 |
|
|
|||||
When U.S. Border Patrol agents entered a Target store in Richfield, Minnesota, in early January, detaining two employees, it marked a new chapter in the relationship between corporate America and the federal government. Across the Twin Cities, federal immigration enforcement operations have turned businesses into sites of confrontation with agents in store parking lots rounding up day laborers, armed raids on restaurants, and work authorization inspections conducted in tactical gear. Some retailers report revenue drops of 50% to 80% as customers stay home out of fear. Along Lake Street and in East St. Paul, areas within the Twin Cities, an estimated 80% of businesses have closed their doors at some point since the operations began. Then came the killing of U.S. citizens Renee Good and Alex Pretti, the latter of which came a day after widespread protests and a one-day business blackout involving over 700 establishments. The response of corporate America to those killings was instructive both for what was said and left unsaid. After the Pretti killing, more than 60 CEOs from Minnesotas largest companies Target, 3M, UnitedHealth Group, U.S. Bancorp, General Mills, Best Buy and others signed a public letter organized by the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce. The letter called for peace, focused cooperation among local, state and federal officials, and a swift and durable solution so that families, workers and businesses could return to normal. What it didnt do was name Pretti, mention federal immigration enforcement or criticize any specific policy or official. It read less like moral leadership and more like corporate risk management. As a researcher who studies corporate political engagement, I think the Minnesota CEO letter is a window into a broader shift. For years, companies could take progressive stances with limited risk activists would punish them if they remained silent on an issue, but conservatives rarely retaliated when they spoke up. That asymmetry has collapsed. Minneapolis shows what corporate activism looks like when the risks cut both ways: hedged language, no names named, and calls for calm. A shifting pattern In 2022, after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, corporate America was remarkably quiet compared with its vocal stances on LGBTQ+ rights or the war in Ukraine. The explanation: Companies tend to hedge on issues that are contested and polarizing. In my research with colleagues on companies taking stances on LGBTQ+ rights in the United States, Ive found that businesses frame their stances narrowly when issues are unsettled focusing on workplace concerns and internal constituencies like employees rather than broader advocacy. Only after issues are legally or socially settled do some companies shift to clearer activism, adopting the language of social movements: injustice, moral obligation, calls to action. By that logic, the Minnesota CEOs caution makes sense. The Trump administrations federal immigration enforcement policy is deeply contested. Theres no clear legal or social settlement in sight. But something else has changed since 2022 something that goes beyond any particular issue. For years, corporate activism operated under a favorable asymmetry that allowed them to stake out public positions on controversial topics without much negative consequence. That is, activists and employees pressured companies to speak out on progressive causes, and silence carried real costs. Meanwhile, conservatives largely subscribed to free-market economist Milton Friedmans view that the only social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. They generally didnt demand corporate stances on their issues, and they didnt organize sustained punishment for progressive corporate speech. That asymmetry has collapsed During the Black Lives Matter protests of 2020, corporations rushed to declare their commitments to racial justice, diversity, and social responsibility. Many of those same companies have since quietly dismantled diversity, equity, and inclusion programs, walked back public commitments, and gone silent on issues they once called moral imperatives. It appears that their allegedly deeply held values were contingent on a favorable political environment. When the risks shifted, the values evaporated. The turning point may have been Disneys opposition to Floridas Dont Say Gay law in 2022. The company faced criticism from employees and activists for not doing enough and then fierce retaliation from Floridas government, which stripped Disney of self-governing privileges it had held for 55 years. In other high-profile examples, Delta lost tax breaks in Georgia after ending discounts for National Rifle Association members following the Parkland shooting. And Bud Light lost billions in market value after a single social media promotion that featured Dylan Mulvaney, a transgender influencer. Conservatives learned to play the game that progressive activists invented. And unlike consumer boycotts, government retaliation carries a different kind of weight. Minneapolis reveals the new calculus What makes Minneapolis distinctive is that the federal government isnt a distant policy actor debating legislation in Washington. Its a physical presence in companies daily operations. When federal agents can show up at your store, detain yor employees, raid your parking lot, and audit your hiring records, the calculation about whether to criticize federal policy looks very different than when the worst-case scenario is an angry tweet from a politician. Research finds that politicians are less willing to engage with CEOs who take controversial stances even in private meetings regardless of local economic conditions or the politicians own views on business. The chilling effect is real. As one observer noted, Minnesota companies communicated through industry associations specifically to avoid direct exposure to possible retaliation. De-escalation, then, has become the corporate buzzword of choice because, as one news report in The Wall Street Journal noted, it sounds humane while remaining politically noncommittal. It points to a process goal reduce conflict, restore order rather than a contested diagnosis of responsibility. This is the triple bind facing businesses in Minneapolis: pressure from the federal government on one side, pressure from activists and employees on the other, and the economic devastation from enforcement itself comparable in some areas to the COVID-19 pandemic crushing them in the middle. Its a situation that rewards silence and punishes principle, and most companies are making the predictable choice. And yet the situation within companies is also full of internal tensions, whether theyre companies headquartered in Minnesota or not. At tech company Palantir, which holds contracts with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, employees took to internal Slack channels after Prettis death to express that they felt not proud to work for a company tied to what they described as the bad guys. Similar sentiments could be seen elsewhere, where rank-and-file employees expressed far more vocal outrage than their bosses. What comes next The Minnesota CEO letter is what corporate political engagement looks like when the risks run in every direction: no injustice framing, no attribution of blame, no names named just calls for stability and cooperation. As a local Minneapolis writer put it in an op-ed: Stand up, or sit down because the Minnesotans who are standing up? We dont recognize you. Its not cowardice, exactly. Its what the research predicts when an issue is contested and the costs of speaking cut both ways. But it does mean Americans shouldnt expect corporations to lead when government power is directly at stake. The conditions that enabled corporate activism on LGBTQ+ rights an asymmetry where speaking out was relatively low-risk dont exist here. Until the political landscape shifts, the hedged statement and the cautious coalition letter are the new normal. Corporate activism, it turns out, might always have been more about positioning than principle. Alessandro Piazza is an assistant professor of strategic management at Rice University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Category:
E-Commerce
Comparing social media platforms to casinos and addictive drugs, lawyer Mark Lanier delivered opening statements Monday in a landmark trial in Los Angeles that seeks to hold Instagram owner Meta and Google’s YouTube responsible for harms to children who use their products.Instagram’s parent company Meta and Google’s YouTube face claims that their platforms addict children through deliberate design choices that keep kids glued to their screens. TikTok and Snap, which were originally named in the lawsuit, settled for undisclosed sums.Jurors got their first glimpse into what will be a lengthy trial characterized by dueling narratives from the plaintiffs and the two remaining defendants.Meta lawyer Paul Schmidt spoke of the disagreement within the scientific community over social media addiction, with some researchers believing it doesn’t exist, or that addiction is not the most appropriate way to describe heavy social media use.Lawyers representing YouTube will begin their opening statement on Tuesday. ‘Addicting the brains of children’ Lanier, the plaintiff’s lawyer, delivered lively first remarks where he said the case will be as “easy as ABC” which stands for “addicting the brains of children.” He said Meta and Google, “two of the richest corporations in history,” have “engineered addiction in children’s brains.”He presented jurors with a slew of internal emails, documents and studies conducted by Meta and YouTube, as well as YouTube’s parent company, Google. He emphasized the findings of a study Meta conducted called “Project Myst” in which they surveyed 1,000 teens and their parents about their social media use. The two major findings, Lanier said, were that Meta knew children who experienced “adverse events” like trauma and stress were particularly vulnerable for addiction; and that parental supervision and controls made little impact.He also highlighted internal Google documents that likened some company products to a casino, and internal communication between Meta employees in which one person said Instagram is “like a drug” and they are “basically pushers.”At the core of the Los Angeles case is a 20-year-old identified only by the initials “KGM,” whose case could determine how thousands of other, similar lawsuits against social media companies will play out. She and two other plaintiffs have been selected for bellwether trials essentially test cases for both sides to see how their arguments play out before a jury. Plaintiff grew up using YouTube, Instagram KGM made a brief appearance after a break during Lanier’s statement and she will return to testify later in the trial. Lanier spent time describing KGM’s childhood, focusing particularly on what her personality was like before she began using social media. She started using YouTube at age 6 and Instagram at age 9, Lanier said. Before she graduated elementary school, she had posted 284 videos on YouTube.The outcome of the trial could have profound effects on the companies’ businesses and how they will handle children using their platforms.Lanier said the companies’ lawyers will “try to blame the little girl and her parents for the trap they built,” referencing the plaintiff. She was a minor when she said she became addicted to social media, which she claims had a detrimental impact on her mental health.Lanier said that despite the public position of Meta and YouTube being that they work to protect children, their internal documents show an entirely different position, with explicit references to young children being listed as their target audiences.The attorney also drew comparisons between the social media companies and tobacco firms, citing internal communication between Meta employees who were concerned about the company’s lack of proactive action about the potential harm their platforms can have on children and teens.“For a teenager, social validation is survival,” Lanier said. The defendants “engineered a feature that caters to a minor’s craving for social validation,” he added, speaking about “like” buttons and similar features. Meta pushes back In his opening statement representing Meta, Schmidt said the core question in the case is whether the platforms were a substantial factor in KGM’s mental health struggles. He spent much of his time going through the plaintiff’s health records, emphasizing that she had experienced many difficult circumstances in her childhood, including emotional abuse, body image issues and bullying.Schmidt presented a clip from a video deposition from one of KGM’s mental health providers, Dr. Thomas Suberman, who said social media was “not the through-line of what I recall being her main issues,” adding that her struggles seemed to largely stem from interpersonal conflicts and relationships. He painted a picture with KGM’s own text messages and testimony pointing to a volatile home life of a particularly troubled relationship with her mother.Schmidt acknowledged that many mental health professionals do believe social media addiction can exist, but said three of KGM’s providers all of whom believe in the form of addiction have never diagnosed her with it, or treated her for it.Schmidt emphasized to the jurors that the case is not about whether social media is a good thing or whether teens spend too much time on their phones or whether the jurors like or dislike Meta, but whether social media was a substantial factor in KGM’s mental health struggles. A reckoning for social media and youth harms A slew of trials beginning this year seek to hold social media companies responsible for harming children’s mental well-being. Executives, including Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, are expected to testify at the Los Angeles trial, which will last six to eight weeks. Experts have drawn similarities to the Big Tobacco trials that led to a 1998 settlement requiring cigarette companies to pay billions in health care costs and restrict marketing targeting minors.A separate trial in New Mexico, meanwhile, also kicked off with opening statements on Monday. In that trial, Meta is accused of failing to protect young users from sexual exploitation, following an undercover online investigation. Attorney General Raśl Torrez in late 2023 sued Meta and Zuckerberg, who was later dropped from the suit.A federal bellwether trial beginning in June in Oakland, California, will be the first to represent school districts that have sued social media platforms over harms to children.In addition, more than 40 state attorneys general have filed lawsuits against Meta, claiming it is harming young people and contributing to the youth mental health crisis by deliberately designing features on Instagram and Facebook that addict children to its platforms. The majority of cases filed their lawsuits in federal court, but some sued in their respective states.TikTok also faces similar lawsuits in more than a dozen states.Ortutay reported from Oakland, California. Associated Press Writer Morgan Lee in Santa Fe, New Mexico, contributed to this story. Kaitlyn Huamani and Barbara Ortutay, AP Technology Writers
Category:
E-Commerce
Shares in Spotify Technology SA (NYSE: SPOT), the worlds largest music streamer, are surging this morning. As of this writing, the Swedish companys stock price is up 18% to above $489 per share after the company reported blowout fourth-quarter fiscal 2025 earnings. Heres what you need to know. Spotifys Q4 2025 surpasses expectations On Tuesday, Spotify reported its Q4 2025 earnings, which outpaced investor expectations. Here are the music streamers most salient metrics for the quarter, which ended on December 31: Monthly Active Users (MAUs): 751 million (up 11% year over year) Premium Subscribers: 290 million (up 10% year over year) Total Revenue: 4.531 billion (up 10% year over year on a constant currency basis) Diluted earnings per share (EPS): 4.43 Whats significant about these numbers is that they not only beat most analyst expectations, but Spotifys own expectations as well. As CNBC notes, LSEG analysts expected Spotify to report an EPS of 2.74. The company easily beat that by 1.69 per share. Spotify was expected to report 4.52 billion in revenue; the company beat slightly with 4.531 in revenue. Analysts also expected Spotify to report around 745 million MAUs. The company beat that by 6 million users. Spotify itself originally forecast 745 million MAUs for the quarter and 289 million premium subscribers, both of which it beat. Spotify Wrapped contributed to premium subscribers beat Premium subscribers are among Spotify’s most valuable, because of the recurring monthly revenue they generate and their loyalty to the brand. And this time, the premium subscriber growth for Q4, which rose 10% year over year, can be partly attributed to the companys wildly popular year-end Wrapped roundup. Speaking on the companys financial call after Spotifys results were announced, co-CEO Alex Norstrom revealed that the companys most recent Wrapped, which went live in December 2025, was also the most successful, calling Wrapped 2025 record-breaking. While we saw impressive engagement back in 2024, we also got feedback on the user experience. So this year, we turned up the dial, and the response was redeeming, Norstrom said, according to a PitchBook transcript of the call. At the end of the campaign, more than 300 million users engaged, which was up 20%, and we saw more than 630 million shares across social media, which is up 42%. He added that “day one of Wrapped marked the highest single day of premium subscriber intake in Spotify history. Given Wrappeds 2025 success, its a safe bet the company will double down on it when the next iteration launches this December. The SPOT stock surge isnt enough to erase its recent decline Despite Spotifys stock price surging in early morning trading today, the impressive gains arent enough to get SPOT out of the broader slump its been in lately. SPOT stock currently sits at around $489 a share after gaining 18% this morning. However, even with todays gains, SPOT shares are still down more than 17% year to date. Spotifys stock price fell dramatically in early February amid a broader tech selloff. Over the past year, SPOT shares also remain in the red, down nearly 25%. At around $489 per share, SPOT shares are currently well below their peak of $785 in June of last year. Looking forward, Spotify says it expects to add another 8 million monthly active users during its current Q1 2026. Likewise, it expects to add another 3 million premium subscribers during the same period. The company expects total revenue for the quarter to be 4.5 billion.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||