Snap, YouTube, TikTok and Meta settle Kentucky school district lawsuit

At mid-May, Snap, YouTube and TikTok have reached a settlement in a lawsuit brought by the Breathitt County School District in Kentucky. The school district alleged that social media platforms contributed to learning disruption, mental health concerns, and additional financial pressures on schools.

Terms of the settlement have not been disclosed. Meta remained a defendant in the same litigation and was scheduled to proceed to trial on June 15th. However, on May 21st, the company also reached a settlement. The case is one of a broader series of lawsuits involving social media platforms and alleged harms affecting minors and schools.

This follows earlier related cases settled by Snap and TikTok. The companies have faced multiple lawsuits related to alleged harms associated with social media use. In a separate case, a jury awarded damages to a plaintiff in litigation involving Google and Meta. Meta has also recently been ordered to pay $375 million in a separate case brought by New Mexico’s attorney general.

Beyond seeking monetary awards of $60 millions, plaintiffs and state authorities have also called for changes to platform design and online safety measures affecting minors. Additional lawsuits involving social media platforms and youth safety issues remain ongoing in US courts.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech, and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!

Researchers analyse framing of youth social media use in Australian policy discussions

A new paper, published in the journal SAGE Journals, examines how concerns around children’s social media use are framed in debates surrounding regulation and online safety. The study was authored by researchers Justine Humphry, Catherine Page Jeffery, and Jonathon Hutchinson.

According to the paper, the research focuses on debates related to Australia’s proposed social media age restriction laws. The authors argue that media coverage and political discussion increasingly frame teenagers’ social media use as an issue requiring stronger regulation.

The paper explores how discussions about risk, safety, and childhood vulnerability influenced calls for age-based restrictions on social media. The study also examines how age-based regulation emerged as a proposed policy response to wider concerns about digital platforms and young people.

The research contributes to broader academic discussions on digital governance, youth agency, and media regulation. The research was published as an open-access article in Convergence and centres on policy debates in Australia.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot

eSafety Commissioner and Sport Integrity Australia focus on online harms in sport

Australia’s eSafety Commissioner and Sport Integrity Australia have launched a joint initiative focused on online safety in sport.

The Online Safety in Sport Summit brought together representatives from sporting organisations, government agencies, researchers, law enforcement, and technology companies. The discussions focused on cyberbullying, online harassment, and harmful digital behaviour affecting athletes and sporting communities.

During the summit, Australia’s eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant said harmful behaviour linked to sport increasingly occurs across social media, messaging applications, and online communities.

Research presented during the summit, titled ‘The Digital Sideline’, found that nearly one in five children participating in organised sport reported experiencing cyberbullying related to sporting activities.

Officials in Australia said that many reported online harms involved peers, including teammates and competitors, and occurred through private messages and group chats.

Participants highlighted the importance of prevention measures, early intervention, and cooperation between sporting organisations, regulators, and technology companies.

Why does it matter?

Online abuse within sport is becoming an increasingly significant policy and governance issue as digital platforms reshape athlete visibility, fan interaction, and youth participation. Cyberbullying, online harassment, and hate speech can affect mental health, athlete safety, participation rates, and broader social cohesion.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacyIf so, ask our Diplo chatbot!

FTC begins TAKE IT DOWN Act enforcement

The US Federal Trade Commission has begun enforcing the TAKE IT DOWN Act, requiring covered platforms to remove non-consensual intimate images and known identical copies within 48 hours of a valid request.

The FTC enforces Section 3 of the law, which sets a 19 May 2026 deadline for covered platforms to create a process allowing victims and survivors to request the removal of intimate photos or videos shared online without their consent.

As part of its enforcement role, the agency has launched TakeItDown.ftc.gov, a website where victims and survivors can submit complaints about platforms that fail to act on valid removal requests or have not created a removal process.

FTC Chairman Andrew N. Ferguson said the law gives families recourse against digital exploitation and extortion, particularly where children are affected. He added that ‘in the age of AI, anyone can be targeted’, making protections against abuse especially urgent.

The FTC has also published guidance for consumers whose non-consensual intimate images are posted online and separate guidance for businesses on complying with the law.

Ahead of the enforcement deadline, Ferguson sent letters to major platforms, including Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, Automattic, Bumble, Discord, Match Group, Meta, Microsoft, Pinterest, Reddit, SmugMug, Snapchat, TikTok and X, reminding them of their obligations under the TAKE IT DOWN Act.

Why does it matter?

The law gives victims of non-consensual intimate image abuse a faster route to removal and gives the FTC a direct enforcement role when platforms fail to comply. Its importance has grown with the spread of AI-generated sexual abuse material and deepfake tools, which can make intimate image abuse easier to create, copy and distribute at scale.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech, and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!

UK committee urges stronger online safety protections

The UK Parliament’s Science, Innovation and Technology Committee has urged the government to strengthen online safety protections for young people, following evidence on proposals to restrict social media access for under-16s.

Committee Chair Dame Chi Onwurah wrote to Science, Innovation and Technology Secretary Liz Kendall and AI and Online Safety Minister Kanishka Narayan after an evidence session on age-based restrictions.

The committee said there is strong and consistent evidence of significant individual harms linked to social media use, alongside a growing body of evidence showing wider negative impacts. It said there is a clear need to protect people, especially young users, from those harms.

The letter argues that responsibility for preventing harm should not rest solely on young people or parents. It says government inaction on online safety is not an option and calls for stronger enforcement of existing age restrictions

The committee also urged the government to revisit its July 2025 report on social media misinformation. Although the government accepted almost all of the report’s conclusions, the committee said it rejected almost all recommendations for change. It is now calling for action on misinformation, harmful algorithms, and online harms in the new parliamentary session.

Dame Chi Onwurah said: ‘The status quo, where social media companies are neither accountable nor responsible for preventing harms, isn’t acceptable. It’s clear social media can cause real harm and more must be done to protect people, especially young users. If any other consumer product caused these harms, it would’ve been recalled or changed. Shouldn’t the same be true for social media services and design features?’

She added: ‘The government must urgently address gaps in the regulation, legislation and enforcement of online safety. It should revisit and adopt my committee’s previous recommendations on tackling misinformation and harmful algorithms and bring forward legislation to effectively tackle online harms in the new parliamentary session.’

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech, and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!

AI governance priorities outlined by EU at UN dialogue

The European Union has called for the UN Global Dialogue on AI Governance to focus on responsible innovation, human rights, capacity-building and stronger interoperability between AI governance frameworks.

In a statement delivered on behalf of the EU and its member states, the bloc said the dialogue should examine AI’s social, economic, ethical, cultural, linguistic, technical and environmental implications. It also argued that responsible AI innovation should be framed not only as a risk-management challenge, but also as an opportunity for public benefit in areas such as education and government.

The EU urged participants to address who controls the data, compute and value chains behind AI systems. It also highlighted linguistic and cultural diversity, warning that AI systems trained mainly on a limited number of languages can produce less accurate and more costly outputs for speakers of underrepresented languages.

Capacity-building was presented as a core condition for effective AI governance, particularly for developing countries. The EU said countries and institutions need the skills, systems and human capacity to evaluate, question and deploy AI responsibly, while treating AI infrastructure as a matter of public interest rather than only market access or proprietary control.

The statement also identified agentic AI as an emerging governance frontier, arguing that such systems raise new questions around accountability, oversight and control that existing frameworks do not yet adequately address.

On safe and trustworthy AI, the EU called for greater compatibility between governance approaches to prevent regulatory arbitrage and support responsible cross-border deployment. It said trust should not rely only on self-assessment or voluntary disclosure, but also on auditability, traceability, validation mechanisms, certification approaches and evaluation frameworks for high-risk systems.

The EU also urged a human-centric, human rights-based approach grounded in international law. It identified AI-facilitated gender-based violence, harmful AI-generated content affecting children and older persons, manipulative algorithmic systems, data exploitation and AI-enabled surveillance as areas requiring dedicated attention.

The statement called for the UN dialogue to build on existing initiatives, including those led by UNESCO, ITU, UNDP, OHCHR, GPAI, the Council of Europe, the Hiroshima Process and AI summit processes. The EU also supported more interactive thematic sessions, continuity between dialogue editions and a co-chairs’ summary reflecting both converging and diverging views.

Why does it matter?

The EU statement shows how global AI governance debates are moving beyond broad principles towards questions of implementation, institutional capacity and interoperability between frameworks. By linking AI infrastructure, human rights, auditability and agentic AI, the EU is signalling that future international coordination will need to address both today’s deployment risks and the governance challenges posed by more autonomous systems.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech, and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!

Ofcom investigates adult platforms under Online Safety Act age-check rules

Ofcom has opened investigations into the providers of pimpbunny.com and kemono.cr to assess their compliance with age-check rules under the UK’s Online Safety Act.

The regulator said pornography services must use ‘highly effective’ age checks to determine whether users are over 18 before allowing access to pornographic material. The investigations will examine whether there are reasonable grounds to believe the providers have failed, or are failing, to comply with those duties.

Ofcom said it prioritised action against the providers based on the risk of harm posed by their services. The regulator took account of user numbers, including significant increases in traffic since age-check laws came into force last summer.

Separately, Ofcom has issued a provisional decision concerning fapello.com, saying it has reasonable grounds to believe the provider is in breach of its duties under the Online Safety Act. Fapello can make representations before Ofcom reaches a final decision.

Ofcom also expanded its ongoing investigation into XGroovy to examine whether it failed to respond adequately to formal information requests from the regulator. The developments form part of wider UK enforcement efforts around online child safety, age assurance and platform accountability under the Online Safety Act.

Why does it matter?

The investigations show that Ofcom is moving from guidance to enforcement under the UK’s Online Safety Act, particularly for services hosting pornographic material. Age assurance has become a central test of the UK’s child online safety regime, with regulators assessing not only whether platforms have age checks in place, but whether those checks are effective enough to prevent children from readily accessing explicit content.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacyIf so, ask our Diplo chatbot!  

Data Protection Act regulations bring AI code requirement into force

The UK has brought into force regulations requiring the Information Commissioner to prepare a code of practice on the processing of personal data in relation to AI and automated decision-making.

The Data Protection Act 2018 (Code of Practice on Artificial Intelligence and Automated Decision-Making) Regulations 2026 were made on 16 April, laid before Parliament on 21 April, and came into force on 12 May. The regulations apply across England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Under the regulations, the Information Commissioner must prepare a code giving guidance on good practice in the processing of personal data under the UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018 when developing and using AI and automated decision-making systems.

The code must also include guidance on good practice in the processing of children’s personal data. Automated decision-making is defined by reference to provisions in the UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018 inserted through the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025.

The instrument also modifies the panel requirements for preparing or amending the code. Any panel established to consider the code must not consider or report on aspects relating to national security.

The explanatory note states that no full impact assessment was prepared for the instrument because the regulations themselves are not expected to have a significant impact on the private, voluntary or public sectors. The Information Commissioner must produce an impact assessment when preparing the code.

Why does it matter?

The regulations move UK guidance on AI, automated decision-making and personal data onto a statutory track. The eventual code could become an important reference point for organisations using AI systems that process personal data, particularly where automated decisions or children’s data are involved. For now, the main development is procedural: the Information Commissioner is required to prepare the code, while the practical compliance details will follow through that process.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech, and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!

Meta gives parents deeper insight into teen algorithms

Meta has introduced new supervision features designed to give parents greater visibility into the content shaping teenagers’ experiences on Instagram.

The updated tools allow parents and guardians to view the general topics their teens engage with through Instagram’s ‘Your Algorithm’ feature, which helps shape recommendations on Reels and Explore. Meta said parents in selected markets will soon receive notifications when teens add new interests, such as basketball, photography or musicals, helping explain why recommended content may change over time.

The company said the feature remains subject to existing teen safety protections and content restrictions already applied to Teen Accounts, including limits on certain content for users aged 13 and above and enforcement of Meta’s Community Standards.

Meta has also consolidated supervision tools for Instagram, Facebook, Messenger and Meta Horizon into a single Family Centre hub. Parents can now manage supervised accounts, safety settings and invitations across multiple apps without switching between separate platforms.

Meta said the number of US teens enrolled in supervision on Instagram has more than doubled over the past year. Additional updates planned for the coming months include aggregated activity insights, such as total time spent across Meta’s apps, to give families broader visibility into teen online habits.

Why does it matter?

The update shows how major platforms are responding to pressure for greater transparency around their recommendation systems, particularly regarding teenagers. While the tools do not reveal the full logic of Instagram’s algorithm, they give parents more visibility into the interest categories shaping teen content feeds and create another layer of oversight around personalised recommendations, screen time and online safety.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech, and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our chatbot!  

AI education guidelines updated by European Commission

Updated European Commission guidelines on the ethical use of AI and data in teaching and learning aim to help teachers and school leaders use the technology safely and responsibly in line with EU values.

The revised edition updates the Commission’s 2022 guidance to reflect the rapid growth of generative AI in education and the implications of the EU AI Act. The document is non-binding and is intended to support teachers, school leaders and education authorities, rather than serve as enforcement guidance on the AI Act.

AI tools can support lesson planning, personalised learning, assessment, feedback, school administration and the early identification of learning needs, according to the guidelines. At the same time, they warn that general-purpose AI tools were not designed specifically for education and may lack appropriate safeguards.

Ethical and legal considerations should not be treated as an add-on to AI use in schools, but as fundamental to how the technology is understood, adopted and applied, the Commission says. The guidelines highlight risks linked to bias, privacy, lack of transparency, over-reliance, academic integrity and the use of student data by commercial technology providers.

Rules under EU AI Act and the General Data Protection Regulation are also explained in the document. Some AI systems used for admissions, grading, behavioural monitoring, student progress tracking or detecting prohibited behaviour during tests may be classified as high-risk, while emotion recognition systems are prohibited in educational settings except for medical or safety-related reasons.

Key ethical considerations identified in the guidelines include human dignity, fairness, trustworthiness, academic integrity and justified choice. They also provide guiding questions for teachers and schools on human oversight, transparency, explainability, diversity, inclusion, privacy, safety and accountability.

Executive Vice-President Roxana Mînzatu says the ethical use of AI must remain the guiding principle and that teachers are ‘uniquely placed to act as ethical guardians for their students’. The Commission frames the update as part of wider EU work on digital education, skills, AI literacy and the future of education systems in the age of AI.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech, and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!