Talk of the Town
(NEW YORK) — Gasoline prices in the United States hit their highest level in four years on Tuesday as negotiations over the Iran war appeared to show little signs of a resolution.
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.
(LOS ANGELES) — A landmark trial over social media addiction has drawn fresh scrutiny to a decades-old legal shield: Section 230.
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 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 could be held liable for product design. Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg is testifying in the case on Wednesday.
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.
The tech giants are expected to challenge the plaintiff’s argument that there is a direct link between social media use and mental health issues. They may also invoke legal protection long-afforded by Section 230.
Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act protects social media platforms and other sites from legal liability that could result from content posted by users because they are not deemed to be publishers.
Plaintiffs have sought to circumvent that legal immunity in part by arguing that the platforms are addictive, which amounts to a defect in a product.
Section 230 grants broad protection for internet platforms, saying: “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”
Some tech giants, like Meta and Google, have supported reform of Section 230 that would raise the standard that platforms would need to meet in order to qualify for immunity. But the companies largely support preserving the law in some form to protect them from legal liability tied to user-generated content.
Section 230 has garnered backing from some free-speech advocacy groups such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF). The measure “protects internet users’ speech by protecting the online intermediaries we rely on,” EFF said in a blog post last week, praising Section 230 as “the legal support that sustains the internet as we know it.”
In 2023, the Supreme Court issued a pair of rulings that upheld Section 230, rejecting challenges from users alleging that harm had resulted from online posts.
One of the cases, Gonzalez v. Google LLC, concerned a lawsuit brought by the family of Nohemi Gonzalez, an American woman who was killed in an ISIS terrorist attack in Paris in 2015. The lawsuit against Google, the parent company of YouTube, alleged that YouTube recommended ISIS recruitment videos to users. The high court ruled against the plaintiffs.
Many Democrats argue that Section 230 allows platforms to evade accountability for allegedly permitting harmful or misleading content, claiming the rule lets platforms off the hook for policing too little speech.
Republicans have taken issue with what they consider big tech censorship, saying the legal protection allows the platforms to police too much speech without facing consequences.
In December, Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., introduced the Sunset Section 230 Act, which would remove the legal protection from federal law within two years. A bipartisan group of seven senators has signed onto the bill but it remains well short of a majority.
ABC News’ Shafiq Najib contributed to this report.
Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.
(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump on Thursday slapped 100% tariffs on some pharmaceutical products, ramping up his effort to boost U.S. drug manufacturing.
The move, in the form of an executive order, targets patented drugs that lack a “most favored nations” pricing agreement with the U.S. Under such agreements, companies ensure the U.S. will pay the same amount that other wealthy countries pay for similar medications.
Companies face a reduced levy if they agree to bring production to the U.S. or enter into pricing deals with the administration, the executive order says.
If companies commit to bring their manufacturing to America, then the tariff on their products will drop to 20%, the order notes.
In the event such companies also enter into a most-favored-nation agreement with the Department of Health and Human Services, then they can avert tariffs entirely while in the process of building a U.S.-based plant, according to the executive order.
Large companies, the executive order says, will receive a 120-day phase-in period before the tariffs take effect.
The fresh round of tariffs will exclude drugs made in some countries that previously entered into trade agreements with the U.S., including Switzerland, Japan, South Korea and the 27-member European Union, according to the order.
Pharmaceutical products from those countries will face a 15% tariff based on the terms of trade agreements reached with the U.S, the order notes.
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
ABC News’ Mary Kekatos contributed to this report.
Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.
(NEW YORK) — Stocks closed significantly higher on Wednesday, just hours after the U.S. and Iran announced a two-week ceasefire.
The Dow Jones Industrial average surged 1,325 points, or 2.8%, while the S&P 500 climbed 2.5%. The tech-heavy Nasdaq jumped 2.8%.
As part of the accord, Iran says it will allow tankers passage through the Strait of Hormuz, a vital shipping route for oil and gas, as long as they coordinate with the nation’s military.
Investors appeared optimistic that the agreement would ease one of the worst global oil shortages in decades, though the resumption of tanker traffic in the strait remained uncertain.
U.S. oil prices plummeted nearly 15% on Wednesday, registering at about $96 a barrel. Still, the price of oil remained well above pre-war levels of about $67 a barrel.
President Donald Trump touted the ceasefire in a social media post on Wednesday, saying there would be “no enrichment of Uranium,” despite the Iranians claiming that the U.S. agreed to its plan, which includes numerous concessions.
The president added that “the United States will, working with Iran, dig up and remove all of the deeply buried (B-2 Bombers) Nuclear ‘Dust.'”
The Iranian Supreme National Security Council’s statement on Tuesday included “acceptance of enrichment” in its 10-point plan.
Investors will likely pay close attention to a potential uptick in tanker traffic through the Strait of Hormuz.
Following Israeli attacks on Lebanon on Wednesday, oil tankers are suspended from passing through the strait, Iran’s semi-official Fars News Agency reported.
Typically, scores of ships carry a fifth of the world’s oil through the strait each day, but Iran effectively closed the passage over the course of the war. That oil shortage sent crude prices soaring, and it threatened far-reaching price increases that some economists feared could tip the U.S. economy into a recession.
ABC News’ David Brennan, Jon Haworth and Nadine El-Bawab contributed to this report.
Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.