated immigration rulings. "Federal law unequivocally prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities and requires them to have meaningful access to the federal government's programs and services," the lawsuit alleges. "Failing to provide ASL interpreters deprives deaf people of meaningful access to the White House's press briefings." The lawsuit includes two Deaf people - Derrick Ford and Matthew Bonn - as plaintiffs, and notes that hundreds of thousands of deaf Americans speak only ASL, and may not communicate at all in English. Trump in March declared English to be the official language of the United States, and rescinded a 2000 executive order that encouraged the executive branch to make services available to people of limited English proficiency, including ASL speakers. The NAD asked the White House to reinstate ASL translation but received no response, the group said in its lawsuit. Members of the Deaf community have long worried about lack of access to ASL interpreters, especially during times of crisis. The 2020 lawsuit from the NAD specifically cited the ongoing pandemic as a reason for having real-time translations instead of providing closed captioning or transcripts. ASL translators have also become an increasingly common sight at concerts, with Taylor Swift, among others, using them to bring lyrics to life for deaf people.
Bloomberg
27-05-2025
- Business
- Bloomberg
Meta's Future Lies With Judge as FTC Antitrust Trial Ends
Meta Platforms Inc. has done all it can in court to fight back at the US Federal Trade Commission's claims that it's a monopoly. Now it's up to a federal judge to decide whether the company should be broken up. The seven-week trial wrapped up Tuesday, and now each side has four months to make its case in writing. Then US District Judge James Boasberg will decide whether Meta has an illegal monopoly in the social media market, and whether that dominance stemmed from its acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp — deals for popular applications that closed more than a decade ago.
The Sun
16-05-2025
- Business
- The Sun
US rests case in landmark Meta antitrust trial
WASHINGTON: The US government rested its case against Facebook-owner Meta on Thursday, as it tries to persuade a US judge that the tech giant bought Instagram and WhatsApp to neutralize them as rivals. The landmark case, brought by the Federal Trade Commission, could see Meta forced to divest itself of the two apps, which have grown into global powerhouses since their buyouts. The trial, held in a federal court in Washington, is presided over by Judge James Boasberg who will decide the outcome of the case. At the heart of the antitrust battle is the question of whether the crucial ingredient that undergirds Meta's success is its ability to make connections between friends or family across its apps. The argument -- that real-life connections are the glue that make Facebook's apps successful -- is the foundation of the government's argument that describes a world where only youth-targeted Snap is a credible, if very distant, rival. Meta counters that its rivals are YouTube and TikTok and that it competes furiously in a much wider and ever-changing market to capture the eyeballs and attention of the world's users. The trial, expected to continue for several more weeks, has seen top Meta executives take the stand, including founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg and former Meta chief operating officer Sheryl Sandberg. Much of the testimony has been devoted to government lawyers building their case that Facebook and its family of apps constitute a market that is distinct from TikTok and YouTube, apps where personal connections have very little impact on usage. The US government argues that Meta's hold on friends and family offers a unique ability to build out its products and rake in billions of dollars in profits every quarter. As a sign of the monopoly, the government also points to widespread reports of customer dissatisfaction with Meta products but continued success and growth of its apps. Meta executives argue that its apps are facing major headwinds and that calling them a monopoly is wrong. On the government's last day of calling its witnesses, the head of Facebook, Tom Alison told the court the company is in an 'upheaval,' facing generational changes in online habits as young users prefer TikTok-style short video content over sharing pictures and text. 'The reality is that Facebook was built 21 years ago and Gen Z users have different expectations,' Alison said. But the government believes that Facebook's hold on friends and family shields its business from swings in the market and that it bought Instagram and WhatsApp, in 2012 and 2014 respectively, to remove potential threats to its dominance. 'Failed' Testimony in the past weeks has included revelations by Kevin Systrom, the founder of Instagram, that he felt that Zuckerberg had undermined the success of his photo-sharing app in favor of Facebook once he was bought out. This seemed to back the government's argument that the purchase of Instagram was originally intended as an effort to remove a potential rival, before it became successful in its own right. Meta on Thursday began calling its own list of witnesses, beginning with executives from Snap. 'After five weeks of trial, it is clear that the FTC has failed to meet the legal standard required under antitrust law,' a Meta spokesperson said in a statement. 'Regardless, we will present our case to show what every 17-year-old in the world knows: Instagram competes with TikTok (and YouTube and X and many other apps),' Meta added.
The Sun
16-05-2025
- Business
- The Sun
FTC Rests Antitrust Case Against Meta Over App Buyouts
WASHINGTON: The US government rested its case against Facebook-owner Meta on Thursday, as it tries to persuade a US judge that the tech giant bought Instagram and WhatsApp to neutralize them as rivals. The landmark case, brought by the Federal Trade Commission, could see Meta forced to divest itself of the two apps, which have grown into global powerhouses since their buyouts. The trial, held in a federal court in Washington, is presided over by Judge James Boasberg who will decide the outcome of the case. At the heart of the antitrust battle is the question of whether the crucial ingredient that undergirds Meta's success is its ability to make connections between friends or family across its apps. The argument -- that real-life connections are the glue that make Facebook's apps successful -- is the foundation of the government's argument that describes a world where only youth-targeted Snap is a credible, if very distant, rival. Meta counters that its rivals are YouTube and TikTok and that it competes furiously in a much wider and ever-changing market to capture the eyeballs and attention of the world's users. The trial, expected to continue for several more weeks, has seen top Meta executives take the stand, including founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg and former Meta chief operating officer Sheryl Sandberg. Much of the testimony has been devoted to government lawyers building their case that Facebook and its family of apps constitute a market that is distinct from TikTok and YouTube, apps where personal connections have very little impact on usage. The US government argues that Meta's hold on friends and family offers a unique ability to build out its products and rake in billions of dollars in profits every quarter. As a sign of the monopoly, the government also points to widespread reports of customer dissatisfaction with Meta products but continued success and growth of its apps. Meta executives argue that its apps are facing major headwinds and that calling them a monopoly is wrong. On the government's last day of calling its witnesses, the head of Facebook, Tom Alison told the court the company is in an 'upheaval,' facing generational changes in online habits as young users prefer TikTok-style short video content over sharing pictures and text. 'The reality is that Facebook was built 21 years ago and Gen Z users have different expectations,' Alison said. But the government believes that Facebook's hold on friends and family shields its business from swings in the market and that it bought Instagram and WhatsApp, in 2012 and 2014 respectively, to remove potential threats to its dominance. 'Failed' Testimony in the past weeks has included revelations by Kevin Systrom, the founder of Instagram, that he felt that Zuckerberg had undermined the success of his photo-sharing app in favor of Facebook once he was bought out. This seemed to back the government's argument that the purchase of Instagram was originally intended as an effort to remove a potential rival, before it became successful in its own right. Meta on Thursday began calling its own list of witnesses, beginning with executives from Snap. 'After five weeks of trial, it is clear that the FTC has failed to meet the legal standard required under antitrust law,' a Meta spokesperson said in a statement. 'Regardless, we will present our case to show what every 17-year-old in the world knows: Instagram competes with TikTok (and YouTube and X and many other apps),' Meta added.
Business Times
16-05-2025
- Business
- Business Times
Meta asks judge to rule that FTC failed to prove its monopoly case
FACEBOOK parent company Meta Platforms asked a federal judge on Thursday to throw out the US Federal Trade Commission's case accusing it of an illegal social media monopoly, saying the agency failed to prove its case at a high-stakes antitrust trial. At the trial, which began on April 14 in Washington, the FTC has sought to show that Meta, then known as Facebook, illegally dominated the market for social media platforms used to share updates with friends and family through its acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp. The FTC is seeking to unwind those deals, which occurred more than a decade ago. If granted, Meta's request for a ruling on the evidence so far would bring a quicker end to the case, though US District Judge James Boasberg could decline to take it up. Meta is now presenting its own evidence at the trial, which may run into June. A spokesperson for the FTC did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Thursday. The FTC is seeking to show that Meta, then known as Facebook, bought Instagram and WhatsApp to take out upstart rivals, pointing to emails where CEO Mark Zuckerberg worried about the apps' growth. BT in your inbox Start and end each day with the latest news stories and analyses delivered straight to your inbox. Sign Up Sign Up But evidence at trial showed that WhatsApp had no plan to expand to become a social network rival to Facebook, and that Zuckerberg knew that before the deal was finalised, Meta said on Thursday. And testimony showed Instagram grew after the acquisition, the company said. Meta also argued FTC failed to show a meaningful difference between supposed friends-and-family sharing apps - such as SnapChat, Instagram and Facebook - and TikTok, which Meta said it has been forced to imitate to survive. Platforms where users broadcast content to strangers based on shared interests, such as X, TikTok, YouTube and Reddit are not interchangeable, the FTC has said. 'The through line connecting all of these social apps is that each vies to show the most compelling user-generated content so that it can take as much user time and attention as possible from the other apps, including Meta's apps,' the company said. If Boasberg does not grant Meta's request, the FTC and Meta are expected to file final briefs and deliver closing arguments after the company is finished presenting evidence. If the judge then finds that Meta holds an illegal monopoly, the case would go to a second trial over the appropriate measures to address it. REUTERS
