Photo of Wall Street (Matteo Colombo/Getty Images)
(NEW YORK) — Stocks slid on Monday morning in the first trading session since President Donald Trump announced a new 15% tariff on most imported goods, intensifying his effort to impose levies that were struck down by the Supreme Court.
The Dow Jones Industrial Average fell 90 points, or 0.1%, while the S&P 500 dropped 0.1%. The tech-heavy Nasdaq declined 0.1%.
Cryptocurrency prices tumbled in early trading on Monday. The price of bitcoin fell nearly 2%, putting it at about $66,075.
Gold prices jumped to their highest level in three weeks as investors sought the safe-heaven asset amid heightened uncertainty.
In a social media post on Monday, Trump reiterated his criticism of the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court, Trump said, “accidentally and unwittingly gave me, as President of the United States, far more powers and strength than I had prior.”
Trump retains the power to levy a 15% tariff for up to 150 days under the Trade Act of 1974, which allows the president to address trade disparities with other countries.
Hours after the Supreme Court ruling on Friday, Trump said he would sign an executive order enacting a new 10% “global tariff,” invoking authority under Section 122. On Saturday, Trump escalated the tariff to 15%.
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
Mark Zuckerberg (R), CEO of Meta testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee at the Dirksen Senate Office Building on January 31, 2024 in Washington, DC. (Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — Mark Zuckerberg is set to testify Wednesday in a landmark Los Angeles trial alleging that major social media platforms were intentionally designed to be addictive for children and teens.
The case, which began last Monday in Los Angeles County Superior Court, centers on claims against Meta — the parent company of Facebook and Instagram — and YouTube, which is owned by Google. Plaintiffs argue the companies knowingly built features that encouraged compulsive use among young users, contributing to long-term mental health harm.
The lawsuit was brought by a now-20-year-old woman identified as “Kaley” and her mother, who allege she was exposed to addictive design features as a child. Her lawyers claim she got hooked on social media apps starting as young as age 6. She says features like auto-scrolling got her addicted to the platforms — ultimately leading to anxiety, depression and body image issues.
In opening statements, the plaintiffs’ attorney Mark Lanier told the jury the case was “as easy as ABC,” which he said stood for “addicting the brains of children.”
The case is the first of more than 1,500 similar lawsuits nationwide to go before a jury, potentially setting a precedent for how tech companies are held liable for product design.
Zuckerberg has appeared before Congress multiple times to address concerns over youth safety and online harms, but Wednesday marks the first time he will testify before a jury on these claims. Legal experts say a verdict in favor of the plaintiff could weaken the broad liability protections tech companies have long relied on under Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, which shields platforms from responsibility for user-generated content.(cut)
Several parents of children who died by suicide or accidental harm linked to online trends are expected to attend the proceedings. Some previously watched Zuckerberg apologize during a 2024 Capitol Hill hearing, where he acknowledged families who said social media contributed to their children’s deaths.
The companies deny the allegations, arguing that mental health outcomes are shaped by a range of factors beyond social media use. They say they have implemented safeguards aimed at protecting young users, including parental controls and accounts designed specifically for teens.
In a statement to ABC News at the start of the trial, a Meta spokesperson said, “We strongly disagree with these allegations and are confident the evidence will show our longstanding commitment to supporting young people.”
Meta said that the company has made “meaningful changes” to its services, such as introducing accounts specifically for teenage users.
Zuckerberg’s appearance follows testimony last week from Instagram head Adam Mosseri, who disputed characterizing Instagram use as an “addiction,” while acknowledging what he described as “problematic use.”
Mosseri testified that there’s always a tradeoff between “safety and speech,” saying users don’t like it when they remove options from Instagram.
The Los Angeles trial is part of a broader wave of litigation targeting social media companies. Meta is also facing a separate child safety lawsuit in New Mexico, while lawsuits brought by school districts — modeled after tobacco litigation in the 1990s — are expected to head to trial later this year.
Social platforms Snapchat and TikTok were previously named in the lawsuit but reached settlements with the plaintiffs last month.
Mark Zuckerberg (R), CEO of Meta testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee at the Dirksen Senate Office Building on January 31, 2024 in Washington, DC. (Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — Mark Zuckerberg is set to testify Wednesday in a landmark Los Angeles trial alleging that major social media platforms were intentionally designed to be addictive for children and teens.
The case, which began last Monday in Los Angeles County Superior Court, centers on claims against Meta — the parent company of Facebook and Instagram — and YouTube, which is owned by Google. Plaintiffs argue the companies knowingly built features that encouraged compulsive use among young users, contributing to long-term mental health harm.
The lawsuit was brought by a now-20-year-old woman identified as “Kaley” and her mother, who allege she was exposed to addictive design features as a child. Her lawyers claim she got hooked on social media apps starting as young as age 6. She says features like auto-scrolling got her addicted to the platforms — ultimately leading to anxiety, depression and body image issues.
In opening statements, the plaintiffs’ attorney Mark Lanier told the jury the case was “as easy as ABC,” which he said stood for “addicting the brains of children.”
The case is the first of more than 1,500 similar lawsuits nationwide to go before a jury, potentially setting a precedent for how tech companies are held liable for product design.
Zuckerberg has appeared before Congress multiple times to address concerns over youth safety and online harms, but Wednesday marks the first time he will testify before a jury on these claims. Legal experts say a verdict in favor of the plaintiff could weaken the broad liability protections tech companies have long relied on under Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, which shields platforms from responsibility for user-generated content.(cut)
Several parents of children who died by suicide or accidental harm linked to online trends are expected to attend the proceedings. Some previously watched Zuckerberg apologize during a 2024 Capitol Hill hearing, where he acknowledged families who said social media contributed to their children’s deaths.
The companies deny the allegations, arguing that mental health outcomes are shaped by a range of factors beyond social media use. They say they have implemented safeguards aimed at protecting young users, including parental controls and accounts designed specifically for teens.
In a statement to ABC News at the start of the trial, a Meta spokesperson said, “We strongly disagree with these allegations and are confident the evidence will show our longstanding commitment to supporting young people.”
Meta said that the company has made “meaningful changes” to its services, such as introducing accounts specifically for teenage users.
Zuckerberg’s appearance follows testimony last week from Instagram head Adam Mosseri, who disputed characterizing Instagram use as an “addiction,” while acknowledging what he described as “problematic use.”
Mosseri testified that there’s always a tradeoff between “safety and speech,” saying users don’t like it when they remove options from Instagram.
The Los Angeles trial is part of a broader wave of litigation targeting social media companies. Meta is also facing a separate child safety lawsuit in New Mexico, while lawsuits brought by school districts — modeled after tobacco litigation in the 1990s — are expected to head to trial later this year.
Social platforms Snapchat and TikTok were previously named in the lawsuit but reached settlements with the plaintiffs last month.
Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro (center) is celebrated by participants at a rally marking the anniversary of a battle on the day Venezuelan opposition leader Machado was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. (Jesus Vargas/picture alliance via Getty Images)
(NEW YORK) — Oil prices jumped about 3% after President Donald Trump this week threatened to blockade all sanctioned oil tankers traveling in and out of Venezuela.
Venezuela, which has the largest known oil reserves in the world, exports hundreds of thousands of barrels of oil each day.
The threatened blockade risks a reduction of global oil supply and an amplification of geopolitical uncertainty — both of which could further push up oil prices and, in turn, pinch drivers at the pump, some analysts told ABC News.
But, they added, the effect on prices will likely remain muted unless the conflict escalates significantly, since Venezuela accounts for less than 1% of global oil output and most of its oil is sold on the black market.
Here’s what to know about what the threatened U.S. blockade means for oil and gasoline prices:
Where does the blockade stand and how has Venezuela responded? On Tuesday, Trump threatened what he called a “blockade” of all sanctioned oil tankers traveling in and out of Venezuela, ratcheting up pressure on the Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, whose government depends in part on revenue derived from oil sales.
“Venezuela is completely surrounded by the largest Armada ever assembled in the History of South America,” Trump wrote in a social media post. “It will only get bigger, and the shock to them will be like nothing they have ever seen before.”
A day later, Maduro said Venezuela would continue to trade oil, defying Trump’s threat.
“Trade in and out will continue — our oil and all our natural wealth that by the constitution and Bolivar’s legacy belongs — our wealth, our land, and our oil — to its only legitimate owner, which for centuries and centuries has been our sovereign people of Venezuela,” Maduro said on Wednesday, originally in Spanish.
The U.S. currently has 11 warships in the Caribbean — the most in decades — but even with an increased military presence, that would likely not be enough to put in place a blockade in the traditional sense, which involves sealing a country’s coastline completely and would effectively have been a declaration of war.
Why has the threatened blockade pushed up oil prices? The threatened blockade of sanctioned oil tankers drove up the U.S. West Texas Intermediate futures price — a key measure of U.S. oil prices — by about 3%, landing the price around $56.50 per barrel.
The measure had dropped to its lowest level since 2021 on Tuesday, just hours before Trump’s announcement. The dip in prices stemmed from a glut of oil alongside relatively slow global economic growth, which has constricted demand for fossil fuels.
“Everybody and their grandmother is bearish on oil prices,” Denton Cinquegrana, chief oil analyst at the Oil Price Information Service, told ABC News.
The threatened blockade disrupted those price doldrums, at least to a minor degree, some experts said.
Venezuela has exported about 749,000 barrels per day this year, with at least half that oil going to China, according to data from Kpler. That oil output amounts to less than 1% of global supply.
The news caused a “knee-jerk reaction” in oil markets due to heightened uncertainty tied to the U.S.-Venezuela conflict, Christopher Tang, a professor at the UCLA Anderson School of Management who studies supply chains, told ABC News. A continued standoff could push oil prices up to around $65 or $70 per barrel, but they’re unlikely to go much higher, Tang added.
“It’s not going to go up to $100 a barrel,” Tang said.
What could the threatened Venezuelan oil blockade mean for gas prices? A jump in oil prices typically brings about an ensuing uptick in the cost of gasoline at the pump, some experts said, since crude oil makes up the key ingredient in auto fuel.
“The single most important price driver of gasoline is crude oil. As crude oil goes up, we expect gasoline to go up,” Timothy Fitzgerald, a professor of business economics at the University of Tennessee who studies the petroleum industry, told ABC News.
The average price of a gallon of gas stands at about $2.88, which marks a 5% decline from a year earlier, AAA data showed. Gas prices are hovering near their lowest level in four years due in part to the low cost of crude oil.
