×
Put Power in Your Pocket With the Best Portable Chargers

Put Power in Your Pocket With the Best Portable Chargers

Tech-news , , , , , , , , ,

Other Portable Chargers We Tested

Photograph: Simon Hill

There are so many portable chargers out there. Here are a few more we like that just missed out on a place above for one reason or another.

OnePlus Slim Magnetic Power Bank for $70: Sleek in silver grey aluminum with a chamfered edge, this power bank looks lovely and is very slim, measuring 3.77 x 2.71 x 0.34 inches, not to mention lightweight at just 120 grams. But the 5,000-mAh capacity is just over half that after inefficiency takes a bite. Wireless charging tops out at 10 watts for Android and 7.5 watts for iPhone (even wired charging is limited to 10 watts). You can snag better performers for less.

Denvix PowerX Power Bank for $180: This beefy 25,000 mAh power bank can put out up to 200 watts via two USB-C ports, one USB-A, and a Qi wireless charging pad, to charge four devices simultaneously, maybe a laptop, a couple of phones, and some earbuds. The display shows power remaining, watts in or out, temperature, and a few other stats. It’s a solid option if you want something that can charge laptops, but the finish is a little too smooth, and it gets very warm when charging multiple devices.

Sharge Flow Mini a silver rectangular power bank.

Photograph: Simon Hill

Sharge Flow Mini for $13: With a similar design to Anker’s Nano Power Bank above and the same 5,000-mAh capacity, you might be tempted to go for this instead. It comes with interchangeable USB-C to USB-C or Lightning connectors (which I worry will be easy to lose) and has a built-in USB-C cable that doubles as a strap, though it’s tricky to pull out. There’s a power button with four LEDs to show the remaining power, and it only takes an hour and a half to refill, but the charging rate maxes out at 12 watts either way.

Cuktech 10 Power Bank for $40: With impressive build quality, including a nice grippy material on the underside and a handy display showing power output and input, this Cuktech (pronounced chook-tek) power bank almost earned a place above. Despite the modest capacity, it is built for speed and capable of outputting 100 watts, with support for PD 3.0 and PPS. It can also recharge in less than an hour (up to 90 W). The trade-off for the high speed is low efficiency. You won’t get anywhere near the 10,000-mAh capacity advertised, but this is true of most power banks. I also tested the higher-capacity Cuktech 15 Ultra ($90), which boasts double the power, can charge two or three devices simultaneously at up to 165 watts, and supports many fast-charging protocols including PPS, QC, PD3.1, FCP, SCP, and MiPPS.

Baseus Blade 2 for $80: With an extremely thin design, this 12,000-mAh-capacity power bank is easy to slip into a backpack and can charge most phones a couple of times or top up a laptop at up to 65 watts. It has a display showing battery life as a percentage of time remaining and the input or output for both USB-C ports. We’ve tried many products from up and down the Baseus product line. While they are generally reliable, we do think there are better options.

RUGD power brick charger placed on tree bark and leaves with water droplets on top

Photograph: RUGD

Rugd Power Brick for $50: This shock- and water-resistant (IP67 certified) charger doubles as a bright 16-LED with an SOS mode, and has a hefty 10,050-mAh capacity (one USB-C at 18 W and a USB-A that supports QC). It’s also bright orange, weighs just 280 grams, and comes with a carabiner for easy attachment, all of which make it an excellent camping buddy.

FansDreams MChaos for $46: I love the idea of a wearable power bank, and this one comes in lime green with a carabiner that makes it easy to attach to a bag. It also has a built-in, retractable, 28-inch USB-C cable to charge your phone at up to 20 watts. Recharging the power bank is a little slower at 18 watts. The colored LED gives you a sense of remaining juice as it goes from green to orange to red, but the 5,000-mAh capacity means you’ll be lucky to get one full charge for your phone, and even the discounted price feels a little high. I also tested the 10,000-mAh model ($50), which has a nicer design. Pull the 2.3-foot retractable USB-C cable out and the percentage remaining pops up visible through the shiny plastic of the case. There’s a USB-C port on the bottom for charging, and it goes up to 22.5 watts either way.

Infinacore Pandora Portable Power Global Wireless Charger for $50: This was our pick for the best wall-charger power bank, and it is still a decent charger that plugs directly into the wall. It has the advantage of optional EU and UK plug adapters for an extra $10, making it a handy travel companion. It offers 8,000 mAh via one USB-C port, two USB-A ports (18 W total), and Qi wireless charging (5 W).

Iniu Power Bank BaI-B64 for $72: Offering relatively low prices, Iniu is a power bank brand on the rise. This portable charger packs a 27,000-mAh capacity, can put out up to 140 W, and charges three devices at once via two USB-C ports and a single USB-A port. We also tested the very similar BI-B63 ($54), which has a slightly lower capacity at 25,000 mAh but seems like a better value. Unfortunately, both fell slightly short of the stated capacity when tested. We also like the color options available in the company’s slimmest version.

Anker Prime Power Bank

Photograph: Anker

Anker Prime Power Bank for $110: With a total combined output of 200 W and a hefty 20,000-mAh capacity, this is a solid choice for charging any device; you could even use it to charge two laptops at once via the two USB-C ports. There is a USB-A port, too, and a digital screen. You can also buy a Power Base ($110) for this, which enables you to stick the power bank on top and charge it via Pogo Pins. The base makes it easy to keep the power bank topped up and is handy for desktop charging with two USB-C ports and one USB-A port (combined max output 100 W). I tried the UK version (£75), which worked great, but WIRED reviews editor Julian Chokkattu had issues with the US base failing to charge the power bank.

Anker Nano Power Bank 10,000 for $40: Another solid option from Anker (also available for £30 from Amazon UK), this power bank has a built-in USB-C cable that doubles as a loop for easy carrying and a further one USB-C and one USB-A port. It has a 10,000-mAh capacity, good for just shy of two full charges for most phones. It maxes out at 30 watts each way and can be fully charged in around two hours.

Mpowered Luci Pro Lux for $50: This solar-powered inflatable lantern boasts 10 LEDs and emits a lovely warm glow that’s perfect for camping or walking at night. It is IP67-rated and packs down flat for easy carrying. While it’s not primarily a power bank, the 2,000-mAh battery in the Luci Pro can charge your phone in an emergency. A nearly full Luci Pro boosted my Pixel 6 Pro by around 25 percent. It takes at least 14 hours to charge back up using the solar panels, or you can plug into an outlet and recharge in three.

Mophie Powerstation, Powerstation XL, and Powerstation Pro AC for $28+: Mophie’s 2023 update to its Powerstation line has three devices in 10,000-, 20,000-, and 27,000-mAh capacities. They’re bulky, nondescript devices with USB-C and USB-A ports, but the latter has an AC port and is great for travel. WIRED reviews editor Julian Chokkattu used the XL during his trip to Japan and had no trouble keeping his Switch Lite and Pixel 7 Pro topped up. There are LEDs to indicate remaining battery life, but there’s otherwise nothing special about ’em.

iWalk Portable Charger for $27: WIRED reviews editor Julian Chokkattu used the Lightning version of this power bank while covering the Apple event, and it reliably topped up his iPhone. The 4,800-mAh capacity won’t fully refill your device, but it’s tiny enough to keep in a bag at all times. There’s an LED that shows the remaining percentage of power left.

Power up with unlimited access to WIRED. Get best-in-class reporting that’s too important to ignore for just $2.50 $1 per month for 1 year. Includes unlimited digital access and exclusive subscriber-only content. Subscribe Today.

Source link
#Put #Power #Pocket #Portable #Chargers

Tag

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