『A New Mexico Jury Finds Meta Misled Millions Over Cambridge Analytica, TikTok Pays Alabama to Dodge the First Teen-Harms Trial & SCOTUS Revives the SAVE Voter Checks』のカバーアート

A New Mexico Jury Finds Meta Misled Millions Over Cambridge Analytica, TikTok Pays Alabama to Dodge the First Teen-Harms Trial & SCOTUS Revives the SAVE Voter Checks

A New Mexico Jury Finds Meta Misled Millions Over Cambridge Analytica, TikTok Pays Alabama to Dodge the First Teen-Harms Trial & SCOTUS Revives the SAVE Voter Checks

無料で聴く

ポッドキャストの詳細を見る

【Amazonプライム会員限定】今ならプレミアムプランが4か月 月額99円。

10月19日まで。※適用条件あり
This Day in Legal History: The Black Sox IndictmentOn September 28, 1920, a Chicago grand jury indicted eight members of the Chicago White Sox for conspiring to throw the 1919 World Series in exchange for money from a gambling syndicate. That morning, pitcher Eddie Cicotte and “Shoeless” Joe Jackson had reportedly confessed. The scandal—forever after known as the “Black Sox”—remains one of the most famous intersections of crime, sport, and law in American history, and its legal legacy is more instructive than the folklore suggests.Here’s the twist that every law student should sit with. The eight players went to trial on criminal conspiracy charges, and in 1921, a jury acquitted all of them. But the very next day, baseball’s newly installed commissioner, federal judge Kenesaw Mountain Landis, banned all eight from organized baseball for life—famously declaring that regardless of any jury verdict, no player who fixes games or consorts with gamblers would ever play professional baseball again. So you have a stark divergence: the criminal-justice system, applying its high beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard, found them not guilty, while a private governing body, applying its own rules and lower burden of proof, imposed the harshest sanction it could.The significance of September 28, 1920 is that lesson in parallel systems of accountability. Being cleared in a court of law is not the same as being cleared everywhere—private institutions, licensing bodies, and employers routinely impose their own consequences under their own standards, and they’re generally entitled to. It’s a theme that runs straight through today’s episode, where we’ll see companies held to account not by criminal courts but by state consumer-protection laws and civil juries—the many rooms, beyond the criminal courthouse, in which accountability actually happens.A jury in Santa Fe has found that Meta misled New Mexico residents about how it protected their data—and the potential penalties are genuinely staggering. This case traces back to the Cambridge Analytica scandal: the 2018 revelation that the political consulting firm, tied to the 2016 Trump campaign, harvested personal data from as many as 87 million Facebook users through a third-party app without their consent. New Mexico’s attorney general sued in 2021, and after a two-week trial, the jury found that 26 of 29 statements Meta made were misleading, adding up to tens of millions of violations of the state’s Unfair Practices Act—affecting essentially the entire population of the state, more than two million people. Here’s where it gets eye-popping. The judge, not the jury, will now set penalties, and New Mexico is seeking the statutory maximum of $5,000 per violation. Do the math on tens of millions of violations and you get a theoretical exposure reaching into the billions—some coverage has floated figures over $200 billion, though the actual number the judge lands on will almost certainly be far lower, because courts have discretion and because due-process principles cap grossly excessive aggregate statutory penalties. That’s the real legal drama here: the collision between per-violation statutory damages, designed for individual harms, and mass digital conduct affecting millions, where mechanical multiplication produces astronomical, arguably unconstitutional numbers. The significance is twofold. First, it’s a powerful demonstration of state consumer-protection law as a weapon against Big Tech—New Mexico didn’t need a federal privacy statute, it used its own deceptive-practices act. And second, it feeds directly into the trend we keep tracking: after years of Cambridge Analytica settlements, a jury has now actually found Meta liable to a state’s entire population for deceiving them about privacy. Meta says it disagrees and will keep fighting.Meta misled consumers in case over Cambridge Analytica scandal, New Mexico jury says | Reuters · PBS News · EngadgetTikTok has settled with Alabama for at least $100 million—and up to $300 million if certain conditions are met—just days before what would have been the first state trial in the country over the platform’s alleged harms to teenagers. This is a significant development in a fight we’ve followed closely. At least 27 other states and D.C. have sued TikTok on similar theories: that it deliberately designed its platform to be addictive to children and misled the public about how safe it is. Alabama’s case was set to go before a Montgomery jury this Monday, in a trial expected to run two to three weeks and to pry open TikTok’s internal workings—which is exactly the kind of exposure that tends to concentrate a company’s mind on settling. And this settlement is notable not just for the money but for the injunctive relief, because the platform changes are substantial: overnight access restrictions for teen users between midnight and 6 a.m., limits on messaging and ...
adbl_web_anon_alc_button_suppression_t1
まだレビューはありません