×
Anker Solix C1000 Gen 2 power station review: It’s smaller, lighter, and charges quicker than the original

Anker Solix C1000 Gen 2 power station review: It’s smaller, lighter, and charges quicker than the original

Tech-news

Table of Contents

If you want reliable tech that performs well without causing heartache when you check your bank account, Anker is your best friend. From travel-friendly chargers to massive projectors, Anker (and its brand family of Soundcore, Solix, and Eufy) consistently nails offering excellent products with thoughtful design that do not cost a sob-worthy amount.

Portable power stations have become the hot product recently, and that’s for good reason. Who doesn’t want to keep their phone charged while camping or the WiFi router on during a power outage? Anker has proven itself to be a leader in the portable power station world, and in testing, we found the Solix C1000 to strike the perfect balance between usability and affordability. Now, Anker has released the Solix C1000 Gen 2, which comes with a handful of noticeable tweaks. Which one is better? We put the new model to the test to decide which version wins our charged-up hearts (and gadgets).

Show-off features of the Anker Solix C1000 Gen 2

The Gen 2 version of the Anker Solix C1000 feels like the original went to a finishing school and came out with a new level of refinement. It’s a bit shinier, has a fancy LCD display, two of its USB-C ports can now handle 140W, and it charges quicker. Its charging capabilities have earned it a Guinness World Record for the fastest recharging portable power station in the 1,000Wh category, clocking in at a time of 49 minutes. 

Recharging the Solix C1000 Gen 2 can take under 50 minutes.
Credit: Lauren Allain / Mashable

This whizzing-fast time comes with the asterisk that you’ll need to head into the accompanying Anker app and activate UltraFast recharging. Simply plugging it into AC wall power won’t be quite as quick. If you opt for recharging with solar panels, you can connect up to 600W to get a full recharge in about two hours.

The LCD display on the Solix C1000 Gen 2 is slick, and it’s incredibly user-friendly, especially for beginners. If you’re searching for a portable power station to take camping, the Solix C1000 Gen 2 weighs just under 25 pounds, and the two side handles make this model incredibly portable. I found it easier to carry compared to the original Solix C1000.

a person holds the anker solix c1000 gen 2in one hand while standing outside

Coming in at just under 25 pounds, the Solix C1000 Gen 2 is pretty easy to carry around.
Credit: Lauren Allain / Mashable

It’s powerful enough to keep your refrigerator cooling during a power outage and operate the espresso machine in the morning. Its quiet operation of under 20 decibels when powering at under 200W means it’s awesome for a CPAP machine or keeping the air purifier going in the nursery at night.

Anker also upped its game with the Solix C1000 Gen 2 in terms of uninterrupted power supply (UPS), which comes in at just 10 milliseconds. That’s handy if you’ll be powering your desktop workstation and can’t afford for it to power off during an outage. The same could be said for medical devices. 

The layout of the ports on the Gen 2 is also great, and there’s ample space around each AC outlet to plug in chunkier chargers like camera batteries or rechargeable batteries. 

the anker solix c1000 gen 2 powering an espresso machine outside.

The Solix C1000 Gen 2 provided morning espresso from a beastly De’Longhi machine with no issues.
Credit: Lauren Allain / Mashable

The C1000 Gen 2 comes with 1,024Wh of capacity, and it cannot accept an expansion battery. That’s in contrast to the original C1000, which has 1,056Wh and can be connected to one additional battery, which doubles the capacity for a total of 2,112Wh. Here are some specs to study when deciding if the Gen 2 Solix C1000 is a good fit for your needs:

Specs

  • Capacity: 1,024Wh

  • Continuous output: 2,000W pure sine wave

  • Peak output: 3,000W

  • Weight: 24.9 pounds

  • Dimensions: 15.1 in. L × 8.2 in. W × 9.6 in. H

  • Power options: AC, USB-C (140W), USB-A

  • Recharging options: Grid power, solar, car

  • Battery type: LiFePO4 (lithium iron phosphate)

  • Life cycles: 80 percent capacity after 4,000 cycles

How does the Solix C1000 Gen 2 compare to the original Solix C1000?

Any time a brand offers an updated version, it’s worth closely comparing the specs. The original shines in a few areas, while the updated Gen 2 has some fancy upgrades. Here’s a breakdown of key differences:

Solix C1000

  • List price: $999

  • Power capacity: 1,056Wh

  • Peak output: 2,000W

  • UPS: 20 ms

  • Weight: 28.44 pounds

  • Dimensions: 14.8 in. L × 8.1 in. W × 10.5 in. H

  • Light bar: Yes

  • Expandable: Yes

  • AC recharging time: 58 minutes

  • Port options: 6 AC, 2 USB-C (1 at 100W), 2 USB-A

Solix C1000 Gen 2

  • List price: $799

  • Power capacity: 1,024Wh

  • Peak output: 3,000W

  • UPS: 10 ms

  • Weight: 24.9 pounds

  • Dimensions: 15.1 in. L × 8.2 in. W × 9.6 in. H

  • Light bar: No

  • Expandable: No

  • AC recharging time: 49 minutes

  • Port options: 5 AC, 3 USB-C (2 at 140W), 1 USB-A

the anker solix c1000 with the anker solix c1000 gen 2

The Anker Solix C1000 (left) is noticeably larger and heavier than the Solix C1000 Gen 2 (right).
Credit: Lauren Allain / Mashable

Overall, Anker made some great improvements with the Solix C1000 Gen 2. It can recharge quicker, is lighter and more compact, has a higher peak output, and has a more responsive uninterruptible power supply (UPS). It also has dual 140W USB-C ports, whereas the original Solix C1000 tops out at 100W.

On the downside, the new Gen 2 holds slightly less power compared to the original Solix C1000: 1,024Wh compared to 1,056Wh on the original. Anker also removed the lightbar on the new model, and it’s not compatible with an expansion battery. Presumably, Anker had to axe these extras to cut down on weight and size.

The overall price is another major consideration. On list price alone, the Solix C1000 Gen 2 offers a much better value since it costs $200 less. But if we’re being honest, we hardly ever see either of these models selling at full price. They’re almost always at some discount on Amazon.

the anker solix c1000 gen 2 recharges a phone in the woods

The Gen 2 version of the Anker Solix C1000 has two 140W USB-C ports, compared to the original C1000 which tops out at 100W.
Credit: Lauren Allain / Mashable

Boiled down, unless you cannot live without a lightbar or you fully intend on adding an expansion battery, the C1000 Gen 2 is likely your best bet. However, if one model is significantly cheaper than the other, we’d opt for whichever is less expensive. The differences are slight enough that many people won’t notice much difference at all.

Buyer beware: the Solix C1000 Gen 2 has two versions, and one is not ideal

Life is hard enough these days that we do not need to overcomplicate things. But Anker has done something kind of confusing here, and you’ll need to take a few moments to fully inspect which Anker Solix C1000 Gen 2 you’re buying because there are two versions.

There’s the standard Solix C1000 Gen 2, which is what we tested, and it comes with a full-width LCD screen and five AC ports. But then there’s also the Anker Solix C1000X Gen 2. Take note of the added “X” on there. This “X” model, sold at some retailers including Best Buy, has a smaller LCD screen and only four AC ports. The guts and other stats of both portable power stations are exactly the same. Both the Solix C1000 Gen 2 and the Solix C1000X Gen 2 come with the same price tag, which leads us to discourage going with the C1000X Gen 2. You lose one AC port and get a smaller display with the X version, so the C1000 Gen 2 works out to be a better value.

Is the Anker Solix C1000 Gen 2 worth buying?

The Anker Solix C1000 Gen 2 builds on the perfection of the original Solix C1000, but it’s lighter, charges quicker, comes with 140W USB-C ports, and has a more user-friendly display. Its MSRP is lower, and at full price, the Gen 2 offers a better value. However, if you prioritize a lightbar, want the ability to add an expansion battery, or you don’t care about spending an extra 10 minutes to get a full recharge, you’re probably better off with the original Solix C1000.

All that being said, both models are so close in performance and features that most people should simply buy whichever model is currently cheaper. At the time of writing, the Anker Solix C1000 has seen better discounts at Amazon. That’s especially true during Prime Day events when we’ve seen the price drop all the way to $375.

In the end, you cannot go wrong with either Anker Solix C1000 model. The brand simply nails offering solid portable power that’s user-friendly and affordable.

Anker SOLIX C1000 Gen 2 Portable Power Station, 2,000W (Peak 3,000W) Solar Generator, Full Charge in 49 Min, 1,024Wh LiFePO4 Battery for Home Backup, Power Outages, and Camping (Optional Solar Panel)

Source link
#Anker #Solix #C1000 #Gen #power #station #review #smaller #lighter #charges #quicker #original

Related Posts

Ask.com, originally founded as the Y2K stalwart Ask Jeeves, is officially dead.

“As IAC continues to sharpen its focus, we have made the decision to discontinue our search business, which includes Ask.com. After 25 years of answering the world’s questions, Ask.com officially closed on May 1, 2026,” the homepage now reads.

SEE ALSO: Friendster has returned! But you can only connect with offline friends.

Ask Jeeves was launched in 1997 by the Berkeley-based duo Garrett Gruener and David Warthen, a year before Google’s now-dominant search engine debuted to the masses. At the time, Ask Jeeves’ natural language processing, combined with its personality-filled voice and branding, made it the go-to web search and answer engine for early internet adopters. The website’s butler mascot, Jeeves, modeled after the P.G. Wodehouse character, made appearances at the Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade, holding its own against other iconic corporate logos of the early 2000s.

“Can one man have all the answers?” If he has access to the entire internet, absolutely.

But while many still refer to the site by its 1990s name, Ask.com hasn’t been “Ask Jeeves” for nearly 20 years, with the brand dropping the latter word and its valet logo in 2006. The shift came after a change in ownership, when the brand was transferred to American holding company IAC. In 2009, Ask.com was dubbed the official search engine of NASCAR.

“We are deeply grateful to the brilliant engineers, designers, and teams who built and supported Ask over the decades. And to you — the millions of users who turned to us for answers in a rapidly changing world — thank you for your endless curiosity, your loyalty, and your trust,” Ask.com reads. “Jeeves’ spirit endures.”

Amid an overwhelming shift toward generative AI-powered search engines and a repositioning of AI agents as the future of web browsing, the loss of Ask.com feels like a true end of the early dot-com era. So long Jeeves, hello AI.

#Jeeves #Ask.com #officially #shuttered">No more Jeeves: Ask.com officially shuttered Ask.com, originally founded as the Y2K stalwart Ask Jeeves, is officially dead. “As IAC continues to sharpen its focus, we have made the decision to discontinue our search business, which includes Ask.com. After 25 years of answering the world’s questions, Ask.com officially closed on May 1, 2026,” the homepage now reads. SEE ALSO: Friendster has returned! But you can only connect with offline friends. Ask Jeeves was launched in 1997 by the Berkeley-based duo Garrett Gruener and David Warthen, a year before Google’s now-dominant search engine debuted to the masses. At the time, Ask Jeeves’ natural language processing, combined with its personality-filled voice and branding, made it the go-to web search and answer engine for early internet adopters. The website’s butler mascot, Jeeves, modeled after the P.G. Wodehouse character, made appearances at the Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade, holding its own against other iconic corporate logos of the early 2000s. Mashable Trend Report “Can one man have all the answers?” If he has access to the entire internet, absolutely. But while many still refer to the site by its 1990s name, Ask.com hasn’t been “Ask Jeeves” for nearly 20 years, with the brand dropping the latter word and its valet logo in 2006. The shift came after a change in ownership, when the brand was transferred to American holding company IAC. In 2009, Ask.com was dubbed the official search engine of NASCAR. “We are deeply grateful to the brilliant engineers, designers, and teams who built and supported Ask over the decades. And to you — the millions of users who turned to us for answers in a rapidly changing world — thank you for your endless curiosity, your loyalty, and your trust,” Ask.com reads. “Jeeves’ spirit endures.”Amid an overwhelming shift toward generative AI-powered search engines and a repositioning of AI agents as the future of web browsing, the loss of Ask.com feels like a true end of the early dot-com era. So long Jeeves, hello AI. #Jeeves #Ask.com #officially #shuttered

Ask.com, originally founded as the Y2K stalwart Ask Jeeves, is officially dead.

“As IAC continues to sharpen its focus, we have made the decision to discontinue our search business, which includes Ask.com. After 25 years of answering the world’s questions, Ask.com officially closed on May 1, 2026,” the homepage now reads.

SEE ALSO: Friendster has returned! But you can only connect with offline friends.

Ask Jeeves was launched in 1997 by the Berkeley-based duo Garrett Gruener and David Warthen, a year before Google’s now-dominant search engine debuted to the masses. At the time, Ask Jeeves’ natural language processing, combined with its personality-filled voice and branding, made it the go-to web search and answer engine for early internet adopters. The website’s butler mascot, Jeeves, modeled after the P.G. Wodehouse character, made appearances at the Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade, holding its own against other iconic corporate logos of the early 2000s.

“Can one man have all the answers?” If he has access to the entire internet, absolutely.

But while many still refer to the site by its 1990s name, Ask.com hasn’t been “Ask Jeeves” for nearly 20 years, with the brand dropping the latter word and its valet logo in 2006. The shift came after a change in ownership, when the brand was transferred to American holding company IAC. In 2009, Ask.com was dubbed the official search engine of NASCAR.

“We are deeply grateful to the brilliant engineers, designers, and teams who built and supported Ask over the decades. And to you — the millions of users who turned to us for answers in a rapidly changing world — thank you for your endless curiosity, your loyalty, and your trust,” Ask.com reads. “Jeeves’ spirit endures.”

Amid an overwhelming shift toward generative AI-powered search engines and a repositioning of AI agents as the future of web browsing, the loss of Ask.com feels like a true end of the early dot-com era. So long Jeeves, hello AI.

#Jeeves #Ask.com #officially #shuttered">No more Jeeves: Ask.com officially shuttered

Ask.com, originally founded as the Y2K stalwart Ask Jeeves, is officially dead.

“As IAC continues to sharpen its focus, we have made the decision to discontinue our search business, which includes Ask.com. After 25 years of answering the world’s questions, Ask.com officially closed on May 1, 2026,” the homepage now reads.

SEE ALSO: Friendster has returned! But you can only connect with offline friends.

Ask Jeeves was launched in 1997 by the Berkeley-based duo Garrett Gruener and David Warthen, a year before Google’s now-dominant search engine debuted to the masses. At the time, Ask Jeeves’ natural language processing, combined with its personality-filled voice and branding, made it the go-to web search and answer engine for early internet adopters. The website’s butler mascot, Jeeves, modeled after the P.G. Wodehouse character, made appearances at the Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade, holding its own against other iconic corporate logos of the early 2000s.

“Can one man have all the answers?” If he has access to the entire internet, absolutely.

But while many still refer to the site by its 1990s name, Ask.com hasn’t been “Ask Jeeves” for nearly 20 years, with the brand dropping the latter word and its valet logo in 2006. The shift came after a change in ownership, when the brand was transferred to American holding company IAC. In 2009, Ask.com was dubbed the official search engine of NASCAR.

“We are deeply grateful to the brilliant engineers, designers, and teams who built and supported Ask over the decades. And to you — the millions of users who turned to us for answers in a rapidly changing world — thank you for your endless curiosity, your loyalty, and your trust,” Ask.com reads. “Jeeves’ spirit endures.”

Amid an overwhelming shift toward generative AI-powered search engines and a repositioning of AI agents as the future of web browsing, the loss of Ask.com feels like a true end of the early dot-com era. So long Jeeves, hello AI.

#Jeeves #Ask.com #officially #shuttered

New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez won a historic sum of $375 million in a landmark child safety case against Meta earlier this year. But the next stage of the fight could be even more consequential for Meta and the social media industry at large.

Beginning Monday, attorneys for Meta and New Mexico will return to a Santa Fe courthouse for a three-week public nuisance trial, where they’ll argue over the changes the AG wants the judge to order Meta make to Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp. Those changes include adding age verification for New Mexico users, prohibiting end-to-end encryption for users under 18 and capping their use to 90 hours per month, limiting engagement-boosting features like infinite scroll and autoplay, and requiring Meta to detect 99 percent of new child sexual abuse material (CSAM).

“From the outset, our goal was to try and change the way the company’s doing business,” Torrez told The Verge on a recent visit to Washington, DC, to advocate for new kids safety legislation. “I recognize that even at $375 million for a company this big and this profitable, it’s not enough in and of itself to change the way they’re doing business. In fact, there’s probably some folks in that company who think of it as the cost of doing business.”

“Even at $375 million for a company this big and this profitable, it’s not enough in and of itself to change the way they’re doing business”

While any changes ordered by the judge would only apply to Meta and its operations in New Mexico, the company could apply the changes in other states for the sake of simplicity. Or, as it’s threatened to do, it could simply go dark in the state. A court order could send a message to other tech companies that courts may be willing to alter their businesses if they’re found liable.

During the trial, New Mexico will argue Meta has become a public nuisance by creating a public health hazard in the state. The AG’s office expects to call on about 15 witnesses, including experts who will testify to the feasibility of their proposed remedies, and fact witnesses who will testify about Meta’s alleged harms. After Meta makes its defense, Judge Bryan Biedscheid will evaluate which proposals are relevant and feasible — a process that could take some time, compared to the speedy turnaround of the jury verdict in March.

A sweeping win for New Mexico could energize Torrez and thousands of other plaintiffs currently pursuing cases against tech companies. Conversely, a limited order could be a significant blow. The outcome won’t directly impact other cases, but it will almost certainly color negotiations over potential settlements.

Several of Torrez’s requests are hot-button tech policy issues. Age verification would almost certainly require Meta or a third-party provider to collect more personal information on adults and minors alike, which privacy advocates have consistently warned can make users less safe. Don McGowan, who previously served on the board of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC), said that barring encrypted communications on platforms like Facebook “is a great way to make sure that nobody uses Facebook Messenger anymore and just moves their activity to other platforms that aren’t touched by this lawsuit.”

The mandate may do little to change the reality of certain parts of the business — Meta recently announced it was getting rid of end-to-end encrypted messaging on Instagram that it said “very few people” actually used.

Peter Chapman, associate director of the Knight-Georgetown Institute, which works to connect policymakers and others with independent tech policy research, said there could be “significant tradeoffs” to a prohibition on encryption, and other changes may be more effective. For example, evidence presented by the state showed that Meta’s own profile recommendations were connecting adults and minors, a feature that poses a clearer danger of harm without much benefit, and which Torrez is also asking the court to stop. “There’s an opportunity to intervene at that level and try to prevent more of these harmful interactions from taking place without having to tackle encryption,” said Chapman.

No single feature change is likely to solve the entire child and teen safety problem, said Chapman, which is why it’s notable that Torrez plans to ask for several layers of changes. Still, the overall effectiveness of any given remedy will also depend on how it’s implemented and monitored. For instance, what would be the methodology Meta uses to report a 99 percent detection rate of new CSAM? How does it count or surmise what it hasn’t caught? The same goes for the accuracy and reliability of any mandated age verification.

Meta points to this potential issue in its argument against Torrez’s proposed remedies. “Regardless of where the accuracy threshold is set, Meta would never be able to prove that the system met that standard, because doing the calculation would require that Meta detect 100% of CSAM to use as the denominator,” the company wrote in a legal filing. Torrez’s chief deputy, James Grayson, said on a press call that the court and an appointed independent monitor would have some discretion over tracking; the office hasn’t yet identified who this monitor would be.

“The demands that are being made in New Mexico are ill-informed and provide massive additional exposure for other kinds of exploitation”

Meta and other groups that oppose the AG’s approach say the outcomes he’s seeking are counterproductive. “The demands that are being made in New Mexico are ill-informed and provide massive additional exposure for other kinds of exploitation,” said Maureen Flatley, president of Stop Child Predators, a group that advocates for more funding for enforcement of criminal laws against child predators, and has received funding from Meta-backed trade group NetChoice. “This notion that the platforms have to be responsible for pushing all these people out would be like saying to the US Bankers Association, ‘By the way, you are responsible for all the bank robberies from now on,’ which is ludicrous.”

“The New Mexico Attorney General’s focus on a single platform is a misguided strategy that ignores the hundreds of other apps teens use daily,” Meta spokesperson Chris Sgro said in a statement. “The state’s proposed mandates infringe on parental rights and stifle free expression for all New Mexicans. Regardless, we remain committed to providing safe, age-appropriate experiences and have already launched many of the protections the state seeks, including 13 safety measures this past year.”

But Torrez has taken aim at the broader tech industry, too. He recently visited Washington, DC, to advocate for new protections for kids online and an overhaul of Section 230, the law that protects tech platforms from being held liable for their users’ posts. “While we were able to prevail in our district court in Santa Fe, I still think the law as it currently exists creates a lot of ambiguity,” he told The Verge on that visit. “If Section 230 were not something that these companies could hide behind, then it increases the chances that they’re going to have to actually make their case to a jury.”

But Chapman said regulation through lawsuits isn’t an “uncommon sort of story” in the US. “Whether that’s tobacco, opioids, e-cigarettes, there is precedent for legal action moving a broader policy conversation.”

Follow topics and authors from this story to see more like this in your personalized homepage feed and to receive email updates.
#Metas #historic #loss #court #cost #lot #millionLaw,Meta,Policy,Privacy,Speech,Tech">Meta’s historic loss in court could cost a lot more than 5 millionNew Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez won a historic sum of 5 million in a landmark child safety case against Meta earlier this year. But the next stage of the fight could be even more consequential for Meta and the social media industry at large.Beginning Monday, attorneys for Meta and New Mexico will return to a Santa Fe courthouse for a three-week public nuisance trial, where they’ll argue over the changes the AG wants the judge to order Meta make to Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp. Those changes include adding age verification for New Mexico users, prohibiting end-to-end encryption for users under 18 and capping their use to 90 hours per month, limiting engagement-boosting features like infinite scroll and autoplay, and requiring Meta to detect 99 percent of new child sexual abuse material (CSAM).“From the outset, our goal was to try and change the way the company’s doing business,” Torrez told The Verge on a recent visit to Washington, DC, to advocate for new kids safety legislation. “I recognize that even at 5 million for a company this big and this profitable, it’s not enough in and of itself to change the way they’re doing business. In fact, there’s probably some folks in that company who think of it as the cost of doing business.”“Even at 5 million for a company this big and this profitable, it’s not enough in and of itself to change the way they’re doing business”While any changes ordered by the judge would only apply to Meta and its operations in New Mexico, the company could apply the changes in other states for the sake of simplicity. Or, as it’s threatened to do, it could simply go dark in the state. A court order could send a message to other tech companies that courts may be willing to alter their businesses if they’re found liable.During the trial, New Mexico will argue Meta has become a public nuisance by creating a public health hazard in the state. The AG’s office expects to call on about 15 witnesses, including experts who will testify to the feasibility of their proposed remedies, and fact witnesses who will testify about Meta’s alleged harms. After Meta makes its defense, Judge Bryan Biedscheid will evaluate which proposals are relevant and feasible — a process that could take some time, compared to the speedy turnaround of the jury verdict in March.A sweeping win for New Mexico could energize Torrez and thousands of other plaintiffs currently pursuing cases against tech companies. Conversely, a limited order could be a significant blow. The outcome won’t directly impact other cases, but it will almost certainly color negotiations over potential settlements.Several of Torrez’s requests are hot-button tech policy issues. Age verification would almost certainly require Meta or a third-party provider to collect more personal information on adults and minors alike, which privacy advocates have consistently warned can make users less safe. Don McGowan, who previously served on the board of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC), said that barring encrypted communications on platforms like Facebook “is a great way to make sure that nobody uses Facebook Messenger anymore and just moves their activity to other platforms that aren’t touched by this lawsuit.”The mandate may do little to change the reality of certain parts of the business — Meta recently announced it was getting rid of end-to-end encrypted messaging on Instagram that it said “very few people” actually used.Peter Chapman, associate director of the Knight-Georgetown Institute, which works to connect policymakers and others with independent tech policy research, said there could be “significant tradeoffs” to a prohibition on encryption, and other changes may be more effective. For example, evidence presented by the state showed that Meta’s own profile recommendations were connecting adults and minors, a feature that poses a clearer danger of harm without much benefit, and which Torrez is also asking the court to stop. “There’s an opportunity to intervene at that level and try to prevent more of these harmful interactions from taking place without having to tackle encryption,” said Chapman.No single feature change is likely to solve the entire child and teen safety problem, said Chapman, which is why it’s notable that Torrez plans to ask for several layers of changes. Still, the overall effectiveness of any given remedy will also depend on how it’s implemented and monitored. For instance, what would be the methodology Meta uses to report a 99 percent detection rate of new CSAM? How does it count or surmise what it hasn’t caught? The same goes for the accuracy and reliability of any mandated age verification.Meta points to this potential issue in its argument against Torrez’s proposed remedies. “Regardless of where the accuracy threshold is set, Meta would never be able to prove that the system met that standard, because doing the calculation would require that Meta detect 100% of CSAM to use as the denominator,” the company wrote in a legal filing. Torrez’s chief deputy, James Grayson, said on a press call that the court and an appointed independent monitor would have some discretion over tracking; the office hasn’t yet identified who this monitor would be.“The demands that are being made in New Mexico are ill-informed and provide massive additional exposure for other kinds of exploitation”Meta and other groups that oppose the AG’s approach say the outcomes he’s seeking are counterproductive. “The demands that are being made in New Mexico are ill-informed and provide massive additional exposure for other kinds of exploitation,” said Maureen Flatley, president of Stop Child Predators, a group that advocates for more funding for enforcement of criminal laws against child predators, and has received funding from Meta-backed trade group NetChoice. “This notion that the platforms have to be responsible for pushing all these people out would be like saying to the US Bankers Association, ‘By the way, you are responsible for all the bank robberies from now on,’ which is ludicrous.”“The New Mexico Attorney General’s focus on a single platform is a misguided strategy that ignores the hundreds of other apps teens use daily,” Meta spokesperson Chris Sgro said in a statement. “The state’s proposed mandates infringe on parental rights and stifle free expression for all New Mexicans. Regardless, we remain committed to providing safe, age-appropriate experiences and have already launched many of the protections the state seeks, including 13 safety measures this past year.”But Torrez has taken aim at the broader tech industry, too. He recently visited Washington, DC, to advocate for new protections for kids online and an overhaul of Section 230, the law that protects tech platforms from being held liable for their users’ posts. “While we were able to prevail in our district court in Santa Fe, I still think the law as it currently exists creates a lot of ambiguity,” he told The Verge on that visit. “If Section 230 were not something that these companies could hide behind, then it increases the chances that they’re going to have to actually make their case to a jury.”But Chapman said regulation through lawsuits isn’t an “uncommon sort of story” in the US. “Whether that’s tobacco, opioids, e-cigarettes, there is precedent for legal action moving a broader policy conversation.”Follow topics and authors from this story to see more like this in your personalized homepage feed and to receive email updates.Lauren FeinerCloseLauren FeinerPosts from this author will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All by Lauren FeinerLawCloseLawPosts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All LawMetaCloseMetaPosts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All MetaPolicyClosePolicyPosts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All PolicyPrivacyClosePrivacyPosts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All PrivacySpeechCloseSpeechPosts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All SpeechTechCloseTechPosts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All Tech#Metas #historic #loss #court #cost #lot #millionLaw,Meta,Policy,Privacy,Speech,Tech

won a historic sum of $375 million in a landmark child safety case against Meta earlier this year. But the next stage of the fight could be even more consequential for Meta and the social media industry at large.

Beginning Monday, attorneys for Meta and New Mexico will return to a Santa Fe courthouse for a three-week public nuisance trial, where they’ll argue over the changes the AG wants the judge to order Meta make to Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp. Those changes include adding age verification for New Mexico users, prohibiting end-to-end encryption for users under 18 and capping their use to 90 hours per month, limiting engagement-boosting features like infinite scroll and autoplay, and requiring Meta to detect 99 percent of new child sexual abuse material (CSAM).

“From the outset, our goal was to try and change the way the company’s doing business,” Torrez told The Verge on a recent visit to Washington, DC, to advocate for new kids safety legislation. “I recognize that even at $375 million for a company this big and this profitable, it’s not enough in and of itself to change the way they’re doing business. In fact, there’s probably some folks in that company who think of it as the cost of doing business.”

“Even at $375 million for a company this big and this profitable, it’s not enough in and of itself to change the way they’re doing business”

While any changes ordered by the judge would only apply to Meta and its operations in New Mexico, the company could apply the changes in other states for the sake of simplicity. Or, as it’s threatened to do, it could simply go dark in the state. A court order could send a message to other tech companies that courts may be willing to alter their businesses if they’re found liable.

During the trial, New Mexico will argue Meta has become a public nuisance by creating a public health hazard in the state. The AG’s office expects to call on about 15 witnesses, including experts who will testify to the feasibility of their proposed remedies, and fact witnesses who will testify about Meta’s alleged harms. After Meta makes its defense, Judge Bryan Biedscheid will evaluate which proposals are relevant and feasible — a process that could take some time, compared to the speedy turnaround of the jury verdict in March.

A sweeping win for New Mexico could energize Torrez and thousands of other plaintiffs currently pursuing cases against tech companies. Conversely, a limited order could be a significant blow. The outcome won’t directly impact other cases, but it will almost certainly color negotiations over potential settlements.

Several of Torrez’s requests are hot-button tech policy issues. Age verification would almost certainly require Meta or a third-party provider to collect more personal information on adults and minors alike, which privacy advocates have consistently warned can make users less safe. Don McGowan, who previously served on the board of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC), said that barring encrypted communications on platforms like Facebook “is a great way to make sure that nobody uses Facebook Messenger anymore and just moves their activity to other platforms that aren’t touched by this lawsuit.”

The mandate may do little to change the reality of certain parts of the business — Meta recently announced it was getting rid of end-to-end encrypted messaging on Instagram that it said “very few people” actually used.

Peter Chapman, associate director of the Knight-Georgetown Institute, which works to connect policymakers and others with independent tech policy research, said there could be “significant tradeoffs” to a prohibition on encryption, and other changes may be more effective. For example, evidence presented by the state showed that Meta’s own profile recommendations were connecting adults and minors, a feature that poses a clearer danger of harm without much benefit, and which Torrez is also asking the court to stop. “There’s an opportunity to intervene at that level and try to prevent more of these harmful interactions from taking place without having to tackle encryption,” said Chapman.

No single feature change is likely to solve the entire child and teen safety problem, said Chapman, which is why it’s notable that Torrez plans to ask for several layers of changes. Still, the overall effectiveness of any given remedy will also depend on how it’s implemented and monitored. For instance, what would be the methodology Meta uses to report a 99 percent detection rate of new CSAM? How does it count or surmise what it hasn’t caught? The same goes for the accuracy and reliability of any mandated age verification.

Meta points to this potential issue in its argument against Torrez’s proposed remedies. “Regardless of where the accuracy threshold is set, Meta would never be able to prove that the system met that standard, because doing the calculation would require that Meta detect 100% of CSAM to use as the denominator,” the company wrote in a legal filing. Torrez’s chief deputy, James Grayson, said on a press call that the court and an appointed independent monitor would have some discretion over tracking; the office hasn’t yet identified who this monitor would be.

“The demands that are being made in New Mexico are ill-informed and provide massive additional exposure for other kinds of exploitation”

Meta and other groups that oppose the AG’s approach say the outcomes he’s seeking are counterproductive. “The demands that are being made in New Mexico are ill-informed and provide massive additional exposure for other kinds of exploitation,” said Maureen Flatley, president of Stop Child Predators, a group that advocates for more funding for enforcement of criminal laws against child predators, and has received funding from Meta-backed trade group NetChoice. “This notion that the platforms have to be responsible for pushing all these people out would be like saying to the US Bankers Association, ‘By the way, you are responsible for all the bank robberies from now on,’ which is ludicrous.”

“The New Mexico Attorney General’s focus on a single platform is a misguided strategy that ignores the hundreds of other apps teens use daily,” Meta spokesperson Chris Sgro said in a statement. “The state’s proposed mandates infringe on parental rights and stifle free expression for all New Mexicans. Regardless, we remain committed to providing safe, age-appropriate experiences and have already launched many of the protections the state seeks, including 13 safety measures this past year.”

But Torrez has taken aim at the broader tech industry, too. He recently visited Washington, DC, to advocate for new protections for kids online and an overhaul of Section 230, the law that protects tech platforms from being held liable for their users’ posts. “While we were able to prevail in our district court in Santa Fe, I still think the law as it currently exists creates a lot of ambiguity,” he told The Verge on that visit. “If Section 230 were not something that these companies could hide behind, then it increases the chances that they’re going to have to actually make their case to a jury.”

But Chapman said regulation through lawsuits isn’t an “uncommon sort of story” in the US. “Whether that’s tobacco, opioids, e-cigarettes, there is precedent for legal action moving a broader policy conversation.”

Follow topics and authors from this story to see more like this in your personalized homepage feed and to receive email updates.

#Metas #historic #loss #court #cost #lot #millionLaw,Meta,Policy,Privacy,Speech,Tech">Meta’s historic loss in court could cost a lot more than $375 million

New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez won a historic sum of $375 million in a landmark child safety case against Meta earlier this year. But the next stage of the fight could be even more consequential for Meta and the social media industry at large.

Beginning Monday, attorneys for Meta and New Mexico will return to a Santa Fe courthouse for a three-week public nuisance trial, where they’ll argue over the changes the AG wants the judge to order Meta make to Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp. Those changes include adding age verification for New Mexico users, prohibiting end-to-end encryption for users under 18 and capping their use to 90 hours per month, limiting engagement-boosting features like infinite scroll and autoplay, and requiring Meta to detect 99 percent of new child sexual abuse material (CSAM).

“From the outset, our goal was to try and change the way the company’s doing business,” Torrez told The Verge on a recent visit to Washington, DC, to advocate for new kids safety legislation. “I recognize that even at $375 million for a company this big and this profitable, it’s not enough in and of itself to change the way they’re doing business. In fact, there’s probably some folks in that company who think of it as the cost of doing business.”

“Even at $375 million for a company this big and this profitable, it’s not enough in and of itself to change the way they’re doing business”

While any changes ordered by the judge would only apply to Meta and its operations in New Mexico, the company could apply the changes in other states for the sake of simplicity. Or, as it’s threatened to do, it could simply go dark in the state. A court order could send a message to other tech companies that courts may be willing to alter their businesses if they’re found liable.

During the trial, New Mexico will argue Meta has become a public nuisance by creating a public health hazard in the state. The AG’s office expects to call on about 15 witnesses, including experts who will testify to the feasibility of their proposed remedies, and fact witnesses who will testify about Meta’s alleged harms. After Meta makes its defense, Judge Bryan Biedscheid will evaluate which proposals are relevant and feasible — a process that could take some time, compared to the speedy turnaround of the jury verdict in March.

A sweeping win for New Mexico could energize Torrez and thousands of other plaintiffs currently pursuing cases against tech companies. Conversely, a limited order could be a significant blow. The outcome won’t directly impact other cases, but it will almost certainly color negotiations over potential settlements.

Several of Torrez’s requests are hot-button tech policy issues. Age verification would almost certainly require Meta or a third-party provider to collect more personal information on adults and minors alike, which privacy advocates have consistently warned can make users less safe. Don McGowan, who previously served on the board of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC), said that barring encrypted communications on platforms like Facebook “is a great way to make sure that nobody uses Facebook Messenger anymore and just moves their activity to other platforms that aren’t touched by this lawsuit.”

The mandate may do little to change the reality of certain parts of the business — Meta recently announced it was getting rid of end-to-end encrypted messaging on Instagram that it said “very few people” actually used.

Peter Chapman, associate director of the Knight-Georgetown Institute, which works to connect policymakers and others with independent tech policy research, said there could be “significant tradeoffs” to a prohibition on encryption, and other changes may be more effective. For example, evidence presented by the state showed that Meta’s own profile recommendations were connecting adults and minors, a feature that poses a clearer danger of harm without much benefit, and which Torrez is also asking the court to stop. “There’s an opportunity to intervene at that level and try to prevent more of these harmful interactions from taking place without having to tackle encryption,” said Chapman.

No single feature change is likely to solve the entire child and teen safety problem, said Chapman, which is why it’s notable that Torrez plans to ask for several layers of changes. Still, the overall effectiveness of any given remedy will also depend on how it’s implemented and monitored. For instance, what would be the methodology Meta uses to report a 99 percent detection rate of new CSAM? How does it count or surmise what it hasn’t caught? The same goes for the accuracy and reliability of any mandated age verification.

Meta points to this potential issue in its argument against Torrez’s proposed remedies. “Regardless of where the accuracy threshold is set, Meta would never be able to prove that the system met that standard, because doing the calculation would require that Meta detect 100% of CSAM to use as the denominator,” the company wrote in a legal filing. Torrez’s chief deputy, James Grayson, said on a press call that the court and an appointed independent monitor would have some discretion over tracking; the office hasn’t yet identified who this monitor would be.

“The demands that are being made in New Mexico are ill-informed and provide massive additional exposure for other kinds of exploitation”

Meta and other groups that oppose the AG’s approach say the outcomes he’s seeking are counterproductive. “The demands that are being made in New Mexico are ill-informed and provide massive additional exposure for other kinds of exploitation,” said Maureen Flatley, president of Stop Child Predators, a group that advocates for more funding for enforcement of criminal laws against child predators, and has received funding from Meta-backed trade group NetChoice. “This notion that the platforms have to be responsible for pushing all these people out would be like saying to the US Bankers Association, ‘By the way, you are responsible for all the bank robberies from now on,’ which is ludicrous.”

“The New Mexico Attorney General’s focus on a single platform is a misguided strategy that ignores the hundreds of other apps teens use daily,” Meta spokesperson Chris Sgro said in a statement. “The state’s proposed mandates infringe on parental rights and stifle free expression for all New Mexicans. Regardless, we remain committed to providing safe, age-appropriate experiences and have already launched many of the protections the state seeks, including 13 safety measures this past year.”

But Torrez has taken aim at the broader tech industry, too. He recently visited Washington, DC, to advocate for new protections for kids online and an overhaul of Section 230, the law that protects tech platforms from being held liable for their users’ posts. “While we were able to prevail in our district court in Santa Fe, I still think the law as it currently exists creates a lot of ambiguity,” he told The Verge on that visit. “If Section 230 were not something that these companies could hide behind, then it increases the chances that they’re going to have to actually make their case to a jury.”

But Chapman said regulation through lawsuits isn’t an “uncommon sort of story” in the US. “Whether that’s tobacco, opioids, e-cigarettes, there is precedent for legal action moving a broader policy conversation.”

Follow topics and authors from this story to see more like this in your personalized homepage feed and to receive email updates.
#Metas #historic #loss #court #cost #lot #millionLaw,Meta,Policy,Privacy,Speech,Tech
Audiences will have to wait a few months longer to see “Narnia: The Magician’s Nephew,” with the release date pushed back from Thanksgiving to February 12, 2027.

In addition to relaunching “Narnia” on big screens and serving as writer-director Greta Gerwig’s first film since “Barbie,” “The Magician’s Nephew” also looks like the next step in Netflix’s relationship with movie theaters — and it’s becoming an even bigger step with the delay.

The company had previously said “The Magician’s Nephew” would play exclusively on Imax screens for at least two weeks before a streaming release for Christmas. That would be an ambitious theatrical release by Netflix’s standards, but relatively limited compared to many other Hollywood blockbusters.

Now, Netflix says “The Magician’s Nephew” will begin exclusive Imax previews on February 10, 2027, followed by a wide global release in theaters on February 12. (In Netflix’s words, it will be a “global eventized release.”) The movie won’t start streaming until April 2.

The company’s announcement doesn’t get more specific about which theaters will be showing “The Magician’s Nephew,” but Imax released a statement noting that the delay will allow the film to have “a full theatrical window,” so the major theater chains are unlikely to complain

In fact, AMC Theatres recently highlighted the success of  its“Stranger Things” finale screenings and said it has plans for more collaborations with Netflix. At the same time, the streamer’s limited support for theatrical releases and its resistance to exclusive theatrical windows was reportedly a “dealbreaker” in negotiations with the creators of “Stranger Things,” who ultimately signed an exclusive deal with Paramount.

With a cast that includes Daniel Craig and Meryl Streep, “The Magician’s Nephew” adapts one of the later books in C.S. Lewis’ classic fantasy series —  a prequel that lays out the origins of Narnia.

Techcrunch event

San Francisco, CA | October 13-15, 2026

In Netflix’s announcement, Gerwig said she first read the book as a child, when she “fell in love with the gorgeously improbable but completely brilliant concept of a cosmic lion singing the world of Narnia to life.”

When you purchase through links in our articles, we may earn a small commission. This doesn’t affect our editorial independence.

#Netflix #delays #Greta #Gerwigs #Narnia #movie #big #theatrical #push #TechCrunchGreta Gerwig,Narnia: The Magician’s Nephew,Netflix">Netflix delays Greta Gerwig’s ‘Narnia’ movie for big theatrical push in 2027 | TechCrunch Audiences will have to wait a few months longer to see “Narnia: The Magician’s Nephew,” with the release date pushed back from Thanksgiving to February 12, 2027. In addition to relaunching “Narnia” on big screens and serving as writer-director Greta Gerwig’s first film since “Barbie,” “The Magician’s Nephew” also looks like the next step in Netflix’s relationship with movie theaters — and it’s becoming an even bigger step with the delay. The company had previously said “The Magician’s Nephew” would play exclusively on Imax screens for at least two weeks before a streaming release for Christmas. That would be an ambitious theatrical release by Netflix’s standards, but relatively limited compared to many other Hollywood blockbusters. Now, Netflix says “The Magician’s Nephew” will begin exclusive Imax previews on February 10, 2027, followed by a wide global release in theaters on February 12. (In Netflix’s words, it will be a “global eventized release.”) The movie won’t start streaming until April 2. The company’s announcement doesn’t get more specific about which theaters will be showing “The Magician’s Nephew,” but Imax released a statement noting that the delay will allow the film to have “a full theatrical window,” so the major theater chains are unlikely to complain In fact, AMC Theatres recently highlighted the success of  its“Stranger Things” finale screenings and said it has plans for more collaborations with Netflix. At the same time, the streamer’s limited support for theatrical releases and its resistance to exclusive theatrical windows was reportedly a “dealbreaker” in negotiations with the creators of “Stranger Things,” who ultimately signed an exclusive deal with Paramount. With a cast that includes Daniel Craig and Meryl Streep, “The Magician’s Nephew” adapts one of the later books in C.S. Lewis’ classic fantasy series —  a prequel that lays out the origins of Narnia. Techcrunch event San Francisco, CA | October 13-15, 2026 In Netflix’s announcement, Gerwig said she first read the book as a child, when she “fell in love with the gorgeously improbable but completely brilliant concept of a cosmic lion singing the world of Narnia to life.” When you purchase through links in our articles, we may earn a small commission. This doesn’t affect our editorial independence.#Netflix #delays #Greta #Gerwigs #Narnia #movie #big #theatrical #push #TechCrunchGreta Gerwig,Narnia: The Magician’s Nephew,Netflix

Netflix says “The Magician’s Nephew” will begin exclusive Imax previews on February 10, 2027, followed by a wide global release in theaters on February 12. (In Netflix’s words, it will be a “global eventized release.”) The movie won’t start streaming until April 2.

The company’s announcement doesn’t get more specific about which theaters will be showing “The Magician’s Nephew,” but Imax released a statement noting that the delay will allow the film to have “a full theatrical window,” so the major theater chains are unlikely to complain

In fact, AMC Theatres recently highlighted the success of  its“Stranger Things” finale screenings and said it has plans for more collaborations with Netflix. At the same time, the streamer’s limited support for theatrical releases and its resistance to exclusive theatrical windows was reportedly a “dealbreaker” in negotiations with the creators of “Stranger Things,” who ultimately signed an exclusive deal with Paramount.

With a cast that includes Daniel Craig and Meryl Streep, “The Magician’s Nephew” adapts one of the later books in C.S. Lewis’ classic fantasy series —  a prequel that lays out the origins of Narnia.

Techcrunch event

San Francisco, CA | October 13-15, 2026

In Netflix’s announcement, Gerwig said she first read the book as a child, when she “fell in love with the gorgeously improbable but completely brilliant concept of a cosmic lion singing the world of Narnia to life.”

When you purchase through links in our articles, we may earn a small commission. This doesn’t affect our editorial independence.

#Netflix #delays #Greta #Gerwigs #Narnia #movie #big #theatrical #push #TechCrunchGreta Gerwig,Narnia: The Magician’s Nephew,Netflix">Netflix delays Greta Gerwig’s ‘Narnia’ movie for big theatrical push in 2027 | TechCrunch

Audiences will have to wait a few months longer to see “Narnia: The Magician’s Nephew,” with the release date pushed back from Thanksgiving to February 12, 2027.

In addition to relaunching “Narnia” on big screens and serving as writer-director Greta Gerwig’s first film since “Barbie,” “The Magician’s Nephew” also looks like the next step in Netflix’s relationship with movie theaters — and it’s becoming an even bigger step with the delay.

The company had previously said “The Magician’s Nephew” would play exclusively on Imax screens for at least two weeks before a streaming release for Christmas. That would be an ambitious theatrical release by Netflix’s standards, but relatively limited compared to many other Hollywood blockbusters.

Now, Netflix says “The Magician’s Nephew” will begin exclusive Imax previews on February 10, 2027, followed by a wide global release in theaters on February 12. (In Netflix’s words, it will be a “global eventized release.”) The movie won’t start streaming until April 2.

The company’s announcement doesn’t get more specific about which theaters will be showing “The Magician’s Nephew,” but Imax released a statement noting that the delay will allow the film to have “a full theatrical window,” so the major theater chains are unlikely to complain

In fact, AMC Theatres recently highlighted the success of  its“Stranger Things” finale screenings and said it has plans for more collaborations with Netflix. At the same time, the streamer’s limited support for theatrical releases and its resistance to exclusive theatrical windows was reportedly a “dealbreaker” in negotiations with the creators of “Stranger Things,” who ultimately signed an exclusive deal with Paramount.

With a cast that includes Daniel Craig and Meryl Streep, “The Magician’s Nephew” adapts one of the later books in C.S. Lewis’ classic fantasy series —  a prequel that lays out the origins of Narnia.

Techcrunch event

San Francisco, CA | October 13-15, 2026

In Netflix’s announcement, Gerwig said she first read the book as a child, when she “fell in love with the gorgeously improbable but completely brilliant concept of a cosmic lion singing the world of Narnia to life.”

When you purchase through links in our articles, we may earn a small commission. This doesn’t affect our editorial independence.

#Netflix #delays #Greta #Gerwigs #Narnia #movie #big #theatrical #push #TechCrunchGreta Gerwig,Narnia: The Magician’s Nephew,Netflix

Post Comment