Internet News

US Chief District Court Judge Bryan Biedscheid ordered Meta to pay $567 million into a New Mexico abatement fund. He refused to overtly order age verification across Facebook and Instagram. But then he ordered a narrower version of it, aimed at the accounts Meta's own systems predict belong to children under 13, which would ultimately lead to age verification anyway.

New Mexico Attorney General Raoul Torrez sued Meta and Mark Zuckerberg in 2023, alleging that the company failed to protect children from abuse, online solicitation and human trafficking. This legal action was addressed in two trials:

A Santa Fe jury in March found 75,000 violations of the state's Unfair Practices Act and imposed $375 million in civil penalties , the maximum state law allows. The jury determined that the company knowingly harmed children's mental health and concealed what it knew about child sexual exploitation on its platforms.

Now a second, bench asked whether the platforms are a public nuisance, and Biedscheid concluded that they are a significant contributing cause of the teen mental health crisis in New Mexico.

Torrez had asked the court to require Meta to apply various age-verification tools on its platforms , accurate to 99%, enough to keep under-13s off the apps entirely.

Because of the COPPA Rule, it is the Court's conclusion that it cannot order Meta to request children to submit personal data or be passively tracked online, even for age-verification purposes, Biedscheid wrote. But how would Meta know that an account belongs to someone under 13 without at the very least passively tracking them, what they write, say, and do?

What Biedscheid did order on age came from Meta. He adopted the company's own proposed relief, calling it far from ideal or sufficient and, all the same, most appropriate. Meta must keep improving its age assurance models in New Mexico using AI tools, and must attempt within two years to build a dedicated under-13-years-of-age prediction model. Where it cannot estimate a precise age, it must treat the user as under 13 or under 18 until they verify. And verify here likely means adults have to show ID to speak online, even though Judge Biedscheid said he wasn't mandating that.

Meta must also delete the personal information it has already collected on under-13s, and build a portal with schools or a child safety organization for flagging suspected underage accounts.

The money will be paid over five years, with $420 million of it going to treatment and the rest to awareness, prevention, screening, referral and evaluation. It comes on top of the March penalties.

 

Comment: The Meta Settlement: What It Means for Your Speech and Privacy

Under the teen safety provisions is a court-supervised identity system for every Facebook and Instagram user.

See article from reclaimthenet.org

Telegram founder and CEO Pavel Durov has once again spoken out against what he sees as France's unjust and politically motivated prosecution of him and his company. He said in a statement:

Two years ago, I was detained in Paris by police for 3 days -- the longest they can hold someone before charging them.

In an unprecedented move, French authorities accused the head of a major platform of crimes committed by its users.

That investigation is still ongoing, although it makes less sense with each passing year.

Why?

Because we now have extensive evidence that Telegram was neither worse than other popular platforms at moderation, nor the worst at cooperating with authorities.

So why was Telegram singled out?

Over the last two years, we have seen a pattern emerge in multiple countries: Telegram is quietly asked to grant political favors -- such as illegal censorship or surveillance. When we refuse, local media and non-governmental organizations launch orchestrated campaigns portraying Telegram as a cesspool of crime, from child pornography to terrorism.

Our moderation is no worse than that of other major platforms. Yet these campaigns instill the idea that Telegram should be persecuted or restricted.

Suddenly, officials start caring about crime and protecting children -- but only on platforms that reject their secret political demands. Platforms that accept such deals get away with almost anything -- including literally selling ads promoting child pornography.

Is the French investigation against me political? It certainly fits the pattern we see elsewhere, mostly in authoritarian countries. And it definitely raises questions.

In time, this investigation may itself be investigated -- especially now that Macron's war against free speech is facing pushback. This month, France's Constitutional Council struck down his social media ban for children under 15 on freedom-of-expression grounds.

In the end, freedom and truth will prevail

Fapello is an OnlyFans style adult website. It currently self blocks UK users but is available via VPN.

Ofcom provided details of its fine:

From 25 July 2025, section 12 of the Online Safety Act required Fapello to implement age verification and/or age estimation that is highly effective at determining whether a user is a child, in order to prevent children from encountering pornographic content on its service.

Ofcom has determined that Fapello has failed to comply with this requirement. During the period from 25 July 2025 to 26 November 2025 fapello.com did not implement age assurance measures. On 27 November 2025, Fapello implemented age assurance measures on fapello.com. On 13 January 2026, Fapello removed these age assurance methods and implemented a block to prevent UK users accessing the service and informed us of this change.

On 12 December 2025, Ofcom issued a statutory information request to Fapello requiring Fapello to provide information regarding its qualifying worldwide revenue (‘QWR’) and a complete list of all services operated by Fapello. To date, Ofcom has not received a substantive response to the Notice.

As a result of the above breaches, Ofcom is imposing the following:
• A single penalty of £30,000
• A requirement for Fapello to comply by taking immediate steps to provide the full legal name(s) of the entity and/or individual(s) with control.
• In the event of continuing non-compliance, Ofcom will impose a daily penalty at a rate of £200 per day starting from 9 July 2026 for a maximum of 60 days

On 13 January 2026, Fapello responded to Ofcom stating:

i) there is ‘no legal entity, registered company or corporate structure’ behind fapello.com, and that it is operated by the non-UK based author of the email;
ii) the revenue generated from fapello.com is ‘incidental’ as a small-scale operation, and Fapello is therefore unable to provide QWR; and
iii) Fapello had implemented a full geo-block to prevent UK users accessing fapello.com, and therefore Fapello asserted that the site no longer has links to the UK

Google is rolling out a new system that makes sideloading apps on Android more difficult.

This is happening on two fronts: one is the introduction of what Google calls advanced flow for installing apps from unverified developers and the other is a reminder that Google's controversial developer identity verification requirement is coming.

The first advanced flow is now here, and it makes the process of installing an app from outside Google Play and other major stores much more cumbersome, and therefore less appealing to the average user. Instead of just installing the app, the user must now click through multiple warnings, and then wait 24 hours before the first installation can proceed.

Google claims this is to preserve user choice but in reality, it looks like a way to scare users away from sideloading and route them to the Play Store instead.

The other announcement is a reminder that starting September 30, 2026, developers will have to verify their identity with Google if they want to distribute their apps on certified Android devices in Brazil, Indonesia, Singapore, and Thailand. This applies not only to those publishing their apps on the Play Store, but also those using third-party stores, such as the HONOR App Market, OPPO App Market, Galaxy Store, Palm Store, V-Appstore, and GetApps.

To verify their identity, developers will have to pay a $25 fee and provide their government-issued ID to Google.

The requirement will expand to more countries in 2027.

In an open letter to Google, a number of organizations, including the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Free Software Foundation, F-Droid, Article 19, Fastmail, and Vivaldi, condemned this move, saying that Google is overstepping its boundaries by imposing its rules on third-party stores. The letter said:

Developers who choose not to use Google's services should not be forced to register with, and submit to the judgement of, Google.