Audio nostalgia is a thing right now, and it’s not just wired earbuds enjoying all of the shine. A yearning for wired audio is bringing its good friend along for the ride: the king of all things MP3. The one, the only, the iPod.
That’s right, the iPod is f*cking back. Not in an official sense, of course—it was discontinued officially in 2022—but it’s back in a very unofficial capacity. By nostalgia’s standards, the iPod is relevant once more, and you’ve probably got your phone (or the icky apps in it) to thank for that.
Okay, but how “back” is it?
The iPod is pretty back, to be honest. As the AP notes, secondhand sites like eBay are basically loaded with listings for used iPods, and on a more empirical level, Back Market, which also sells used and refurbished electronics, tells the AP that used iPod sales jumped 48% since 2024.
Anecdotally, I’ve been seeing the iPod everywhere, not just in a literal sense, but in a spiritual one. As I’ve written about before, digital audio players (DAPs) are seemingly a real category again, and new DAPs come in all shapes and sizes. There are DAPs shaped like cassette players, big utilitarian rectangles, and tiny little MP3-playing hunks of plastic. None of them has the iPod’s iconic click wheel, of course, but the spirit that the iPod helped popularize is still there. It’s a dedicated device that carries your music and almost nothing more.
On a more iPod-specific note, there are also people trying to replicate the iPod experience on your phone, like this guy building an iPod maker. Or how about people marrying AirPods Max with an iPod—wires and all. It’s even inspiring new products, like this upcoming AI gadget from two ex-Apple employees who tell Wired that the iPod Shuffle was a big inspiration design-wise. Those are all just window dressing, though, compared to the loads of people who actually bother to refurbish iPods, whether for personal use, resale, or because they’re nostalgic about the days when you could walk around listening to music without your phone delivering stress-inducing emails.
None of this interest in iPods is brand new, by any means—people have been modding iPods or selling them secondhand for a while now, but it feels as though it’s reached a tipping point. It’s hard to pinpoint why exactly iPods feel more relevant than ever, but nostalgia doesn’t quite cover it.
There’s also the Spotify of it all.
Remember owning stuff?
There’s no denying that nostalgia is a driving force in the iPod’s renewed relevance. Gen Z in particular has zeroed in on the early-2000s for inspiration, whether in fashion or tech, and there’s not a more iconic gadget from the early aughts than the iPod.
According to Anshel Sag, a tech analyst for Moor Insights & Strategy, renewed interest in the iPod has been a long time coming. For one, Sag says there’s a resurgence in interest in wired earbuds, specifically EarPods, Apple’s wired earbuds that predate AirPods. Not only are they cheap, but they also deliver much higher fidelity than lots of wireless earbuds you can buy, even in the midrange.
Then there’s the comeback of formats like vinyl and CDs, which have helped to create more interest in the idea of owning music as opposed to just borrowing it through a streaming service. Owning things! Remember that?
It’s that last part, streaming, that feels particularly potent, though. As convenient as streaming music is, people have felt the slow creep of subscriptions on their wallets, and Spotify is a part of that. In January, Spotify raised its prices once again, this time reaching $13 a month. For context, in 2023, subscription fees rose from $9.99 to $10.99, and again in 2024 from $10.99 to $11.99. Apple Music is more affordable, but not by much at $11 per month.
It’s been a slow turn of the dial, but coupled with the weight of other streaming services, the burden is palpable. And how does one deal with that burden? By opting out, of course.
“I think people are evaluating all their streaming services, whether it’s music or TV or movies…because the price has ballooned,” Sag told Gizmodo. “Every time a service goes up in price, they become hyperaware of all the streaming services they’re paying for, and that includes music.
Sag also says that the younger generation is also more aware of how artists make money and how much of a cut they get from streaming services. “They might not want to actually pay for the streaming service because they don’t think the artists are getting what they deserve and might otherwise just pay for the music directly from the artist and put it on their iPod, or whatever their choice of music player is.”
As others have covered, it’s impossible to discount the ripple effects from the backlash against phones when it comes to nostalgic gadgets like iPods. There’s a yearning for phone-free experiences, and iPods deliver that. Sag notes that there’s also independence with gadgets like iPods or CDs and vinyl that appeals to those (particularly Gen Z) who feel bereft of things to hold onto.
“There’s a demand for something that isn’t tied to a streaming connection that always sounds good, no matter where you are—and you’re in control of the experience,” Sag says. “And that’s why I think stuff like iPods is having a bit of a comeback.”
Mostly, it’s what Sag calls “a perfect storm.” There’s no one answer to why iPods are back, and whether our love of them ever left is debatable, but somehow they do feel magnetic again. We’ll probably not live to see the day when new iPods exist, getting churned out of Foxconn like the next iPhone, but that’s for the best. They’d probably just have Apple Music on them anyway.
Audio nostalgia is a thing right now, and it’s not just wired earbuds enjoying all of the shine. A yearning for wired audio is bringing its good friend along for the ride: the king of all things MP3. The one, the only, the iPod.
That’s right, the iPod is f*cking back. Not in an official sense, of course—it was discontinued officially in 2022—but it’s back in a very unofficial capacity. By nostalgia’s standards, the iPod is relevant once more, and you’ve probably got your phone (or the icky apps in it) to thank for that.
Okay, but how “back” is it?
The iPod is pretty back, to be honest. As the AP notes, secondhand sites like eBay are basically loaded with listings for used iPods, and on a more empirical level, Back Market, which also sells used and refurbished electronics, tells the AP that used iPod sales jumped 48% since 2024.
Anecdotally, I’ve been seeing the iPod everywhere, not just in a literal sense, but in a spiritual one. As I’ve written about before, digital audio players (DAPs) are seemingly a real category again, and new DAPs come in all shapes and sizes. There are DAPs shaped like cassette players, big utilitarian rectangles, and tiny little MP3-playing hunks of plastic. None of them has the iPod’s iconic click wheel, of course, but the spirit that the iPod helped popularize is still there. It’s a dedicated device that carries your music and almost nothing more.
On a more iPod-specific note, there are also people trying to replicate the iPod experience on your phone, like this guy building an iPod maker. Or how about people marrying AirPods Max with an iPod—wires and all. It’s even inspiring new products, like this upcoming AI gadget from two ex-Apple employees who tell Wired that the iPod Shuffle was a big inspiration design-wise. Those are all just window dressing, though, compared to the loads of people who actually bother to refurbish iPods, whether for personal use, resale, or because they’re nostalgic about the days when you could walk around listening to music without your phone delivering stress-inducing emails.
None of this interest in iPods is brand new, by any means—people have been modding iPods or selling them secondhand for a while now, but it feels as though it’s reached a tipping point. It’s hard to pinpoint why exactly iPods feel more relevant than ever, but nostalgia doesn’t quite cover it.
There’s also the Spotify of it all.
Remember owning stuff?
There’s no denying that nostalgia is a driving force in the iPod’s renewed relevance. Gen Z in particular has zeroed in on the early-2000s for inspiration, whether in fashion or tech, and there’s not a more iconic gadget from the early aughts than the iPod.
According to Anshel Sag, a tech analyst for Moor Insights & Strategy, renewed interest in the iPod has been a long time coming. For one, Sag says there’s a resurgence in interest in wired earbuds, specifically EarPods, Apple’s wired earbuds that predate AirPods. Not only are they cheap, but they also deliver much higher fidelity than lots of wireless earbuds you can buy, even in the midrange.
Then there’s the comeback of formats like vinyl and CDs, which have helped to create more interest in the idea of owning music as opposed to just borrowing it through a streaming service. Owning things! Remember that?
It’s that last part, streaming, that feels particularly potent, though. As convenient as streaming music is, people have felt the slow creep of subscriptions on their wallets, and Spotify is a part of that. In January, Spotify raised its prices once again, this time reaching $13 a month. For context, in 2023, subscription fees rose from $9.99 to $10.99, and again in 2024 from $10.99 to $11.99. Apple Music is more affordable, but not by much at $11 per month.
It’s been a slow turn of the dial, but coupled with the weight of other streaming services, the burden is palpable. And how does one deal with that burden? By opting out, of course.
“I think people are evaluating all their streaming services, whether it’s music or TV or movies…because the price has ballooned,” Sag told Gizmodo. “Every time a service goes up in price, they become hyperaware of all the streaming services they’re paying for, and that includes music.
Sag also says that the younger generation is also more aware of how artists make money and how much of a cut they get from streaming services. “They might not want to actually pay for the streaming service because they don’t think the artists are getting what they deserve and might otherwise just pay for the music directly from the artist and put it on their iPod, or whatever their choice of music player is.”
As others have covered, it’s impossible to discount the ripple effects from the backlash against phones when it comes to nostalgic gadgets like iPods. There’s a yearning for phone-free experiences, and iPods deliver that. Sag notes that there’s also independence with gadgets like iPods or CDs and vinyl that appeals to those (particularly Gen Z) who feel bereft of things to hold onto.
“There’s a demand for something that isn’t tied to a streaming connection that always sounds good, no matter where you are—and you’re in control of the experience,” Sag says. “And that’s why I think stuff like iPods is having a bit of a comeback.”
Mostly, it’s what Sag calls “a perfect storm.” There’s no one answer to why iPods are back, and whether our love of them ever left is debatable, but somehow they do feel magnetic again. We’ll probably not live to see the day when new iPods exist, getting churned out of Foxconn like the next iPhone, but that’s for the best. They’d probably just have Apple Music on them anyway.
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.
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.
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.
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">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.
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.
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.
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.
Lauren Feiner
#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.
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
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.
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
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
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.
Post Comment