Latest news with #TikTokInc.
Yahoo
21-05-2025
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
Alabama sues TikTok: State AG accuses app of fueling youth mental health crisis
Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall announced last week that the state is filing a lawsuit against TikTok Inc. and ByteDance Inc. to hold the companies accountable for a mental health crisis on the youth of Alabama. Here's what we know: TikTok is a social media app best known for short-form videos that keep users scrolling for hours. Creators can upload videos that are just a few seconds long or up to 10 minutes long. The app's secret sauce? A personalized "For You Page" powered by an innovative algorithm that serves up content based on what you like to watch. Expect plenty of singing, dancing, lip syncing and viral comedy. But that "secret sauce" is under fire as Alabama lawmakers are challenging TikTok's algorithm in their lawsuit, claiming it's designed to addict users, especially youth. Alabama's lawsuit claims TikTok's algorithm is built to keep kids hooked, pushing an endless stream of content that promotes depression, eating disorders, self-harm and drug use. The lawsuit alleges that TikTok's safeguards for minors are easy to circumvent and don't do enough to protect young users. According to TikTok's website, the platform is recommended for users ages 12 and up, with parental guidance. In the U.S., children under 13 are offered a limited, "view-only" app version. TikTok says it starts all accounts for users under 18 as private by default, though teens can switch to public settings. There's also a 60-minute daily screen time limit for users under 18. Those under 16 can't use direct messaging or go live, and their content is not shown on the app's popular "For You" page. TikTok offers a tool called "Family Pairing," which lets parents and guardians connect their accounts to their teens. The feature allows adults to set screen time limits and requires a passcode if the teen wants more time on the app. Parents can also filter out specific keywords to help control what appears on their child's "For You" feed. They can also manage comment settings, including turning off comments altogether. Another claim in the lawsuit accuses TikTok's parent company, ByteDance, of collecting sensitive data on Americans and potentially sharing it with the Chinese government. Attorney General Marshall alleges that because ByteDance is based in China, it is subject to laws requiring companies to cooperate with Chinese intelligence services. Marshall argues that TikTok and ByteDance are engaged in espionage by exploiting personal information, especially data belonging to minors. The lawsuit asks for civil penalties under Alabama's Deceptive Trade Practices Act and compensatory and punitive damages for the state. It also seeks a court order requiring TikTok to stop what the state calls deceptive practices related to youth safety. A copy of the complaint can be viewed here. Jennifer Lindahl is a Breaking and Trending Reporter for the Deep South Connect Team for Gannett/USA Today. Connect with her on X @jenn_lindahl and email at jlindahl@ This article originally appeared on Montgomery Advertiser: TikTok algorithm under fire as state AG cites 'mental health crisis'
USA Today
05-05-2025
- Business
- USA Today
Alabama sues TikTok: State AG accuses app of fueling youth mental health crisis
Alabama sues TikTok: State AG accuses app of fueling youth mental health crisis Show Caption Hide Caption What's next for TikTok after deal was delayed due to Trump tariffs? President Donald Trump said he would be open to negotiating on Chinese tariffs if they agree to the TikTok deal. Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall announced last week that the state is filing a lawsuit against TikTok Inc. and ByteDance Inc. to hold the companies accountable for a mental health crisis on the youth of Alabama. Here's what we know: What is TikTok? TikTok is a social media app best known for short-form videos that keep users scrolling for hours. Creators can upload videos that are just a few seconds long or up to 10 minutes long. The app's secret sauce? A personalized "For You Page" powered by an innovative algorithm that serves up content based on what you like to watch. Expect plenty of singing, dancing, lip syncing and viral comedy. But that "secret sauce" is under fire as Alabama lawmakers are challenging TikTok's algorithm in their lawsuit, claiming it's designed to addict users, especially youth. Why was a lawsuit filed against TikTok in Alabama? Alabama's lawsuit claims TikTok's algorithm is built to keep kids hooked, pushing an endless stream of content that promotes depression, eating disorders, self-harm and drug use. The lawsuit alleges that TikTok's safeguards for minors are easy to circumvent and don't do enough to protect young users. What safety measures does TikTok have for youth? According to TikTok's website, the platform is recommended for users ages 12 and up, with parental guidance. In the U.S., children under 13 are offered a limited, "view-only" app version. TikTok says it starts all accounts for users under 18 as private by default, though teens can switch to public settings. There's also a 60-minute daily screen time limit for users under 18. Those under 16 can't use direct messaging or go live, and their content is not shown on the app's popular "For You" page. TikTok offers a tool called "Family Pairing," which lets parents and guardians connect their accounts to their teens. The feature allows adults to set screen time limits and requires a passcode if the teen wants more time on the app. Parents can also filter out specific keywords to help control what appears on their child's "For You" feed. They can also manage comment settings, including turning off comments altogether. Alabama lawsuit also shows concern over youth data Another claim in the lawsuit accuses TikTok's parent company, ByteDance, of collecting sensitive data on Americans and potentially sharing it with the Chinese government. Attorney General Marshall alleges that because ByteDance is based in China, it is subject to laws requiring companies to cooperate with Chinese intelligence services. Marshall argues that TikTok and ByteDance are engaged in espionage by exploiting personal information, especially data belonging to minors. What does the lawsuit seek? The lawsuit asks for civil penalties under Alabama's Deceptive Trade Practices Act and compensatory and punitive damages for the state. It also seeks a court order requiring TikTok to stop what the state calls deceptive practices related to youth safety. A copy of the complaint can be viewed here. Jennifer Lindahl is a Breaking and Trending Reporter for the Deep South Connect Team for Gannett/USA Today. Connect with her on X @jenn_lindahl and email at jlindahl@
Washington Post
26-02-2025
- Politics
- Washington Post
Tracking key Supreme Court cases of the 2024-2025 term
The Supreme Court is weighing state bans on medical care for transgender teens, restrictions on untraceable ghost guns and the legality of direct public funding for religious schools. The high court has already upheld a federal law designed to force TikTok to divest from Chinese ownership and ordered a new trial for a death row inmate. And the justices will almost certainly be drawn into numerous legal challenges to President Donald Trump's initiatives to dramatically reshape the government. Decisions can come between now and the end of June. Here are some of the biggest cases: Glossip v. Oklahoma Date decided: Feb. 25 New trial for death row inmate What to know: A divided Supreme Court ordered a new trial for Oklahoma death row inmate Richard Glossip after prosecutors made an extraordinary admission about the withholding of evidence. The case is highly unusual, in that Oklahoma's top law enforcement official agreed with defense attorneys that Glossip did not receive a fair trial for a 1997 killing. Why it matters: Glossip's case attracted broad support and became a focus of national debate over the death penalty, which critics say is unjust or unfairly applied. A majority of justices — conservatives as well as liberals — said prosecutors violated their constitutional obligation to correct false testimony from a key witness. The three dissenting justices said the Supreme Court lacked the authority to override Oklahoma's highest court, which upheld Glossip's death sentence. Joined the majority Joined the majority Dissented Dissented Partial dissent Partial dissent Recused Recused Decision author Decision author Liberal bloc Sotomayor Sotomayor Jackson Jackson Kagan Kagan Conservative bloc Roberts Roberts Kavanaugh Kavanaugh Barrett Barrett Gorsuch Gorsuch Alito Alito Thomas Thomas TikTok Inc. v. Garland Date decided: Jan. 17 TikTok ban-or-sale law What to know: The court unanimously upheld a federal law that requires the wildly popular video-sharing app TikTok to shut down in the United States unless its parent company divests from Chinese ownership. Why it matters: The justices said the law, which Congress passed because of security concerns about China's access to users' information, does not violate the free speech rights of millions of TikTok users. President Donald Trump promised to 'save the app' and has not enforced the ban as negotiations over a possible sale continue. Joined the majority Joined the majority Dissented Dissented Decision author Decision author Liberal bloc Sotomayor Sotomayor Jackson Jackson Kagan Kagan Conservative bloc Roberts Roberts Kavanaugh Kavanaugh Barrett Barrett Gorsuch Gorsuch Alito Alito Thomas Thomas United States v. Skrmetti Date argued: Oct. 8 Treatment for transgender minors What to know: The Supreme Court is being asked to decide whether a Tennessee law that prohibits certain gender-transition medical care for minors violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. The decision will have implications for Tennessee and the 23 other states that have banned similar treatments for transgender young people in recent years. Key takeaways: The court's conservative majority appeared likely to uphold the ban, expressing concern about intervening in a bitter national debate over whether transgender young people should have access to hormones and puberty blockers. The Biden administration and the families of transgender teens initially challenged Tennessee's law, but the Trump administration withdrew the federal government's opposition. The case continues with the remaining challengers. Garland v. VanDerStok Date argued: Oct. 8 Regulating ghost guns What to know: The justices will decide whether the untraceable weapons known as 'ghost guns' — assembled from parts kits and incomplete frames and receivers — may be regulated as 'firearms' under the Gun Control Act. Key takeaways: A majority of justices seemed likely to uphold the gun regulation imposed in 2022 by the Biden administration that requires background checks, serial numbers and sales records for the nearly untraceable firearms known as ghost guns. Law enforcement officials say the homemade guns have been used in an increasing number of crimes. Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton Date argued: Jan. 15 Age verification for online porn What to know: The case tests the constitutionality of a Texas law requiring people to prove they are over 18 to access online pornography. Key takeaways: A majority of the justices seemed open to allowing age verification for these sites. Several justices indicated it might be time to rethink how free speech protections apply to pornography, since the internet and smartphones have made it far easier for young people to access adult content. Catholic Charities Bureau v. Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Commission Date to be argued: March 31 Tax exemptions for church-affiliated groups What to know: The justices are asked to decide whether a Catholic charitable organization must pay a Wisconsin state tax, from which religious groups are exempt if they operate 'primarily for religious purposes.' The state's Supreme Court refused to give the Catholic Charities Bureau the exemption, finding that its work serving the elderly, disabled individuals and the poor is not primarily religious. Why it matters: The organization says the state court's closely divided decision violates religious freedom protections in the First Amendment. State officials had urged the court not to take the case, saying the group is not entitled to an exemption because its activities are primarily charitable and secular. The court's decision could have implications for whether other, larger religiously affiliated organizations are eligible for tax exemptions. Louisiana v. Callais & Robinson v. Callais Date to be argued: March 24 Louisiana voting map What to know: In response to a lawsuit from civil rights groups, the Louisiana legislature redrew its congressional map to create a second majority-Black district out of six districts in the state. The Supreme Court is being asked to decide whether the map — challenged by a group of self-described 'non-African American voters' — violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution. Why it matters: Democrats picked up a second congressional seat in November under the newly drawn lines. Before a lower court ordered a new map, Louisiana had only one majority-Black district, even though Black voters account for a third of the state's population. Smith & Wesson Brands v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos Date to be argued: March 4 Mexico vs. U.S. gun manufacturers What to know: The Mexican government filed a lawsuit against U.S. firearms manufacturers, accusing the gun companies of profiting for decades from the illegal smuggling of dangerous weapons to powerful criminal organizations in Mexico. The justices are being asked to decide whether federal law shields U.S. gunmakers from liability in the matter. Why it matters: Mexico says hundreds of thousands of guns made by U.S. companies are trafficked into Mexico each year and that almost half of all guns recovered at Mexican crime scenes are from the manufacturers. The case is being heard at a critical time for U.S.-Mexican relations as the Trump administration threatens mass deportations and crushing tariffs. Ames v. Ohio Dept. of Youth Services Date to be argued: Feb. 26 Reverse discrimination in workplace What to know: Marlean Ames, a straight woman, filed a job discrimination lawsuit after she was demoted from her job in the Ohio juvenile corrections agency and replaced by a gay man with less experience. A different job she applied for went to a lesbian, who hadn't initially expressed interest in it. Why it matters: Ames is challenging past court rulings that say members of majority groups — men, straight people and Whites — have to meet higher standards to prove job discrimination than members of minority groups that historically have faced such bias. A ruling for Ames could lower the bar for such claims. Some say a ruling for Ames could make companies think twice about DEI initiatives. The case comes as Donald Trump and his allies have targeted DEI in the government and private sector. Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond Argument not yet scheduled Publicly funded religious schools What to know: The justices will decide whether the state of Oklahoma may use taxpayer dollars to directly fund a proposed Catholic charter school. Why it matters: The blockbuster case could redraw the line between church and state by allowing the government to establish and directly fund religious schools for the first time. It will also test how far the Supreme Court is willing to go in what has been a steady expansion of the use of tax dollars to support parochial education. Mahmoud v. Taylor Argument not yet scheduled Opting out of lessons on gender, sexuality What to know: The justices will hear a challenge by a group of parents in Montgomery County, Maryland, who objected to rules barring them from taking their children out of lessons that used storybooks with LGBTQ+ characters and themes. Why it matters: The case will determine whether public schools must give parents of elementary schoolchildren a chance to opt out of instruction on gender and sexuality that they say goes against their religious convictions. Becerra v. Braidwood Management Inc. Argument not yet scheduled Preventative health-care coverage What to know: A Christian-owned business and others are challenging a provision of the Affordable Care Act, commonly known as Obamacare, that requires health plans to provide no-cost preventative care such as cancer screenings, immunizations and contraception to millions of Americans. Why it matters: The plaintiffs object to having to cover pre-exposure medications intended to prevent the spread of HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, because they believe doing so encourages risky homosexual behavior that conflicts with their religious beliefs. They also say an expert committee that mandates the preventative care coverage is unconstitutional because its members are not appointed by the president or confirmed by the Senate. Justice illustrations by Shelly Tan
