A Real Court Case You Can Actually Use in the Speaking Test
A trial happening right now touches technology, health, and the law — three topics examiners return to constantly in Part 3. Here's a shortcut to sounding informed, not vague.
Most candidates answer technology or law questions with the same three sentences everyone else uses: "technology has good and bad sides," "the government should be careful." It's vague because there's nothing specific behind it. Right now, there's a genuinely current, real story that fixes that problem in one go.
The story in 30 seconds
Since August 2026, four US states have been in federal court arguing that Meta built Facebook and Instagram to be addictive to children on purpose, then hid what it knew. It follows an earlier case in March 2026 where a jury already ordered Meta and Google to pay $6 million over similar claims — the first verdict of its kind. States are now seeking around $200 billion in penalties, and roughly 2,000 more lawsuits are waiting behind this one.
Why it's genuinely useful for the exam
A common Part 3 question is something like "should technology companies be more strictly regulated?" Instead of a generic answer, you can say something specific: mention that a landmark trial is currently deciding whether a major tech company is liable for the mental health effects of its own product design — real evidence you can attach an opinion to. Specificity, not just correct grammar, is what pushes an answer from Band 6 toward Band 7.
Three phrases worth stealing
"held accountable" — used constantly when discussing whether a company should face real consequences. "addictive design" — a natural way to describe a product built to be hard to stop using. "landmark trial" — a case seen as historically important, useful whenever you want to sound like you actually follow current events rather than reciting a memorised template.
Find out where your speaking actually stands
Real, current examples like this one are exactly what separates a generic answer from a genuinely strong one. See your real speaking band with a free, honest diagnostic. Take the Free Speaking Test →
Do I need to know the details of this lawsuit for the real exam?
No — you never need exact facts memorised. What matters is having one or two real, specific examples ready for technology, health, or law questions instead of vague generalisations, and this story works well for any of the three.
Is it risky to mention a real company's legal trouble in the test?
Not at all — examiners score your English, not your opinion of any company. A real, specific example shows you can develop an idea with genuine detail, which is rewarded at higher bands.
What if I get a completely different Part 3 topic on test day?
The vocabulary transfers even if the topic doesn't — phrases like 'held accountable,' 'addictive design,' and 'landmark trial' fit naturally into all kinds of technology, health, and law discussions, not just this specific story.
Want daily practice alongside this?