Friday, June 5, 2026
Home Blog Page 11

Public notice

NOTICE OF CONFISCATION OF FUNDS HELD BY THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO UNCLAIMED FOR THREE YEARS PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 50050 – 50056 OF THE GOVERNMENT CODE.

By means of this notice, the City and County of San Francisco (the “City”) informs the public that, pursuant to section 50050 of the Government Code, funds belonging to the San Francisco City Option Program (“SF City Option”) held in the City Treasury bank account under the name “Fund 29050 DPH HCSO”, which have remained unclaimed, in the total amount of $3,xxx,xxx, and that on May 22, 2026, a date between 45 days and no more than 60 days after the first publication of this notice, any unclaimed funds will become the property of the City, unless one of the following four actions (the “Criteria”) occurs:

(1) The account holder, or a person legally authorized by the account holder, calls the SF City Option Customer Service Center at 1 (877) 772 – 0415 and requests to keep the account active; or

(2) The claimant’s account receives a new contribution from an employer; or

(3) A claim for reimbursement is submitted to SF City Option as set forth at https://sfcityoption.org/sfmra/do-i-have-funds/; or

(4) An enrollment form for an SF Medical Reimbursement Account (“SF MRA”) is submitted to the SF City Option administration by one of the following means:

(a) an online form available at https://sfcityoption.org/sfmra/enroll-in-sf-mra/ after identifying available funds on that program website,

(b) mailing to “SF City Option, P.O. Box 194367, San Francisco, CA 94119”, or

(c) emailing “info@sfcityoption.org”. An interested party wishing to claim, in whole or in part, may check the availability of funds at https://sfcityoption.org/sfmra/do-i-have-funds/ (the “Funds Search”).

A breakdown by name and amount can be found at https://etaxstatement.sfgov.org/Escheatments/sfco.aspx or by calling the SF City Option Customer Service Center at 1 (877) 772-0415.

Instructions for opening or resetting an account, or for filing a refund claim, are available on the SF City Option website at https://sfcityoption.org/es/sfmra/ or by contacting the SF City Option Customer Service Center at 1 (877) 772-0415 or info@sfcityoption.org.

CNSB # 3975417

spot_img

Vacancies on boards or committees of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors

Join a board or committee!

The Appraisal Appeals Board (AAB)

The AAB resolves legal and valuation issues between the Bureau of the Appraiser and real estate owners. Hearings are quasi-judicial in nature and are conducted similarly to a court proceeding, with the presentation of evidence and testimony by the parties involved. The Board then evaluates this evidence and testimony and issues its decision. To be eligible for appointment, you must have a minimum of five years of professional experience in California in one of the following areas: (1) Certified Public Accountant; (2) Real Estate Broker; (3) Attorney; or (4) Real Estate Appraiser accredited by a nationally recognized organization, or certified by the Bureau of Real Estate Appraisers or the State Board of Equalization.

For a complete list of current and upcoming boards, commissions, and task forces, please visit https://sfbos.org/vacancy-boards-commissions-task-forces.

Want to work for the city?

Visit https://careers.sf.gov/ and find the perfect job for you!

Department Announcements

Child Support Services

Child support issues can be complicated, stressful, and confusing. The Department of Child Support Services helps parents understand the process so they know their rights and options for making and receiving support payments. We are available to assist you in person or by phone. We also offer virtual services. Call us today at (866) 901-3212 to learn more. Register online or schedule an appointment at sf.gov/dcss to find out how we can help you.

Emergency Management Department

sf.gov/ReadySF — The place to find everything you need to know before, during, and after an emergency. Be prepared, so you don’t have to be. Brought to you by the San Francisco Department of Emergency Management (DEM).

Office of Civic Engagement and Immigrant Affairs.

Resources for Immigrants in San Francisco.

The SF Immigrant Forum is an online resource for immigrants of all backgrounds and immigration statuses in San Francisco. This site includes resources for obtaining free or low-cost immigration legal assistance, information on health care and public benefits, information about your rights, upcoming events, and much more!

Connect with the trusted resources you need: sf.gov/immigrants

Civil Grand Jury

Apply to serve on the Civilian Grand Jury.

Volunteer to make a difference for all San Francisco residents.

We are now accepting applications for the 2026-2027 Civil Grand Jury through May 1, 2026.

The Civil Grand Jury consists of 19 members randomly selected from a pool of candidates who volunteer to serve for a one-year term, from July 1 to June 30 of the following year.

Qualified applicants will be invited to participate in the selection process. During the selection, a panel of Superior Court judges will interview each applicant and recommend the most qualified candidates to join the pool from which the 19 Civil Grand Jury members will be randomly selected.

For more information and to apply, please visit our website: https://www.sf.gov/apply-join-civil-grand-jury

Housing Authority

Housing Choice Voucher Program (Section 8) — Seeking New Landlords The San Francisco City and County Housing Authority (the Authority) is actively seeking new property owners to participate in the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) Program. This program provides housing assistance to eligible individuals and families by paying a portion of their rent to private landlords.

Key benefits:

1. Guaranteed monthly rent: Landlords can count on timely rent payments through direct deposit by the Authority.

2. Larger tenant pool: Landlords gain access to a wider pool of potential tenants.

3. Community impact: Partnering with the Authority supports affordable housing and the community.

We are interested in expanding housing opportunities in San Francisco zip codes 94129, 94123, 94105, 94127, 94114, 94131, 94116, 94118, 94158, 94122, 94107, 94117, 94112, and 94121, as well as in adjacent suburban areas. For more information, please contact us at customercare@sfha.org or visit www.sfha.org.

The City and County of San Francisco encourage public outreach. Articles are translated into multiple languages ​​to provide better public access. The newspaper makes every effort to accurately translate articles of general interest. The City and County of San Francisco and the newspapers assume no responsibility for errors and omissions.

spot_img

Teatro Brava presents “Al Compás Flamenco”

Carola Zertuche, artistic director and choreographer, will be giving a demonstration of flamenco. (Courtesy: https://www.theatreflamenco.org/) -- Carola Zertuche, directora artística y coreógrafa estará dando una demostración del buen flamenco.

By Magdy Zara

As part of its 2026 spring season, Teatro Brava presents “Al Compás del Flamenco,” a show featuring dynamic choreography, live music, and the very spirit of flamenco on stage.

Don’t miss this vibrant celebration of flamenco as the Teatro Flamenco de San Francisco takes the stage.

Under the masterful artistic direction of Carola Zertuche, enjoy an unforgettable evening where passion, skill, and artistic expression merge in a captivating display of flamenco art. Talented dancers will be the stars, captivating the audience with their dedication and style, weaving a fascinating story that celebrates the rich traditions of this vibrant dance.

One of the main features of this event is the diverse range of performances, from beginners to advanced students and semi-professionals, allowing the audience to witness a wide array of talent on stage. The music will be provided by professional musicians, who will create an authentic and immersive flamenco experience.

The talented Carola Zertuche, artistic director and choreographer, will also be performing, delighting the audience with her artistic brilliance on stage.

The event takes place this Sunday, May 3rd, from 12 p.m. to 5 p.m. at the Brava Theater Center in San Francisco, located at 2781 24th Street, San Francisco.

Tickets start at $28.52.

For more information, visit their website: https://www.theatreflamenco.org

Don’t miss this unforgettable experience full of rhythm, movement, and tradition.

The Ramp returns with its Salsa Saturdays

The Ramp offers Latin music, food, and VIP beverage service, all in one place, where you can dance to Latin music in the Bay Area’s largest open-air venue. The Ramp is an iconic and charming restaurant located on the riverfront in San Francisco’s Dogpatch neighborhood.

This and every Saturday, enjoy a dance floor, live music and DJs, plus fun salsa lessons.

This Saturday, the 4th, starting at 6 p.m., at The Ramp, located at 855 Terry Francois St., San Francisco.

MACLA Launches 2026 Exhibition and Auction

The Movement of Latin American Art and Culture (MACLA) is launching an exhibition of contemporary Latinx art from the Bay Area and beyond.

The artists’ works reflect contemporary issues, themes, and perspectives that resonate with the present moment. This exhibition culminates in an art auction, MACLA’s annual fundraising celebration. The gallery is open Wednesday through Sunday from noon to 5 p.m. and is located at 510 South 1st Street in San Jose. The exhibition will be open to the public from April 3 to May 16, 2026.

spot_img

When getting sick becomes a financial risk: rethinking America’s medical system

Marvin Ramírez, editor

by Marvin Ramírez

There is a question many Americans are beginning to ask: is the medical system in the United States serving patients, or has it become something else entirely?

For many, the answer comes not from politics, but from experience.

Consider a simple case. A person walks into Sequoia Hospital with a rash—uncomfortable, urgent, but not life-threatening. Within minutes, a nurse sees the patient, followed by a doctor who keeps his distance, offers a quick diagnosis, and writes a prescription. No tests. No physical examination. The prescription itself costs only a few dollars.

Weeks later, the bill arrives: more than $1,200.

That moment—when a minor visit produces a major charge—is where trust begins to erode.

The problem is not that doctors should not be paid. The problem is proportionality. When the service provided does not match the cost charged, patients begin to feel less like people and more like transactions.

And this is not an isolated experience.

Across the country, medical debt has become a defining feature of the healthcare system. Roughly 41 percent of working-age Americans struggle to pay medical bills. Illness itself has become a financial hazard.

The situation described in Colorado reflects this reality. Hundreds of thousands of residents have medical debt in collections. Some have had wages garnished. Others have faced liens on their homes. One woman, despite having insurance, accumulated thousands in debt after her child needed emergency surgery. When she couldn’t pay, her wages were seized, pushing her toward eviction and long-term loans.

This is not simply a billing issue. It is a structural problem.

Medical debt does not behave like other forms of debt. People do not choose to get sick. They are not given clear pricing before treatment. Yet once the bill arrives, the system treats them as if they made a consumer choice.

Experts argue this framing is flawed. Medical debt is often the result of hidden pricing, billing errors, and a system that prioritizes revenue over clarity. Studies suggest that many bills contain errors, and that some debts should have been covered under assistance programs.

This leads to a deeper concern: enforcement.

Hospitals and collection agencies rely on legal mechanisms to recover payments. Courts issue judgments. Wages are garnished. Property liens are imposed. What begins as a medical issue becomes a long-term financial burden.

The consequences extend beyond finances. People with medical debt are more likely to delay or avoid care. The system, intended to promote health, begins to undermine it.

This is where public policy enters the conversation.

A proposal in Colorado aims to prevent the most severe outcomes—protecting wages, limiting asset seizure, and prohibiting liens on primary homes. The principle is simple: no one should lose their house because they got sick.

That idea resonates far beyond one state.

There is growing support for reforms that would shield patients from aggressive collection practices and improve transparency. Some argue these changes should be national.

Yet reform is complicated. Hospitals argue they operate on tight margins and provide large amounts of uncompensated care. These concerns are real.

But they do not negate the core issue.

A system that allows minor medical visits to generate major financial consequences is not balanced.

The frustration many patients feel is not just about cost—it is about fairness. When a brief consultation results in a four-figure bill and accountability seems absent, the system begins to appear less like healthcare and more like a financial machine.

Some point to incentive structures tied to programs like Medicare. Whether or not one agrees, the perception reflects a loss of confidence.

Healthcare depends on trust—trust that providers act in the patient’s best interest and that charges are reasonable.

Rebuilding that trust will require transparency, accountability, and limits on aggressive debt collection.

At its core, the question is simple: is the system fair?

For millions of Americans, the answer is increasingly no.

spot_img

San Francisco Supervisor Jackie Fielder takes medical leave amid health concerns

Supervisor Jackie Fielder represents District 9 of San Francisco. -- La Supervisora Jackie Fielder representa el Distrito 9 de San Francisco.

by Marvin Ramírez

San Francisco Supervisor Jackie Fielder has taken a medical leave of absence following what her office described as a “serious personal health matter,” drawing attention at City Hall and raising questions about representation during her absence.

Fielder represents District 9, which includes neighborhoods such as the Mission District, Bernal Heights, and Portola—areas with a strong Latino presence. In a recent media interview, she confirmed that she had been hospitalized and indicated she was considering resignation at the time. In a subsequent update, her office clarified that she is navigating a mental health condition while remaining on leave.

According to statements from her staff, Fielder is currently receiving care after experiencing what was characterized as an acute health crisis. Officials have not publicly disclosed a specific diagnosis, and her office has requested privacy as she focuses on recovery.

The development is considered unusual within the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, where extended absences tied to personal health matters are relatively rare, particularly those involving hospitalization. In the interim, her office is expected to continue basic constituent services, though her absence may affect ongoing legislative discussions and votes.

Fielder’s leave comes at a time of heightened scrutiny following reports of internal tensions and a recently surfaced internal communication. Local media outlets have reported on a leaked memo that appeared to reveal disagreements within her office and raised concerns about workplace management. While the details of the document have circulated publicly, neither Fielder nor her staff have provided extensive comment on its contents.

Observers note that the convergence of political pressure, public scrutiny, and internal challenges can place significant strain on elected officials. However, it remains unclear whether any of these factors are directly related to her current health situation.

City leaders and colleagues have largely responded with messages of support, emphasizing the importance of allowing time for recovery. Mental health advocates also point out that public officials, like others, may face personal challenges that require stepping away from work, and that such decisions can reflect responsible leadership.

At this time, no timeline has been announced for Fielder’s return to City Hall. The situation continues to develop as her office provides limited updates, balancing public interest with personal privacy.

Her temporary absence highlights both the pressures of public service and the growing recognition of mental health as a critical component of overall well-being, even at the highest levels of local government.

City procedures allow for temporary absences without immediate replacement, meaning her district remains represented through staff coordination rather than a formal appointment. Any prolonged leave, however, could prompt further administrative or political decisions depending on its duration and impact on governance.

spot_img

Puerto Rico protests mega resort development amid environmental and social concerns

by El Reportero wire services

Thousands of demonstrators took to the streets in Puerto Rico on Sunday to oppose the proposed “Esencia” megaproject in Cabo Rojo, raising alarms about environmental damage, community displacement, and the long-term impact of large-scale luxury developments on the island.

The march began at El Escambrón, moved past the Capitol, and headed toward La Fortaleza, drawing a diverse coalition of more than 60 organizations alongside residents of all ages. Protesters carried a unified message: economic development should not come at the expense of natural resources or local communities.

At the center of the controversy is the scale and location of the Esencia project, which would bring hotels, high-end residences, and tourism infrastructure to an ecologically sensitive region in southwestern Puerto Rico. Environmental advocates warn that construction could threaten nearby mangroves, coastal ecosystems, and wildlife habitats that play a critical role in protecting the island from flooding and erosion.

Critics also argue that such developments often limit public access to beaches, a deeply sensitive issue in Puerto Rico, where coastal areas are legally considered public. Concerns over “hidden privatization” have fueled opposition, with many fearing that luxury tourism projects cater primarily to wealthy outsiders while restricting access for local residents.

Beyond environmental and access concerns, the protests reflect broader anxieties about economic inequality. While developers promise job creation and increased investment, opponents question who will truly benefit. Rising property values and living costs linked to upscale developments have already contributed to displacement in some parts of the island, intensifying fears of gentrification.

The backlash also highlights a growing distrust of government oversight. Protest organizers argue that the approval process lacked transparency and failed to adequately include community voices. For many, the issue goes beyond a single project and speaks to a larger pattern of decision-making that sidelines local input.

Puerto Rico’s recent history — including economic hardship and the devastation caused by Hurricane Maria — has heightened public sensitivity to how land and resources are managed. As the island continues to rebuild, residents are increasingly demanding a more balanced approach that prioritizes sustainability, equity, and community participation.

The outcome of the Esencia controversy could shape future development across Puerto Rico, as communities push for growth that respects both people and place.

https://www.facebook.com/reel/842314868892018

spot_img

Hollywood stars may be rediscovering the value of keeping politics out of entertainment

Oscar golden award.

While outspoken leftist activism once dominated the entertainment industry, some of the world’s most famous stars now suggest a more cautious and measured tone may be more palatable

by S.A. McCarthy

(The Washington Stand) — Recent years have seen a number of Hollywood stars toss out their soapboxes and urge their fellow celebrities to simply shut up about politics.

During President Donald Trump’s first term, superstar and then-“it” girl Jennifer Lawrence was an outspoken critic, frequently weighing in on political matters, describing the Trump presidency as “the end of the world.” In an interview with the New York Times late last year, Lawrence shared that she intends to keep her political opinions to herself during the second Trump administration.

“The first Trump administration was so wild, and just – how can we let this stand? I felt like I was running around like a chicken with my head cut off,” Lawrence said. She observed that the vocal political opinions of celebrities make no difference “whatsoever” to the outcome of elections, asking, “So then what am I doing? I’m just sharing my opinion on something that’s going to add fuel to a fire that’s ripping the country apart. We are so divided.”

Lawrence further noted that the left-wing political opinions voiced by many of Hollywood’s elites are likely a turn-off to most Americans, who the film industry relies on to buy movie tickets. “If I can’t say something that’s going to speak to some kind of peace or lowering the temperature or some sort of solution, I just don’t want to be a part of the problem. I don’t want to make the problem worse.”

Now, several prominent Hollywood figures are urging their fellow film industry elites to follow Lawrence’s example and just stop talking. Ahead of this year’s Academy Awards ceremony, Sharon Osbourne, wife of the late rock star Ozzy Osbourne and a frequent guest star in films and on television shows, called on award winners to keep their politics to themselves.

In a podcast appearance with her son, Osbourne said that “everybody needs relief from what’s going on in the world,” and that most people turn to entertainment for an “escape.” “I understand that people get really emotional about things politically,” she continued, turning her attention to the Academy Awards. “So, when they are on TV knowing that there’s 15 [to] 16 million people in this country alone watching, they want to use that platform to show everybody how emotional they personally are about a situation… And I get it, but they’ve also got to get that Joe Public needs a f****** break.”

Most Americans, Osbourne observed, have had it “up to here” with politics and don’t need the rich and famous to bring up more political anger and anxiety. She suggested that actors and actresses limit their political diatribes to their personal platforms – conversations, social media posts, interviews – and check their political opinions with their hats and coats at the door when taking their seats for the Academy Awards ceremony.

Vince Vaughn, often considered one of Hollywood’s rare conservative voices, also took a shot at Hollywood political preaching in a podcast interview with comedian Theo Von last week. The actor summarized Hollywood’s mindset on political debate as, “We’re smart and got it figured out, and if you don’t agree then you’re an idiot.” Vaughn said that it’s fine for celebrities to feel strongly on political matters, “but it’s a strange thing when you start [thinking you’re] better than someone. That’s when it gets weird.” He added, “It’s one thing to say ‘This is where I’m at. And then here’s someone else’s point of view. Disagree or agree.’ It’s another thing to be like, ‘I’m so right, and I’m going to help you or condescend to you.’” He quipped, “No one wants to hang out with that.”

Vaughn also suggested that the culture in Hollywood has not become more political, but that celebrities “got rewarded” for embracing left-wing politics and ostracized or canceled for adhering to more conservative or less politically correct values. “They started to come out there and do it, and I don’t even know how much everyone even is informed on everything, but they really like to get out there and do it,” he said of celebrities who promote their political views. “And they’re hypocrites, too, a lot of times, like anybody is,” he added. “People my age, we disagree, agree, we’d change our minds, we’d laugh, we joke.… But there was definitely a culture that if you didn’t agree with these ideas, you were looked at as bad, for sure.”

Hollywood executives made it “too complicated” to make and promote comedy films, Vaughn suggested, instead relying on stand-up comedy specials. When producing a stand-up special, he said, producers and studios could put the blame for any politically incorrect material on the featured comedian. “But the studios weren’t going to produce a [feature-length comedy film] and be more responsible for supporting the making of that film,” he said. “They were trying so hard not to offend anybody.”

In an appearance on former Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly’s podcast, movie star Josh Duhamel also castigated celebrities for airing their unsolicited political views. “I have real strong opinions about things, but I don’t really talk about them,” he said. “Why would I alienate half my audience? Because I respect their views on things, but I’m not going to preach to them. They can believe what they want,” he added.

Duhamel anticipated that it “should be” a growing trend for celebrities to keep their political opinions to themselves. “It makes perfect sense. If you really want to be a success in this business, why would you make half of your audience despise you [because of] your political beliefs? Maybe they don’t care? I don’t know. I look at it like a business decision,” he said, comparing himself to a “court jester” who is paid for his entertainment value, not his political insight. “I’m just here to make cool stuff.”

During Donald Trump’s first term in office, celebrities frequently spoke out against his administration and the Republican Party. One of the most controversial moments was when actress and self-styled comedienne Kathy Griffin posted a photo to social media holding what looked like the president’s bloodied, severed head.

Recently, Griffin has shared that she’s learned to accept more conservative viewpoints. “I think it’s accepting that people don’t change,” she said in an interview. “I think I spent a lot of my life, whether it was romantically or career-wise, thinking somebody would change or I could maybe skew someone’s perspective. And now look, believe it or not, I have quite a few Trumper friends,” she continued. “I think it’s important to be around people [who] do have different opinions, and we get along. So there’s an understanding.”

This article is reprinted with permission from the Family Research Council, publishers of The Washington Stand at washingtonstand.com.

spot_img

Study suggests daily bean intake linked to improved health markers

by Coco Somers

A new review of nutritional research reports that daily consumption of beans and other legumes is associated with improvements in key health markers, including cardiovascular and metabolic function. The findings add to a growing body of evidence highlighting the role of dietary fiber and plant-based foods in supporting overall health and disease prevention.

According to the review, beans provide a major source of plant-based protein and dietary fiber. Studies included in the analysis link regular consumption to lower risks of chronic conditions such as obesity, cardiovascular disease, and certain cancers. These findings reinforce recommendations that emphasize whole foods as part of a balanced diet.

Study details and reported findings

The research indicates that consuming approximately one cup of beans daily may lead to measurable benefits for heart and metabolic health. Improvements were noted in cholesterol levels and markers of inflammation, which are widely considered indicators of cardiometabolic risk.

The analysis also found associations between daily legume intake and improved blood sugar control. Researchers cited the high fiber and nutrient content of beans as a key factor. Beans are rich in protein, vitamins, minerals, and complex carbohydrates that digest slowly, helping regulate glucose levels and reduce spikes after meals.

Context on dietary fiber and gut health

Nutrition experts point to dietary fiber as a prebiotic that supports a healthy gut microbiota. The indigestible carbohydrates in beans reach the colon and feed beneficial bacteria, contributing to a balanced intestinal environment and improved digestive function.

The gut microbiome is an active area of scientific study, especially for its influence on immune response, inflammation, and metabolism. Some experts note that foods supporting heart health often also improve gut health, suggesting a strong connection between digestive and cardiovascular systems that continues to be explored by researchers.

Contrasting views on dietary guidance and food systems

Supporters of whole-food, plant-based diets cite studies like this as evidence for reducing processed food consumption. Substituting beans for red meat may help extend health span and reduce chronic disease risk while also lowering overall saturated fat intake in daily meals.

Critics of conventional nutrition policies argue that simple, accessible foods like legumes are often overlooked. Others raise concerns about agricultural chemicals and call for greater transparency in food production systems, emphasizing the importance of clean and responsibly grown food sources.

Practical considerations and accessibility

Beans are widely recognized as a low-cost, shelf-stable source of protein and essential nutrients. Their affordability and long storage life make them practical for improving diet quality without increasing food expenses, especially for families working within tight budgets.

Incorporating legumes into meals can also encourage home cooking, which is often associated with healthier eating patterns. Beans are versatile and can be included in soups, stews, salads, and traditional dishes across cultures, making them easy to integrate into daily diets without requiring major lifestyle changes.

Reported conclusions and areas for further research

The review concludes that increased legume consumption may support improved health markers due to their fiber, protein, and mineral content. Researchers emphasize the need for long-term studies to better understand the mechanisms involved and establish clearer causal relationships between diet and health outcomes.

Legumes generally have a low glycemic index, and replacing higher-glycemic foods with beans may reduce overall glycemic load. While more research is needed, current evidence suggests that adding a daily serving of beans may offer meaningful and accessible health benefits for a wide range of individuals.

In addition to their nutritional profile, beans have long been part of traditional diets across Latin America, Africa, and Asia, where they are valued for both sustenance and cultural significance. Public health experts note that returning to these traditional dietary patterns may help address modern increases in diet-related illnesses. The simplicity of preparing beans, combined with their adaptability to different cuisines, makes them a practical food choice for diverse populations seeking affordable and nutritious meal options without sacrificing flavor or dietary satisfaction.

References

Sources include EurekAlert, MindBodyGreen, NaturalNews, NaturalPedia, the Journal of Food Composition, and published works by Michael Greger and Steven Pratt, along with research on dietary fiber, glycemic control, phytochemicals, and plant-based nutrition.

 

 

spot_img

California jury finds Meta, Google liable for teen’s mental distress in landmark social media trial

Tech giants lost a personal injury case in Los Angeles Superior Court; executives like Mark Zuckerberg testified. Teenagers look at phones at Santana Row, San Jose, July 2, 2024. Photo by Shae Hammond, Bay Area News Group. -- Gigantes tecnológicos perdieron un caso de lesiones personales en el Tribunal Superior de Los Ángeles; ejecutivos como Mark Zuckerberg testificaron. Adolescentes miran sus teléfonos en Santana Row, San José, 2 de julio de 2024. Foto de Shae Hammond, Bay Area News Group.

by Colin Lecher

The jury awarded a family $3 million in the closely-watched case over Facebook and YouTube addiction

A Los Angeles jury has found the parent companies of YouTube and Facebook liable for a teen’s mental distress in a closely-watched trial over social media addiction.

The jury awarded $3 million to the plaintiff, a young woman identified as KGM, and her mother, according to NPR, which noted Facebook parent company Meta would be responsible for about 70percent of that amount and that the companies could face future penalties as well. The family had accused the platforms of willfully making their products addictive and targeting teens, despite internal research showing it could damage their mental health.

The Los Angeles Superior Court decision is among the first in a wave of hundreds of suits by schools, attorneys general, and others, making personal injury claims about major tech companies’ alleged recklessness.

A New Mexico jury recently found Meta liable on similar claims and the company was ordered to pay $375 million in damages. Meta said it would appeal that decision. Meanwhile, a case is also ongoing in a federal court based in California.

“We disagree with the verdict and plan to appeal,” José Castañeda, a Google spokesperson, said in a statement. “This case misunderstands YouTube, which is a responsibly built streaming platform, not a social media site.”

Erin Logan, a spokesperson for Meta, said, “We respectfully disagree with the verdict and are evaluating our legal options.”

Online child safety advocates, meanwhile, immediately cheered the ruling.

“For too many years, kids have suffered immeasurable harm from social media, while the owners of these tech companies have reaped billions in profits,” John M. Bennett, Director of the California Initiative for Technology and Democracy, said in a statement, calling the tech industry’s business model “fundamentally exploitative, addicting young children in order to create lifelong consumers, no matter the cost to their health or the damage to their lives.”

A bellwether

The Los Angeles trial is among the earliest in a series of suits arguing that social media products were engineered to be addictive. Tech companies have long said that they can’t be held legally responsible for the individual works that appear on their platforms, including from bad actors like scammers and terrorist groups.

But more recent cases like these have instead focused on proving that tech companies were aware of the dangers that their products could pose to young people, yet went ahead with targeting them anyway. Those dangers, according to plaintiffs, include addiction, depression, and body image problems.

The cases have already produced reams of embarrassing internal documents that plaintiffs say show how executives put profits over teens’ mental wellness.

One document, recently discussed during a hearing in a federal California case, included a 2016 email from Mark Zuckerberg about Facebook’s live videos feature. In the email, Zuckerberg wrote the company would “need to be very good about not notifying parents / teachers” about teens’ videos.

In the Los Angeles case, tech company executives, including Zuckerberg, took to the stand for questioning on their business practices. The suit initially named Snap and TikTok as defendants as well, but those companies settled the claims earlier in the trial.

If the companies continue to lose in future litigation on the same issue, they could be on the hook for billions more in damages.

More cases to come

Already, the first signs are emerging of major financial penalties for tech companies facing litigation.

In the recently decided New Mexico case, brought by the state’s attorney general, a jury found Meta liable on all counts for “unfair and deceptive” practices under New Mexico law. The Los Angeles trial decision may increase pressure on tech companies to settle future cases and to change business practices in the future.

“Today, a jury saw the truth and held Meta and Google accountable for designing products that addict and harm children,” the attorneys leading the parallel California-based federal case against the tech companies said in a statement. “Top tech executives took the stand, and their own internal documents were put before a jury, revealing that company leadership knew their platforms were hurting kids and repeatedly chose profits over children’s safety.”

 

spot_img

New poll reveals mixed U.S. views on Mexico amid strong ties and persistent concerns

La encuesta fue realizada este mes por Echelon Insights, en colaboración con la Fundación México-Estados Unidos, la Cámara Americana de Comercio de México y la Asociación Mexicana de Parques Industriales. The survey was conducted this month by Echelon Insights, in collaboration with the Mexico-United States Foundation, the American Chamber of Commerce of Mexico, and the Mexican Association of Industrial Parks. (Shutterstock).

by the El Reportero staff

A new national poll offers a nuanced look at how Americans perceive Mexico and the broader U.S.-Mexico relationship, revealing a complex mix of appreciation, concern and political division.

The survey, conducted by Echelon Insights in partnership with organizations focused on bilateral relations, gathered responses from over 1,000 registered U.S. voters. Its findings come at a time when the relationship between the two neighboring countries remains deeply interconnected economically and culturally, yet increasingly shaped by debates over security, migration and trade.

According to the poll, 44 percent of Americans hold a favorable view of Mexico, while 38 percent report an unfavorable opinion. Although this places Mexico in net positive territory, its standing is noticeably lower than that of other U.S. allies such as Canada and the United Kingdom. The data also suggests that favorable perceptions have declined compared to previous years, indicating a shift in public sentiment.

Security concerns appear to play a central role in shaping negative views. A majority of respondents identified cross-border criminal activity, particularly involving drug cartels, as the primary factor influencing their perception of Mexico as a problematic neighbor. Closely tied to this concern is the ongoing fentanyl crisis, which many Americans associate with trafficking networks that extend across the U.S.-Mexico border.

Migration is another key issue affecting public opinion. A significant portion of respondents expressed concern about unauthorized immigration, linking it to broader anxieties about border control and national security. Economic factors also contribute to negative perceptions, with some Americans citing fears of job displacement and competition from Mexican industries.

Despite these concerns, the poll highlights several areas where Americans recognize Mexico as a valuable partner. Tourism ranks as one of the most frequently cited reasons for viewing Mexico positively, reflecting the millions of Americans who travel there each year. In addition, strong trade relations and cultural exchange continue to reinforce the sense of interdependence between the two countries.

When asked directly whether Mexico is a good or bad neighbor, about four in ten respondents described it as a good neighbor, while a smaller share characterized it negatively. However, a substantial number of participants remained neutral or unsure, underscoring the complexity of public opinion and the lack of a clear consensus.

Political affiliation plays a significant role in shaping these views. Democrats are generally more likely to hold favorable opinions of Mexico and to support policies that emphasize cooperation and economic integration. Republicans, on the other hand, tend to express more negative views, particularly in relation to border security, drug trafficking and immigration.

These divisions are also evident in attitudes toward trade policy. The poll found that most Democrats oppose imposing broad tariffs on Mexican imports, arguing that such measures could harm both economies. In contrast, a majority of Republicans support tariffs as a tool to protect American industries and address perceived imbalances in trade.

The future of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) remains another area of uncertainty. While some respondents expressed support for extending the trade agreement, nearly half indicated they were unsure or lacked sufficient information to form an opinion. This uncertainty suggests that trade policy, despite its importance, is not fully understood by the general public.

The survey also explored perceptions related to shared international events, including the 2026 FIFA World Cup, which will be co-hosted by the United States, Mexico and Canada. Responses were mixed, with many Americans expressing indifference and others divided between enthusiasm and skepticism. This reflects a broader trend in which global events do not always translate into stronger public engagement with international partnerships.

Overall, the poll paints a picture of a relationship defined by both cooperation and tension. The United States and Mexico share one of the most significant economic partnerships in the world, supported by extensive trade, tourism and cultural ties. At the same time, persistent concerns over security, migration and economic competition continue to shape public attitudes.

For policymakers on both sides of the border, the findings highlight the importance of addressing these concerns while reinforcing the benefits of collaboration. As the two nations navigate an increasingly complex global landscape, public perception will remain a key factor influencing the direction of their relationship.

– With report by Mexico News Daily chief staff writer Peter Davies.

spot_img