A judge has ruled the US Department of Defense acted unlawfully when it designated artificial intelligence (AI) startup Anthropic a supply chain risk, calling the move “illegal and baseless”.
The company argued in the lawsuit that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth overstepped his authority with the new designation. It followed Anthropic’s refusal to allow the military to use its AI models for tasks including surveillance or autonomous weapons.
US District Judge Rita Lin said in the ruling that citing national security was “not a blank check to punish and retaliate against government critics”.
Anthropic welcomed the ruling. The BBC has contacted the Pentagon and the White House for comment.
Anthropic was focused on “working productively with the government to harness AI for our national security so all Americans benefit from this technology”, a spokesperson told the BBC.
Judge Lin said in the court filing that the Defense Department had acted unlawfully to order firms that do business with the US military to boycott Anthropic.
The Pentagon designated Anthropic as a supply-chain risk in February – a law typically reserved for companies based in countries that pose a threat to the US.
It marked the first time an American company had been publicly designated as such.
Anthropic’s lawsuit said the government’s actions were both “unprecedented and unlawful”.
The Claude maker said its models were not reliable enough to be safely used in weapons systems for the military. It added that it opposed its use for domestic surveillance as a violation of rights.
The Pentagon said at the time that private companies should not be able to constrain military action.
The White House had previously said Anthropic was “a radical left, woke company attempting to control military activity” and argued the military was beholden to the US Constitution, “not any woke AI company’s terms of service”.
The Pentagon also argued that Anthropic’s refusal to accept new contract terms raised concerns over what the company could do with its technology.
Anthropic said in its lawsuit that its business had been impacted by the government’s actions and its right to freedom of speech had been violated.
Judge Lin said during an earlier round in the lawsuit that the government was trying to “cripple” the company and “chill public debate” over military use of AI.
“This appears to be classic First Amendment retaliation,” the judge added.
‘Not far enough’ – US parents and teens on Meta’s new limits for young users
For Elizabeth Cardner, a mother of two girls in Houston, Texas, Meta’s new limits on how teenagers can use its platforms are a welcome sign that more people are aware of social media’s potential dangers.
But, she tells the BBC, they probably won’t help much in the long-term.
“It will save a few arguments at home, but it doesn’t go far enough,” she says.
This week, Meta announced new restrictions on its platforms – which include Instagram, Facebook and Whatsapp – as part of an $18bn (£13.25bn) settlement with US states in a lawsuit on social media’s effects on children.
The company said it would set a daily two-hour time limit, hide the number of likes that a post receives, remove autoplay on videos, mute push notifications during school hours, and ban extreme make-up filters.
It also announced changes to its age-verification process and parental controls as well as agreeing to appoint an independent auditor to check the measures are implemented and maintained.
Many parents across the US see the restrictions as helpful, but are still sceptical. Those who spoke to the BBC described feeling stuck – where they feel they can’t cut their children off from social media but also can’t protect them from the harms they believe it causes – and they are waiting to see how much of a difference these new rules will make.
Cardner’s 14-year-old, Paige, believes the restrictions will lead to “more real-life scenarios” and less “fake content”, which she says dominates social media. She and her sister both approve of hiding the numbers of likes and restricting filters.
But Paige sees those gains as short-lived, “since AI is evolving”.
“People will find new ways to have fake filters, and correct certain parts of their videos or pictures,” she says. “So I think it’ll help until people use other resources to try and find new ways to do that.”
Cardner says banning her daughters entirely from social media would only result in them being left out by their peers.
“Damned if you do, damned if you don’t,” she says. “I don’t think there’s any winning on it.”
Another mother of two teens, Andria Rose, told the BBC that she feels defenceless and “no matter how much I protect my kids, Facebook, Instagram – they’re coming in and literally, like, taking them out of their rooms”.
Even though she calls Meta’s changes “fantastic”, Rose, who lives near Boston, Massachusetts, doesn’t believe they are fully addressing the problem.
“They’re trying to limit the drug, but they’re not controlling the drug,” she says. “They’re still dealing.”
Rose notes her personal use of social media costs her sleep at night.
“I’m hooked,” she says. “So what do you think is going to happen to a kid?”
The settlement was announced on Wednesday in the middle of a highly-anticipated trial, where Meta owner Mark Zuckerberg was expected to testify. The settlement did not include any admission of fault.
The lawsuit was originally filed in 2023 by 29 US states, alleging Meta deliberately designed its platforms to be addictive and lied about risks. They also accused it of violating a federal law on collecting children’s personal information.
The settlement – announced this week – included 48 states, plus the District of Columbia and three US territories.
Several studies have found social media to be harmful to mental health, especially for children. Last year, a BBC investigation found children were being exposed to content about bullying, suicide and weapons on social media platforms.
For Rose, Meta’s settlement payment “is like throwing a couple of dollar bills at a problem”, given how much money the company makes and how much she believes the industry profited from children during the pandemic.
Joanie Story, a mother of four boys in Long Island, takes issue with another part of Meta’s announcement – its conditions involving other platforms.
The company will withhold $5bn of the settlement, and only release it if YouTube, TikTok and others also enter into similar agreements.
It also said it would further tighten its time limit to one hour if other platforms implement similar restrictions. Story sees that as “petty”.
“That’s like saying: ‘You know, we have the ability to fix what is broken, but we’re only gonna fix it halfway,’” she says.
Still, Story is greeting the new rules as “good controls”. She says she saw what a lack of controls could do when two of her sons were accidentally exposed to explicit content on a non-Meta platform. One boy has been in therapy for four years, she says.
“It’s almost like being abused,” says Story.
Mark SooHoo, a father of three who lives in the suburbs of Chicago, says social media and smartphones go hand-in-hand, and that both are harmful to young people.
He belongs to Wait Until 8th, an organisation where parents pledge to not give their kids smartphones until the end of eighth grade, when most have finished middle school and are 13 or 14 years old. Source: BBC
Never miss a moment! Get the stories shaping Nigeria, delivered straight to your phone. Follow Peoplesdaily Newspaper on WhatsApp for breaking news, exclusive reports, and the headlines everyone will be talking about, before anyone else.
