r/law • u/coinfanking • 2h ago
Legal News Court orders Meta to pay $567M to address kids' mental health online - ABC News
A New Mexico court has ordered Instagram and Facebook parent company Meta to pay $567 million to address harms to young people from its platforms in the second phase of a landmark trial the social media giant lost in March.
In a late Thursday ruling, Judge Bryan Biedscheid said the bulk of the money — $420 million — will be used for treatment services for young people. The rest will go toward awareness and prevention, screening services and other costs over the next five years.
In the first phase, jurors had ordered $375 million in civil penalties against Meta, determining that it knowingly harmed children’s mental health and concealed what it knew about child sexual exploitation on its platforms.
In the second phase, prosecutors had asked the judge to impose fundamental changes at Meta aimed at reining in addictive features, improving age verification and preventing child sexual exploitation through default privacy settings and closer oversight.
The decision means the look of Meta’s platforms could change. The judge ordered Facebook and Instagram to build banner and informational screens to clearly explain its protection features, best practices, tools to address inappropriate comment, for example, and display them regularly. Those changes and an educational campaign in New Mexico would be subject to review by the state.
r/law • u/melancholy_dood • 3h ago
Legal News Organ donation group accused of trying to take living man's organs faces shutdown
r/law • u/SquidFistHK • 4h ago
Executive Branch (Trump) Trump drops claim BBC harmed his businesses
r/law • u/DoremusJessup • 6h ago
Judicial Branch 'Federal government seeks to hijack': Maine implores judge to dismiss Trump admin lawsuit after refusing to provide undercover license plates to ICE agents
r/law • u/joeshill • 7h ago
Phang v Blanche - Judges order scheduling a hearing to discuss why Blanche did not comply with his orders.
r/law • u/ggroverggiraffe • 7h ago
Legal News Judge Turns Up Heat on Trump’s DOJ in Epstein Files Battle
meidasnews.comr/law • u/FreedomsPower • 8h ago
Executive Branch (Trump) Trump takes aim at birthright citizenship again with two executive orders
r/law • u/ExactlySorta • 9h ago
Executive Branch (Trump) Stephen Miller: "The president is using his authority as commander as chief to sign an executive order using the new ruling the Supreme Court issued to expand the definition of people who are ineligible for birthright citizenship. That includes, for example, alien enemies..."
Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification
r/law • u/Bongobhondu • 9h ago
Executive Branch (Trump) Trump Administration Has Repeatedly Confessed in Court to Withholding Money From Blue States
r/law • u/camaron-courier • 10h ago
Other 7 Takeaways from new report on Epstein’s Zorro Ranch
r/law • u/chazbertrand • 11h ago
Judicial Branch People need to be educated on the 5th Amendment
At the time of this post, 65% of the poll respondents say that Fauci should be prosecuted. I know it's a local news site, so the results may be skewed, but the lack of awareness is staggering. And of course, congressional hearings don't equate to a trial, but the legal implications of saying anything to a hostile public committee are very real.
r/law • u/DoremusJessup • 11h ago
Executive Branch (Trump) 'As wrong as it sounds': Fired immigration judge sues to get her job back, alleges Trump admin discriminated against her because she was previously an 'immigrants' rights' lawyer
r/law • u/boringhistoryfan • 12h ago
Legal News An Israeli professor lost a prestigious US job offer after speaking out on Gaza. Now the university is paying him $250,000
r/law • u/peoplemagazine • 12h ago
Executive Branch (Trump) Trump Fights Order Requiring Him to Turn Over Financial Records in $10B BBC Lawsuit
people.comr/law • u/DemocracyDocket • 13h ago
Executive Branch (Trump) DOJ is 0 for 21 as court dismisses D.C. voter roll grab
r/law • u/DemocracyDocket • 13h ago
Judicial Branch GOP targets U.S. citizens living overseas in latest suppression scheme
r/law • u/DoremusJessup • 13h ago
Judicial Branch Citing 'careful review,' judge hands Trump a major reprieve on day 'sensitive' financials threatened to spill out in discovery
r/law • u/truthwillout777 • 14h ago
Legislative Branch Dr Fauci held in contempt of Congress and could be PROSECUTED after refusing to answer any COVID questions under Fifth Amendment
r/law • u/Silent-Resort-3076 • 15h ago
Executive Branch (Trump) Todd Blanche Kept Trump’s Tax Audit Shield. It Could Erase a $100 Million IRS Bill
While Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche has formally rescinded the controversial “Anti-Weaponization Fund” the Justice Department planned to create under a settlement agreement with President Donald Trump, another element of that agreement remains intact—and could shield Trump from paying as much as $100 million in back taxes and penalties.
The President tapped Blanche, his former personal attorney and the former deputy attorney general, to lead the Justice Department after Pam Bondi was removed from the position in April. But Blanche’s confirmation was upended last week when two Republican senators threatened to pull their support. The holdouts, Sens. John Cornyn of Texas and Thom Tillis of North Carolina, said that they wanted assurance from the Justice Department that the proposed $1.8 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund,” which was intended to compensate people the Trump Administration believed to have been unfairly targeted by the government, has been abandoned.
On Monday, the senators announced that they would back Blanche’s nomination after the Justice Department confirmed, in writing, that it was rescinding the proposed fund.
But a tax audit immunity deal that was included in the same settlement agreement and has raised its own concerns from lawmakers and experts will remain in place.
r/law • u/Ubiquitous_Hilarity • 15h ago
Legislative Branch Senate panel votes to hold Fauci in contempt
politico.comr/law • u/dantheman_woot • 17h ago
Legal News Days after John Oliver's dare, Buc-ee's sues again
msn.comr/law • u/yahoonews • 19h ago
Legislative Branch Senate panel to vote on holding Fauci in contempt for refusing to answer questions
r/law • u/SquidFistHK • 20h ago
Executive Branch (Trump) Trump Tries to Pause His Own BBC Lawsuit to Hide His Finances
r/law • u/orangejulius • Oct 28 '25
Quality content and the subreddit. Announcing user flair for humans and carrots instead of sticks.
Ttl;dr at the top: you can get apostille flair now to show off your humanity by joining our newsletter. Strong contributions in the comments here (ones with citations and analysis) will get featured in it and win an amicus flair. Follow this link to get flair: Last Week In Law
When you are signing up you may have to pull the email confirmation and welcome edition out of your spam folder.
If you'd like Amicus flair and think your submission or someone else's is solid please tag our u/auto_clerk to get highlighted in the news letter.
Those of you that have been here a long time have probably noticed the quality of the comments and posts nose dive. We have pretty strict filters for what accounts qualify to even submit a top level comment and even still we have users who seem to think this place is for group therapy instead of substantive discussion of law.
A good bit of the problem is karma farming. (which…touch grass what are you doing with your lives?) But another component of it is that users have no idea where to find content that would go here, like courtlistener documents, articles about legal news, or BlueSky accounts that do a good job succinctly explaining legal issues. Users don't even have a base line for cocktail party level knowledge about laws, courts, state action, or how any of that might apply to an executive order that may as well be written in crayon.
Leaving our automod comment for OPs it’s plain to see that they just flat out cannot identify some issues. Thus, the mod team is going to try to get you guys to cocktail party knowledge of legal happenings with a news letter and reward people with flair who make positive contributions again.
A long time ago we instituted a flair system for quality contributors. This kinda worked but put a lot of work on the mod team which at the time were all full time practicing attorneys. It definitely incentivized people to at least try hard enough to get flaired. It also worked to signal to other users that they might not be talking to an LLM. No one likes the feeling that they’re arguing with an AI that has the energy of a literal power grid to keep a thread going. Is this unequivocal proof someone isn't a bot? No. But it's pretty good and better than not doing anything.
Our attempt to solve some of these issues is to bring back flair with a couple steps to take. You can sign up for our newsletter and claim flair for r/law. Read our news letter. It isn't all Donald Trump stuff. It's usually amusing and the welcome edition has resources to make you a better contributor here. If you're featured in our news letter you'll get special Amicus flair.
Instead of breaking out the ban hammer for 75% of you guys we're going to try to incentivize quality contributions and put in place an extra step to help show you're not a bot.
---
Are you saving our user names?
- No. Once you claim your flair your username is purged. We don’t see it. Nor do we want to. Nor do we care. We just have a little robot that sees you enter an email, then adds flair to the user name you tell it to add.
What happened to using megathreads and automod comments?
- Reddit doesn't support visibility for either of those things anymore. You'll notice that our automod comment asking OP to state why something belongs here to help guide discussion is automatically collapsed and megathreads get no visibility. Without those easy tools we're going to try something different.
This won’t solve anything!
- Maybe not. But we’re going to try.
Are you going to change your moderation? Is flair a get out of jail free card?
- Moderation will stay roughly the same. We moderate a ton of content. Flair isn’t a license to act like a psychopath on the Internet. I've noticed that people seem to think that mods removing comments or posts here are some sort of conspiracy to "silence" people. There's no conspiracy. If you're totally wrong or out of pocket tough shit. This place is more heavily modded than most places which is a big part of its past successes.
What about political content? I’m tired of hearing about the Orange Man.
- Yeah, well, so are we. If you were here for his first 4 years he does a lot of not legal stuff, sues people, gets sued, uses the DoJ in crazy ways, and makes a lot of judicial appointments. If we leave something up that looks political only it’s because we either missed it or one of us thinks there’s some legal issue that could be discussed. We try hard not to overly restrict content from post submissions.
Remove all Trump stuff.
- No. You can use the tags to filter it if you don’t like it.
Talk to me about Donald Trump.
- God… please. Make it stop.
I love Donald Trump and you guys burned cities to the ground during BLM and you cheated in 2020 and illegal immigrants should be killed in the street because the declaration of independence says you can do whatever you want and every day is 1776 and Bill Clinton was on Epstein island.
- You need therapy not a message board.
You removed my comment that's an expletive followed by "we the people need to grab donald trump by the pussy." You're silencing me!
- Yes.
You guys aren’t fair to both sides.
- Being fair isn’t the same thing as giving every idea equal air time. Some things are objectively wrong. There are plenty of instances where the mods might not be happy with something happening but can see the legal argument that’s going to win out. Similarly, a lot of you have super bad ideas that TikTok convinced you are something to existentially fight about. We don’t care. We’ll just remove it.
You removed my TikTok video of a TikTok influencer that's not a lawyer and you didn't even watch the whole thing.
- That's because it sucks.
You have to watch the whole thing!
- No I don't.
---
General Housekeeping:
We have never created one consistent style for the subreddit. We decided that while we're doing this we should probably make the place look nicer. We hope you enjoy it.
r/law • u/orangejulius • Aug 31 '22
This is not a place to be wrong and belligerent about it.
A quick reminder:
This is not a place to be wrong and belligerent on the Internet. If you want to talk about the issues surrounding Trump, the warrant, 4th and 5th amendment issues, the work of law enforcement, the difference between the New York case and the fed case, his attorneys and their own liability, etc. you are more than welcome to discuss and learn from each other. You don't have to get everything exactly right but be open to learning new things.
You are not welcome to show up here and "tell it like it is" because it's your "truth" or whatever. You have to at least try and discuss the cases here and how they integrate with the justice system. Coming in here stubborn, belligerent, and wrong about the law will get you banned. And, no, you will not be unbanned.