Six Flags Over Texas requires guests 17 years old and under to be accompanied by an adult over 21 years old, according to the park’s website.

“The safety of our guests and associates has always been a top priority at Six Flags Over Texas,” the new chaperone policy reads.

“In response to increasing incidents of disruptive behavior across the industry and at other entertainment venues, we are implementing enhanced policies to maintain a safe, family-friendly environment.”

Six Flags Over Texas requires guests 17 years old and under to be accompanied by an adult over 21 years old, according to the park’s website. Bloomberg via Getty Images

Chaperones must provide a government-issued photo ID with a date of birth at entry and can not have more than five minors with them at the Arlington, Texas, attraction.

Guests 17 and older may also be required to verify their age, or face being denied entry.

“We believe these updates will help preserve the positive atmosphere that millions of guests have come to expect from Six Flags Over Texas, where families and friends can make lasting memories together.

Other parks within the Six Flags system have similar chaperone policies, requiring guests under 15 to be accompanied by an adult.

Chaperones must provide a government-issued photo ID with a date of birth at entry and can not have more than five minors with them at the Arlington, Texas, attraction.

Six Flags Great Adventure in Jackson Township, NJ, announced its revised chaperone policy in September 2024,

However, the theme park’s website now shows that guests under 17 must be accompanied by a chaperone.

Great Adventure’s policy goes into effect daily by 4:00 p.m.

“We believe these changes will help ensure that Six Flags Great Adventure continues to have a positive atmosphere where generations of families and friends can gather for a day of safe fun and good food. Millions of guests have counted on us for exactly that, and we will continue to deliver on that promise for generations to come,” the park wrote.

Start your day with all you need to know

Morning Report delivers the latest news, videos, photos and more.

Thanks for signing up!

Social media users had mixed emotions over the new policy, with some saying the park was restricting teens’ enjoyment.

“What’s even crazier about this is that you can be 15 and work here but not enjoy the park,” one person commented on Instagram.

“Y’all realize you are glorified daycare for teenagers?” another said.

“Way to ruin the fun!” a third person wrote.

“Good im tired of they ah w these ‘takeovers’” said a fourth.

“Six flags i love you, but this is too strict. This is what teenagers do they go to ride roller coasters and don’t want to always have a parent right there following them around,” wrote another.

Other parks within the Six Flags system have similar chaperone policies, requiring guests under 15 to be accompanied by an adult. TNS

Several brawls involving younger crowds have plagued Six Flags parks in recent years.

A gunfight between a group of youngsters and cops sent hundreds of guests running for cover at Six Flags Over Georgia on March 2, 2024.

Police had responded to gunfire during a massive brawl that had been sparked by an “unruly” crowd of people on the park’s opening day.

Officers chased after one of the suspected shooters, 15-year-old Syere Littlefield, into the woods and shot the young gunman.

Littlefield wasn’t seriously wounded but was hit with a slew of charges, including aggravated assault on a police officer, aggravated assault, possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime, possession of a firearm under 18 and interference with government property, according to Fox 5 Atlanta.

Residents told the outlet they were aware of social media posts that alluded to some teens knowing something was going to occur at the park that night.

The Atlanta-based park has implemented a chaperone policy for guests under 17.

The post Six Flags rolls out strict chaperone policy for guests under 17 over spring break to battle ‘disruptive behavior’ appeared first on Our Story Insight.

Last summer, a federal judge, Amit P. Mehta, delivered a landmark ruling that found Google had illegally dominated online search.

“Google is a monopolist, and it has acted as one to maintain its monopoly,” he wrote.

Now, Judge Mehta has to figure out how to fix Google’s monopoly. His decision will be informed by a three-week hearing, which starts Monday in U.S. District Court in Washington, where the government and Google will argue over how to restore competition in online search.

The Justice Department wants Judge Mehta to break up Google by forcing the company to sell its Chrome browser, which could cut off a source of information it uses to improve its internet search. The department also wants to make the Silicon Valley giant hand over some of its most precious data to rivals, which could help their competing products.

In contrast, Google has asked the judge to only slightly restrict its ability to make deals to give its search engine prime placement on browsers and in smartphones.

The outcome could reshape the $1.86 trillion company, which has become synonymous with how people look for information online. Google faces mounting challenges, including the prospect of a breakup in a second antitrust case after a different federal judge ruled on Thursday that it had illegally maintained a monopoly in some ad technology. That puts Google in perhaps its most vulnerable position since Larry Page and Sergey Brin created the business in 1998.

Its fate could shake up Silicon Valley as the biggest companies fight to own a new technology era defined by artificial intelligence. Any restrictions on Google could hamper its ability to compete with OpenAI, Microsoft, Meta and others as search is increasingly powered by A.I. tools that can summarize research and offer humanlike guidance.

“The D.O.J.’s been very aggressive in what they’ve asked for,” said Rebecca Haw Allensworth, a law professor at Vanderbilt University who studies antitrust. “They’ve essentially asked for the moon.”

A breakup of Google would be the most significant action taken by a court against a monopoly since a federal judge tried and failed to split Microsoft in half 25 years ago. It has been even longer since the federal government successfully divided up a company over its dominance. The last time was New Year’s Day 1984, when AT&T cleaved itself into eight companies as part of an antitrust settlement reached with the Justice Department two years earlier.

Judge Mehta’s decision could influence other tech antitrust cases. Since 2020, the Justice Department has twice accused Google of violating antitrust laws and sued Apple for making it difficult for users to ditch their iPhones. Meta is in the second week of an antitrust trial over whether it illegally stifled competition, while Amazon is grappling with a lawsuit that accuses it of squeezing the small merchants that use its site.

“At trial we will show how D.O.J.’s unprecedented proposals go miles beyond the court’s decision, and would hurt America’s consumers, economy and technological leadership,” said Lee-Anne Mulholland, Google’s vice president for regulatory affairs.

A spokeswoman for the Justice Department declined to comment.

The Justice Department and a group of states filed the lawsuit over Google’s search business in 2020, during President Trump’s first term. The case went to trial in 2023 under the Biden administration, which demanded that Google be broken up. Mr. Trump’s administration has maintained that aggressive stance and continued to scrutinize the tech giants.

The case, U.S. v. Google, concerns payments that Google made to companies like Apple, Mozilla and Samsung to be the search engine that appeared automatically in web browsers and on the home screens of smartphones. Google paid those companies $26.3 billion in 2021, the court heard during the trial.

Government lawyers argued at the trial that the deals created a powerful cycle to benefit Google. The prime placement of the company’s search engine meant more people used it to find information, generating data that Google could then use to make its search engine better and further entrenching its dominance, they said.

Judge Mehta largely agreed with the government and ruled in August that Google had violated the law. He is expected to order the remedies in the case by the end of the summer.

Last year, the Justice Department asked Judge Mehta to stop Google from making the multibillion-dollar deals to be the default search engine.

The government’s proposal also went further. It argued that forcing Google to sell Chrome could deny the company a valuable source of traffic to its search engine. Any time a Chrome user enters a query directly into the browser’s search bar, it goes to Google. If the company spun off the browser, that prime placement would not be guaranteed.

The Justice Department also said it might want to force Google to spin off Android, the smartphone operating system, if the court’s actions failed to improve competition among search engines.

In addition, the government asked the judge to take steps that would give Google’s competitors a more direct boost. Under the proposal, search engines like DuckDuckGo and Microsoft’s Bing could take Google’s search results and ads and display them directly to their own users. Google would also have to hand over data about what terms people search for and what websites they click, which rivals could use to improve their own systems.

Google has argued that not much needs to change. It told Judge Mehta that it should still be allowed to pay Apple and others for its search engine to get top placement. But it also said browser makers should have the option to call off their deals with Google once a year. Those companies should be able to select different automatic search engines for different features, like a private browsing mode. Under Google’s proposal, smartphone manufacturers would have more freedom to decide what Google apps to install on their phones.

The hearing is expected to feature testimony from Google’s chief executive, Sundar Pichai, as well as executives from Google’s partners, like Apple and Mozilla.

Rivals are watching. Kamyl Bazbaz, the senior vice president of public affairs for DuckDuckGo, said it was taking a wait-and-see approach, since Google has promised to appeal Judge Mehta’s ruling.

“There isn’t a single thing to do right now to actually prepare, besides getting ready to watch the case really closely,” Mr. Bazbaz said. What is decided, he added, could change “nothing less than how everybody uses the internet.”

The post Will a Federal Judge Break Up Google? appeared first on Our Story Insight.