WORLD

CNN, MS NOW and Politico have expanded their legal challenge against US President Donald Trump's efforts to restrict their access to the White House, alleging that the administration has continued to penalise them over their news coverage despite a court order requiring their access to be restored.

In an amended complaint filed before a federal court in Washington, the three media organisations have asked a judge to prevent the White House from excluding their journalists from press pool assignments covering events in the Oval Office and aboard Air Force One. The press pool system allows a limited number of journalists to cover presidential activities in confined spaces and share their reports with other media organisations.

US District Judge Timothy Kelly has issued a series of orders since September 24 directing the Trump administration to restore White House access for journalists representing the three organisations. The orders followed the administration's earlier decision to bar the outlets from the White House.

However, the media companies contend that the administration has continued to exclude their journalists from certain areas despite the court's intervention. They argue that the restrictions violate the First Amendment to the US Constitution, which protects freedom of speech and the press.

Responding to the latest legal action, the White House defended its position, saying in a statement: "The Fake News has no place demanding a spot in the President’s Oval Office."

Bayer won a trial over claims by three women that its Roundup weedkiller caused their cancer, as the company awaited a separate court ruling on its proposed $7.25 billion settlement of thousands of other lawsuits involving the product.

The trial was an important test of the future of Roundup litigation following a US Supreme Court ruling in Bayer's favour that restricted the legal arguments available to plaintiffs. It comes as the German pharmaceutical and agrochemical group seeks to resolve tens of thousands of claims through a proposed settlement, which is under review by a Missouri state court judge in St Louis.

A jury in St Louis unanimously ruled in favour of Monsanto, the Bayer-owned company that manufactures Roundup, in the first case to go to trial following the Supreme Court's June ruling. The litigation has weighed heavily on Bayer since its 2018 acquisition of Monsanto, costing the company billions of dollars and putting pressure on its share price.

Bill Dodero, Bayer's US general counsel and global head of litigation, said the verdict demonstrated the difficulties plaintiffs could face in pursuing further claims following the Supreme Court decision.

The ruling, he said, should send a strong signal that plaintiffs seeking to continue their cases would face significant challenges in establishing the legal basis for their claims and presenting sufficient evidence to prove them in court.

Plaintiffs Sued in 2020

Theresa Aretino, Cynthia Fernandez and Betty Larkin filed their lawsuit against Monsanto in 2020 in St Louis, alleging that they had regularly used Roundup before developing non-Hodgkin lymphoma, a type of blood cancer. Their lawyers argued that the weedkiller was defectively designed, unreasonably dangerous and negligently marketed.

The three women are not participating in Bayer's proposed settlement. Fernandez died before the trial began.

Bayer has consistently denied that Roundup causes cancer, maintaining that decades of scientific studies have established the safety of glyphosate, the product's active ingredient.

The company faces approximately 65,000 claims in US state and federal courts from people who allege that they developed cancer after using Roundup at home or in the workplace.

Supreme Court Ruling Changes Legal Landscape

Before the Supreme Court ruling in June, most Roundup lawsuits centred on allegations that the product's label failed to warn consumers about potential cancer risks. The court, however, blocked this line of legal argument, holding that federal law requires manufacturers of herbicides to use the precise labelling approved by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

The EPA has concluded that Roundup's label does not require a cancer warning. This has significantly weakened a central argument used by plaintiffs seeking compensation from Bayer.

The legal implications of the decision, however, extend beyond warning-label claims. Bayer has argued that other grounds for liability, including defective design and negligence, are also barred by the Supreme Court's interpretation of federal law.

Plaintiffs' lawyers have disputed that position, maintaining that the ruling does not prevent them from pursuing claims based on the product's alleged defects or the company's conduct in manufacturing and marketing it.

The distinction is important because the outcome of this legal dispute could determine whether thousands of pending lawsuits can proceed, even if claims based on inadequate warnings are no longer available.

Scientific Debate Over Glyphosate Continues

The litigation also reflects a long-running scientific disagreement over the potential health risks of glyphosate.

The EPA has previously concluded that glyphosate is unlikely to be carcinogenic to humans, although the agency is currently conducting a fresh review of its safety.

In contrast, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), part of the World Health Organization, classified glyphosate in 2015 as 'probably carcinogenic to humans'. Bayer has challenged that assessment, describing it as an outlier opinion based on what it considers flawed methodology.

The different assessments have remained central to the controversy surrounding Roundup. While Bayer relies on regulatory findings and scientific studies supporting the safety of glyphosate, plaintiffs have cited research and expert opinions linking exposure to the chemical with certain cancers.

Settlement Could Reshape Bayer's Legal Exposure

The latest verdict comes at a critical stage in Bayer's efforts to contain the financial and legal consequences of the Roundup litigation. Its proposed $7.25 billion settlement is intended to resolve a substantial number of existing and potential claims, although it remains subject to judicial review.

The settlement proceedings are separate from the trial involving the three women, who have chosen not to participate in the proposed arrangement. The Missouri court's decision will therefore have significant implications for Bayer's broader strategy, but will not determine the outcome of every individual claim.

For Bayer, the combination of the Supreme Court ruling, the latest jury verdict and the proposed settlement could mark an important turning point in a legal dispute that has affected its finances and market valuation since the Monsanto acquisition.

However, the wider litigation is far from over. The extent to which plaintiffs can pursue alternative legal arguments, particularly those relating to product design and negligence, remains contested. The resolution of that issue could prove decisive in determining the scale of Bayer's continuing exposure to Roundup-related claims.

Cyber attacks on law firms and other legal industry entities have doubled since 2023, according to research published by cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike on Wednesday, amid growing concerns that threat actors are using agentic artificial intelligence (AI) to carry out increasingly sophisticated and efficient attacks.

CrowdStrike’s 2026 Legal Threat Landscape Report, covering the 12 months to August 2026, said cyber adversaries had named 455 legal entities on websites used to publish stolen data, a 39% increase from the previous year.

Law firms hold sensitive corporate communications, merger and acquisition details, intellectual property, government-related information and financial records, making them attractive targets for criminals seeking financial gain and strategic intelligence.

“What we’re seeing across the broader threat landscape, more and more threat actors are using agentic technology to democratise hacking,” said Adam Meyers, CrowdStrike’s senior vice-president for counter-adversary operations. “It’s going to get a lot worse before it gets better.”

Reuters has reported that a growing number of law firms have suffered cyber breaches in recent months, including Quinn Emanuel, WilmerHale and Seyfarth. CrowdStrike’s report did not identify any specific law firm, in-house legal department or legal industry vendor that had been compromised.

CrowdStrike, based in Austin, Texas, provides cybersecurity software to help businesses protect their computers, cloud systems, accounts and data from cyber attacks.

The report said threats came from a range of sources, including financially motivated cybercrime groups and state-sponsored adversaries. It warned that China-linked groups were likely to remain the biggest intelligence-gathering threat to the legal sector.

For the first time, the report identified an entity targeting software specifically designed for the legal industry. In that incident, hackers exploited a vulnerability in software used by law firms for timekeeping and billing.

In another incident in November, cybercriminals hired a Russian national to enter a US law firm while posing as an internal IT employee.

Several major law firms targeted in recent cyber attacks said they had been victims of social engineering, a form of attack in which criminals manipulate individuals into disclosing sensitive information or granting access to secure systems.

CrowdStrike recommended that law firms and other organisations in the sector strengthen multi-factor authentication and tighten controls over remote-access tools.

The report also called for stronger data-access governance, closer monitoring for unusual access to information and better preparation for data theft, extortion and disruptive cyber operations.

Two teenage plaintiffs who say social media caused serious mental health problems will take Meta Platforms and Snap to trial in Los Angeles on Wednesday, in the latest test of claims raised in thousands of US lawsuits over the impact of social media on young people.

The case is only the second involving individual plaintiffs to reach trial over allegations that social media companies deliberately designed their platforms to be addictive. The companies lost the first such trial in March, when a jury awarded $6 million in damages.

The plaintiffs, identified in court documents as S.J., a 16-year-old girl from Illinois, and K.D.B., an 18-year-old woman from Mississippi, said they began using YouTube at the age of three or four and other platforms at around nine. They allege that features such as autoplay and infinite scrolling encouraged compulsive use, contributing to depression, anxiety and eating disorders.

The trial begins with jury selection and is expected to last several weeks. Meta chief executive Mark Zuckerberg, Instagram head Adam Mosseri and Snap chief executive Evan Spiegel are expected to testify.

The plaintiffs initially sued TikTok and YouTube, owned by Alphabet, alongside Meta and Snap. Both companies reached settlements with the plaintiffs before the trial. The Illinois plaintiff also settled her claims against Meta. The proceedings will therefore cover both plaintiffs' claims against Snap and the Mississippi plaintiff's claims against Meta.

Meta and Snap have asked Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Carolyn Kuhl to separate the cases, arguing that a joint trial would risk confusing jurors by combining different sets of evidence. The judge has yet to rule on the request.

A Young Person's Mental Health

A Meta spokesperson said the company disagreed with the allegations and had spent a decade developing protections across its platforms, including Instagram and Facebook.

"A young person's mental health is shaped by many factors, as the evidence in this trial will show," the spokesperson said in a statement. "The plaintiff used TikTok far more than Instagram or Facebook, and her personal circumstances were a substantial factor in her struggles."

A Snap spokesperson argued that Snapchat differed from conventional social media platforms because it did not open with a feed or a ranking of other people's posts. The company had also introduced safeguards to protect users, the spokesperson said.

"We believe the evidence will support that we have put our community first, and that these allegations fundamentally misrepresent their experiences on Snapchat and how our platform was designed," the spokesperson added.

Emily Jeffcott, a lawyer representing the Mississippi plaintiff, said before the trial that she looked forward to explaining to the jury the risks associated with features such as endless feeds, autoplay and streaks, which encourage users to maintain consecutive days of activity.

She alleged that Meta, and Snap as well, had implemented and promoted such features in ways that contributed to the plaintiffs' experiences.

A Test Case For Thousands Of Claims

S.J. and K.D.B. filed their lawsuits in 2023. Both described spending hours scrolling through social media late at night, struggling to concentrate in class and engaging in self-harm using methods they had seen in social media videos. They are seeking unspecified compensatory and punitive damages.

Their cases form part of a wider group of more than 3,000 lawsuits brought by individuals and others that have been consolidated in Los Angeles Superior Court. The cases have been selected as bellwethers, or test cases, meaning their outcomes could influence negotiations and the resolution of other claims.

Social media companies have denied designing their platforms to addict young users, maintaining that they have taken steps to improve safety for children and teenagers. They have also argued that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a 1996 federal law that generally shields online platforms from liability for user-generated content, protects them from the claims.

The trial judge rejected the argument that Section 230 automatically bars claims concerning platform design, allowing the two cases to proceed.

In the March trial, a Los Angeles jury found Meta and YouTube negligent in a case brought by a young woman identified in court documents as Kaley G.M. Several other cases have been scheduled for trial since then, but companies have settled some claims, while plaintiffs have withdrawn others.

School Districts And States Join Legal Fight

More than 3,800 lawsuits brought by states, school districts and individuals over similar allegations remain pending in federal court in California, according to court records.

In August, Meta reached settlements worth up to $18 billion to resolve claims brought by nearly every US state and territory concerning the impact of its platforms on teenagers' mental health. As part of the agreement, the company committed to changing how teenagers can access Instagram and Facebook.

Following the settlement, members of Meta's senior legal team told reporters that the company considered individual and school district lawsuits more difficult to defend against at trial than cases brought by states. The former require plaintiffs to establish a direct link between particular harm and the company's social media platforms, they said.

Meta is appealing the March verdict, arguing that Section 230 should have prevented the claims brought by Kaley G.M. from proceeding.

A ruling in Meta's favour on that issue could undermine thousands of lawsuits concerning young people's mental health and protect the company from billions of dollars in potential liability. Experts have warned that the financial exposure identified by the company could pose a serious threat to its future.

The latest trial will test whether plaintiffs can persuade a jury that the design of social media platforms contributed directly to their mental health problems, despite the companies' arguments that individual circumstances and other factors must also be considered. Its outcome could help determine the legal and financial stakes of a growing challenge to the technology industry's approach to young users.

A group of companies and other entities holding copyrights to songs recorded by Elvis Presley has sued artificial intelligence company Anthropic in a California federal court, alleging that it used the singer’s work without permission to train its Claude chatbot.

The plaintiffs, including Authentic Brands Group, filed the lawsuit on Friday, claiming that Anthropic’s alleged unauthorised use of Presley’s lyrics and musical compositions infringed their copyrights. They are seeking $41.1 million in damages.

“We disagree with the claims and intend to defend this case fully,” an Anthropic spokesperson said on Monday.

The lawsuit adds to a growing number of high-profile legal disputes between copyright owners and technology companies, including Anthropic, OpenAI and Meta Platforms, over the use of protected material to train artificial intelligence systems.

Anthropic reached a settlement last year in a copyright lawsuit brought by a group of authors who accused the company of using their books without permission to train its AI models. A judge granted final approval to the $1.5 billion settlement in July.

The company is also facing separate legal action from music publishers, including Universal Music Group, which allege that Anthropic misused song lyrics by Beyoncé, the Rolling Stones, the Beach Boys and other artists to train Claude.

Anthropic publicly announced its long-awaited application for an initial public offering in the United States on Monday.

Twenty-one US states and the District of Columbia sued President Donald Trump’s administration on Tuesday over its rollback of corporate ownership reporting requirements introduced under a 2021 law aimed at combating illicit finance.

The administration finalised a rule in August exempting US companies and individuals from reporting beneficial ownership information to the Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), reversing key requirements under the Corporate Transparency Act.

In their lawsuit, the coalition of mostly Democratic-led states asked a federal court to overturn the rule, which they said formed part of a broader effort by the administration to weaken anti-corruption measures.

“The executive branch cannot repeal a law by rulemaking. That fundamental principle resolves this case,” the lawsuit said. It was filed in the US District Court for the District of Oregon.

The complaint argued that the administration had effectively gutted the 2021 law by exempting more than 99.9% of the companies originally required to disclose information about their owners.

The defendants include US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, the Treasury Department and FinCEN. The heads of the Justice and Homeland Security departments were also named.

When the rule was announced in August, Bessent described it as a measure to eliminate a burdensome reporting requirement for millions of law-abiding business owners without compromising national security.

New York Attorney General Letitia James, one of the officials leading the legal challenge, said the administration had effectively overturned the law by exempting domestic companies and US owners of foreign companies from its requirements.

She said the changes would allow the actual owners of domestic and foreign shell companies to remain anonymous.

US Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, the senior Democrat on the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, warned in August that the rollback could increase the risks of sanctions evasion, fraud, drug trafficking, sex trafficking and organised crime.

A US magistrate judge in Manhattan has paused evidence-gathering on The New York Times’ claim that the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) violated the newspaper’s constitutional rights by suing it over its decision to pass over a white man for a senior editorial role.

Magistrate Judge Robyn Tarnofsky said on Monday that discovery on the newspaper’s counterclaims should be suspended until the court rules on the EEOC’s motion to dismiss them.

The judge said the agency had presented substantial arguments in defence of its lawsuit that should be considered before evidence-gathering on the counterclaims proceeds. The EEOC’s underlying discrimination lawsuit against the newspaper can continue, Tarnofsky said.

The Times had argued that it would be inefficient to suspend discovery on its counterclaims while allowing the agency’s case to proceed, as both disputes involve overlapping facts.

The newspaper filed its counterclaim alleging that the EEOC had targeted it in retaliation for coverage critical of US President Donald Trump’s administration.

The agency sued the Times in May, accusing it of racial and sex discrimination in its pursuit of workplace diversity goals. The case centres on the newspaper’s decision to appoint a multiracial woman to a deputy real estate editor position rather than a white male employee who had sought the promotion.

The EEOC alleges that the newspaper’s diversity objectives influenced the hiring decision and that the employee was unlawfully denied the opportunity because of his race or sex.

The Times has denied wrongdoing and challenged the agency’s actions, arguing that the lawsuit was politically motivated and infringed its constitutional rights, including protections for free speech and due process.

The dispute is part of a broader campaign by the Trump administration against diversity, equity and inclusion policies in the private sector, government and education.

The case, EEOC v. The New York Times Company, is being heard in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Rock musician Neil Young has filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against a political committee associated with US President Donald Trump, alleging that it used his song ‘Rockin’ in the Free World’ without authorisation at a campaign rally.

The lawsuit was filed on Monday in a federal court in Virginia against the Trump 47 Committee, which Young alleges played the 1989 song before Trump took the stage at a rally in Youngstown, Ohio, on October 12, in support of Republican candidates in the midterm elections.

Young’s complaint argues that the song was used without a licence. It also describes the track as a work that contrasts political rhetoric with the harsh realities faced by disadvantaged people, arguing that its message is fundamentally opposed to Trump’s political stance.

White House spokespeople did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the complaint.

Young previously sued Trump’s campaign in 2020 over the alleged unauthorised use of ‘Rockin’ in the Free World’ and another song at campaign rallies. According to the latest complaint, the campaign agreed, as part of a settlement later that year, not to use ‘Rockin’ in the Free World’ again without a licence.

Young is now seeking $10 million in damages over the latest alleged infringement.

The case, Young v. Trump 47 Committee Inc., has been filed in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia under case number 3:26-cv-01398.

The Supreme Court has reiterated that prolonged pre-trial detention cannot be allowed to become punishment without trial, emphasising that an accused person’s right to personal liberty and a speedy trial is protected under Article 21 of the Constitution.

A Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu made the observation in Mahesh Chandra Joshi v. State of Rajasthan, while granting bail to Mahesh Chandra Joshi and Mukesh Pathak in a corruption case involving allegations of forged documents used to secure contracts worth ₹979.45 crore under Rajasthan’s Jal Jeevan Mission.

“As repeatedly emphasised by this Court, prolonged pre-trial detention cannot be permitted to degenerate into punishment without trial in derogation of an undertrial’s Fundamental Right to personal liberty and speedy trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution,” the Court held in its order dated October 16.

The Court acknowledged the gravity of the allegations but stressed that their seriousness alone could not justify keeping an accused in custody indefinitely.

“The gravity of the allegations, however serious, cannot by itself eclipse all other considerations governing the grant of bail or justify indefinite pre-trial detention,” the Bench observed.

The case arose from an Anti-Corruption Bureau investigation into alleged irregularities in tenders issued by Rajasthan’s Public Health Engineering Department.

According to the prosecution, two firms, Shri Ganpati Tubewell Company and Shree Shyam Tubewell Company, allegedly used fabricated work-completion certificates and letters of acceptance purportedly issued by IRCON International Limited to participate in tenders between 2021 and 2023.

The prosecution further alleged that the firms acted in collusion with public servants and private individuals to secure 104 work orders. An FIR was registered on October 30, 2024.

Joshi and Pathak were subsequently arrested. The Rajasthan High Court rejected their regular bail applications on August 13, 2026, prompting them to approach the Supreme Court.

While acknowledging that the allegations of financial irregularities and collusion in a public welfare project were serious, the Supreme Court identified several factors that weighed in favour of granting bail.

The Bench noted that the investigation against both appellants had been completed and chargesheets had been filed. As the documentary and electronic evidence had already been seized, the risk of tampering with evidence was substantially reduced. The Court also found no requirement for further custodial interrogation or recovery.

The period of incarceration was another consideration. Joshi, aged about 72, had spent more than five months in custody in the present case, while Pathak had been imprisoned for nearly eight months. The Court also noted that both men had secured bail in connected proceedings arising from the same underlying allegations.

The Bench further considered the likely duration of the trial, taking into account the extensive volume of evidence and the number of people involved. The case includes 22 accused, three chargesheets, 124 prosecution witnesses and 192 documents running to more than 20,000 pages.

Charges had not yet been framed and the trial had not commenced. Given the scale of the evidence and the number of witnesses, the proceedings were likely to take considerable time, the Court observed.

The Bench also took note of the fact that several co-accused had been granted bail or interim protection. Assessing these circumstances collectively, it concluded that further incarceration of the appellants was neither warranted nor necessary.

The Supreme Court accordingly set aside the High Court’s order insofar as it concerned Joshi and Pathak and directed their release on bail.

A federal judge on Thursday ordered Donald Trump to sit for a deposition by December 11 in his $10 billion defamation lawsuit against the BBC, which has accused the US president of delaying proceedings to avoid answering questions under oath.

Trump is suing Britain’s publicly funded broadcaster for at least $10 billion over a misleadingly edited clip of a speech. The case is one of several lawsuits Trump has privately filed against news organisations as part of a wider campaign to challenge media coverage he dislikes.

US Magistrate Judge Enjolique Lett ordered Trump to answer questions under oath from the BBC’s lawyers, according to a spokesman for Trump’s personal legal team. The ruling was delivered from the bench at a court hearing on Thursday. Trump cancelled a deposition scheduled for October, citing conflicts with his presidential duties.

A spokesman for Trump said the lawsuit was intended to hold the BBC accountable for defamation and “reckless election interference”.

The BBC declined to comment. It has previously acknowledged that the edits were misleading and apologised to Trump, while denying liability for defamation.

Trump’s lawsuit, filed in December in a federal court in Florida, accuses the BBC of deliberately misleading viewers into believing he had directed supporters to storm the US Capitol by splicing together separate portions of a speech delivered on January 6, 2021.

In court filings, the broadcaster has accused Trump and his lawyers of delaying their responses to requests for records and other information exchanged between parties during discovery, the pre-trial process through which litigants obtain evidence from each other.

The BBC is seeking financial records from Trump’s Mar-a-Lago club and the network of business entities associated with him. It argues that the information is necessary to defend itself against Trump’s claims for damages.

Trump’s lawyers have argued that the requests are overly broad and irrelevant to the case. They have also denied in court filings that the president is seeking to avoid a deposition, maintaining that his official duties and security requirements must take priority.

The edited speech appeared in a BBC Panorama documentary shortly before the 2024 US presidential election, which Trump won. A leaked internal BBC memo cited the edits as evidence of potential political bias, triggering a public relations crisis for the broadcaster and prompting high-level resignations.