Five Canadian news companies have launched a lawsuit against OpenAI, claiming its AI systems violate copyright laws. Torstar, Postmedia, The Globe and Mail, The Canadian Press, and CBC/Radio-Canada allege the company uses their journalism without permission or compensation. The legal filing, made in Ontario’s superior court, seeks damages and a permanent ban on OpenAI using their materials unlawfully.
The companies argue that OpenAI has deliberately appropriated their intellectual property for commercial purposes. In their statement, they emphasised the public value of journalism and condemned OpenAI’s actions as illegal. OpenAI, however, defended its practices, stating that its models rely on publicly available data and comply with fair use and copyright principles. The firm also noted its efforts to collaborate with publishers and provide mechanisms for opting out.
The case follows a trend of lawsuits by various creators, including authors and artists, against AI companies over the use of copyrighted content, and the Canadian lawsuit does not name Microsoft, a major OpenAI backer. Separately, Elon Musk recently expanded a legal case accusing both companies of attempting to dominate the generative AI market unlawfully.
Oxford University Press has crowned ‘brain rot’ its Word of the Year, spotlighting concerns about the mental impact of consuming low-quality online content. Defined as the supposed decline in intellectual or mental acuity caused by excessive exposure to trivial material, the term has seen a 230% surge in use from 2023 to 2024, driven by social media trends.
The phrase has historical roots, first appearing in 1854 when American author Henry David Thoreau criticised society’s intellectual decay in his book Walden. However, it has gained new relevance in today’s digital age, particularly among younger generations. Oxford Professor Andrew Przybylski clarifies that ‘brain rot’ is less a diagnosis and more a reflection of collective anxieties about online life.
Casper Grathwohl, President of Oxford Languages, notes that the term reflects broader concerns about how digital culture shapes modern identity and leisure. Its selection follows last year’s winner, ‘rizz,’ highlighting how internet slang continues to influence language. Alongside ‘brain rot,’ contenders like ‘Romantasy’ and ‘dynamic pricing’ illustrate the blend of digital culture, economic trends, and evolving lifestyles shaping language today.
Australia has proposed a law to curb anti-competitive practices by major tech companies, including fines of up to A$50 million ($33 million) for suppressing competition or preventing consumers from switching services. The move builds on recent efforts by the Labor government to regulate Big Tech, including a ban on social media use for children under 16 passed last week.
Assistant Treasurer Stephen Jones highlighted the dominance of platforms like Apple, Google, and Meta, warning that their practices stifle innovation, limit consumer choice, and inflate costs. The proposed law, inspired by the European Union’s Digital Markets Act, aims to make it easier for users to switch between services such as social media platforms, internet browsers, and app stores.
The law would empower Australia’s competition regulator to enforce compliance, investigate digital market practices, and impose fines. It prioritises oversight of app stores and ad tech services, targeting practices like promoting low-rated apps and favouring in-house services over competitors. Consultation on the legislation will run until February 14, with further discussions to refine the draft.
Big Tech companies, which dominate Australia’s digital market, have yet to comment on the proposal. Government reports reveal Google controls up to 95% of online search, Apple’s App Store handles 60% of app downloads, and Facebook and Instagram account for 79% of social media services in the country.
Meta Platforms announced stricter regulations for advertisers promoting financial products and services in Australia, aiming to curb online scams. Following an October initiative where Meta removed 8,000 deceptive ‘celeb bait’ ads, the company now requires advertisers to verify beneficiary and payer details, including their Australian Financial Services License number, before running financial ads.
This move is part of Meta’s ongoing efforts to protect Australians from scams involving fake investment schemes using celebrity images. Verified advertisers must also display a “Paid for By” disclaimer, ensuring transparency in financial advertisements.
The updated policy follows a broader regulatory push in Australia, where the government recently abandoned plans to fine internet platforms for spreading misinformation. The crackdown on online platforms is part of a growing effort to assert Australian sovereignty over foreign tech companies, with a federal election looming.
Meta Platforms, the owner of Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp, is set to face trial in Spain in October 2025 over a €551 million ($582 million) lawsuit filed by 87 media companies. The complaint, led by the AMI media association, accuses Meta of unfair competition in advertising through its alleged misuse of user data from 2018 to 2023.
The media companies argue that Meta’s extensive data collection provides it with an unfair advantage in crafting personalised ads, violating EU data protection regulations. Prominent Spanish publishers, including El Pais owner Prisa and ABC publisher Vocento, are among the plaintiffs. A separate €160 million lawsuit against Meta was also filed by Spanish broadcasters last month on similar grounds.
The lawsuits are part of a broader effort by traditional media to push back against tech giants, which they claim undermine their revenue and fail to pay fair fees for content use. In response to similar challenges in other countries, Meta has restricted news sharing on its platforms and reduced its focus on news and political content in user feeds.
Meta has not yet commented on the Spanish lawsuits, which highlight ongoing tensions between digital platforms and legacy media seeking to safeguard their economic interests.
Australia‘s government is conducting a world-first trial to enforce its national social media ban for children under 16, focusing on age-checking technology. The trial, set to begin in January and run through March, will involve around 1,200 randomly selected Australians. It will help guide the development of effective age verification methods, as platforms like Meta, X (formerly Twitter), TikTok, and Snapchat must prove they are taking ‘reasonable steps’ to keep minors off their services or face fines of up to A$49.5 million ($32 million).
The trial is overseen by the Age Check Certification Scheme and will test several age-checking techniques, such as video selfies, document uploads for verification, and email cross-checking. Although platforms like YouTube are exempt, the trial is seen as a crucial step for setting a global precedent for online age restrictions, which many countries are now considering due to concerns about youth mental health and privacy.
The trial’s outcomes could influence how other nations approach enforcing age restrictions, despite concerns from some lawmakers and tech companies about privacy violations and free speech. The government has responded by ensuring that no personal data will be required without alternatives. The age-check process could significantly shape global efforts to regulate social media access for children in the coming years.
A recent investigation revealed that most top-selling mobile games in the UK fail to disclose the presence of loot boxes in their advertisements, despite regulations mandating transparency. Loot boxes, which provide randomised in-game items often obtained through payments, have drawn criticism for fostering addictive behaviors and targeting vulnerable groups, including children. Of the top 45 highest-grossing games analysed on Google Play, only two clearly mentioned loot boxes in their advertisements.
The UK Advertising Standards Authority, which oversees compliance, acknowledges the issue and promises further action but has faced criticism for its slow and limited enforcement. Critics argue that lax self-regulation within the gaming industry enables companies to prioritise profits over player well-being, particularly as loot boxes reportedly generate $15B annually.
Advocacy groups and researchers have voiced alarm over these findings, warning of long-term consequences. Zoë Osmond of GambleAware emphasised the risks of exposing children to gambling-like features in games, which could lead to harmful habits later in life. The gaming industry has so far resisted stricter government intervention, despite mounting evidence of non-compliance and harm.
Australia has passed a landmark law banning children under 16 from using social media, following a fast-moving push led by South Australian Premier Peter Malinauskas. The law, which takes effect in November 2025, aims to protect young people from the harmful effects of social media, including mental health issues linked to cyberbullying and body image problems. The bill has widespread support, with a government survey showing 77% of Australians backing the measure. However, it has sparked significant opposition from tech companies and privacy advocates, who argue that the law is rushed and could push young users to more dangerous parts of the internet.
The push for the national ban gained momentum after Malinauskas’s state-level initiative to restrict social media access for children under 14 in September. This led to a broader federal response, with Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s government introducing a nationwide version of the policy. The legislation eliminates parental discretion, meaning no child under 16 will be able to use social media without facing fines for platforms that fail to enforce the rules. This move contrasts with policies in countries like France and Florida, where minors can access social media with parental permission.
While the law has garnered support from most of Australia’s political leaders, it has faced strong criticism from social media companies like Meta and TikTok. These platforms warn that the law could drive teens to hidden corners of the internet and that the rushed process leaves many questions unanswered. Despite the backlash, the law passed with bipartisan support, and a trial of age-verification technology will begin in January to prepare for its full implementation.
The debate over the law highlights growing concerns worldwide about the impact of social media on young people. Although some critics argue that the law is an overreach, others believe it is a necessary step to protect children from online harm. With the law now in place, Australia has set a precedent that could inspire other countries grappling with similar issues.
Australia’s new law banning children under 16 from using social media has sparked strong criticism from major tech companies. The law, passed late on Thursday, targets platforms like Meta’s Instagram and Facebook, as well as TikTok, imposing fines of up to A$49.5 million for allowing minors to log in. Tech giants, including TikTok and Meta, argue that the legislation was rushed through parliament without adequate consultation and could have harmful unintended consequences, such as driving young users to less visible, more dangerous parts of the internet.
The law was introduced after a parliamentary inquiry into the harmful effects of social media on young people, with testimony from parents of children who had been bullied online. While the Australian government had warned tech companies about the impending legislation for months, the bill was fast-tracked in a chaotic final session of parliament. Critics, including Meta, have raised concerns about the lack of clear evidence linking social media to mental health issues and question the rushed process.
Despite the backlash, the law has strong political backing, and the government is set to begin a trial of enforcement methods in January, with the full ban expected to take effect by November 2025. Australia’s long-standing tensions with major US-based tech companies, including previous legislation requiring platforms to pay for news content, are also fueling the controversy. As the law moves forward, both industry representatives and lawmakers face challenges in determining how it will be practically implemented.
Microsoft and Atom Computing have announced a significant breakthrough in quantum computing that could revolutionise blockchain mining. The two companies developed a quantum system with 24 entangled logical qubits using just 80 physical qubits, setting a new record in quantum efficiency. This achievement could eventually lead to a transformation in the world of proof-of-work (PoW) blockchain mining, as quantum systems become capable of outperforming traditional mining methods.
The advancement is especially notable for its potential to impact the security of blockchain networks like Bitcoin, which rely on SHA-256 encryption. Quantum computers, by applying Grover’s Algorithm, could significantly speed up the process of solving the PoW puzzle, threatening the security measures that have safeguarded blockchain technology. While Grover’s Algorithm has shown promise in small-scale experiments, it has yet to be proven on the large scale required for cracking SHA-256 encryption.
Though the timeline for practical quantum mining remains uncertain, with experts predicting it could take 10 to 50 years, Atom Computing and Microsoft aim to bring a 1,000-qubit quantum computer to market as early as 2025. This breakthrough could drastically shorten the path to quantum systems capable of rivaling traditional mining rigs.
