company

Veteran MS NOW anchor Alex Witt is leaving the news network, which is moving away from live programming on the weekends.

The new weekend programming strategy announced Friday is a cost-saving measure that will give parent company Versant more resources for a new direct-to-consumer streaming offering that makes MS NOW available to consumers without a pay-TV subscription. The company is also looking to expand its live event business.

According to a memo from MS NOW President Rebecca Kutler, “The Weekend: Primetime,” a live discussion program launched last year, will have its final airing Saturday.

One of the program’s co-hosts, Antonia Hylton, will take over Witt’s midday shifts later this year. Hylton’s co-hosts Ayman Mohyeldin, Catherine Rampell, and Elise Jordan, will remain with MS NOW and continue to appear on other programs.

Kutler said job losses from the moves are minimal and encouraged staffers who lose their current roles to apply for 40 current job openings at the company with more on the way. MS NOW has been staffing up its news operation since separating from NBC News last year.

MS NOW changed its name from MSNBC in November. The network, along with other Comcast-owned cable channels, were spun off into Versant in January.

Weekends have long been a ratings weak spot for MS NOW, which while a distant second to Fox News, has seen audience growth in 2026 and remains ahead of CNN. The network has started to rely on podcasts such as “Pod Save America, from Crooked Media to fill some hours. The episodes have performed strongly enough for MS NOW to try similar deals with outside podcast producers.

“Throughout the summer, we will expand our taped strategy and announce new content partnerships,” Kutler said in her memo.

With the changes, MS NOW will still have 20 hours of live programming each weekend and will be staffed to handle breaking news.

Witt joined the network formerly known as MSNBC in 1999, long before it began its strong tilt toward progressive political commentary. Over the years, Witt’s weekend newscast became one of the few programs on the network that delivered straight news without opinion.

Kutler called Witt “a beloved longtime member of our MS NOW family” and “a continued, trusted, and steady presence for our audiences.”

While Witt works through the summer, Hylton will anchor the 11 a.m. weekday time period, which will eventually be handled by former NBC News White House correspondent Peter Alexander.

Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a law Thursday to crack down on inflated profits stemming from car crash lawsuits, blessing a hard-fought compromise between Uber and the state’s trial attorneys that averts a November showdown between two of California’s most powerful and moneyed lobbying forces.

The deal, the fruit of months of negotiations, takes aim at the lucrative way doctors can charge for procedures on patients referred to them by personal injury lawyers.

If a law firm has a client who was hurt in a car accident, the lawyer will often send them to a doctor who will perform surgery on a “lien” basis, meaning the doctor will be paid from money that comes from a lawsuit settlement rather than through insurance.

Uber contends this arrangement has created an incentive for doctors and attorneys to collude to dramatically inflate medical bills. The more expensive the bill, they say, the bigger the resulting payout.

The law, SB 623, caps how much these doctors can charge when their patient is involved in a lawsuit against a ride-share company, which are frequent targets of litigation due to their top-of-the-line insurance policies. The new law will also require Uber to ramp up background checks of its drivers.

“We’re going to have a much safer state both for medical patients and passengers in Ubers,” said Nicholas Rowley, a prominent Texas attorney who helped bankroll the fight and took a leading role in the negotiations.

The law only applies to cases that involve ride-share accidents that take place after Jan. 1, 2027.

“This legislation puts meaningful guardrails in place to better protect accident victims, increase transparency and accountability in the medical lien system and strengthen safety,” said Ramona Prieto, Uber’s head of public policy for the Western U.S., in a statement.

For months, Uber and lawyers from across the state poured tens of millions into dueling ballot measures that threatened to devastate the profits of whichever side lost.

Uber fired the first shot with a ballot measure that sought to cap how much attorneys can earn in lawsuits involving auto accidents. The company argued attorneys were swindling their own clients, inflating medical bills of car crash victims to increase the value of the settlement and then pocketing a hefty chunk of the payouts.

The state’s trial attorneys countered that the fee cap would make small or difficult cases a money-losing endeavor and block scores of accident victims from the courts. They shot back with their own ballot measure that would increase legal liability for ride-share companies if a passenger or driver is sexually assaulted while on a ride, seizing on investigative reporting that highlighted assaults in Ubers.

“They were waiting for us to blink and we didn’t,” said Douglas Saeltzer, the head of the Consumer Attorneys of California, the lawyer trade group that pushed for the measure against Uber. “Their starting place, I don’t believe, was in the interest of protecting victims — it was in the interest of protecting Uber.”

With the passage of Thursday’s law, both sides have agreed to pull their respective measures from the November ballot, halting campaigns that had both parties amassing tens of millions in funding and blanketing the airwaves with ads.

“Now we can stop seeing all the commercials,” said Assemblymember Blanca Pancheo (D-Downey) at a Tuesday hearing.

The law, put forward by Assemblymember Diane Papan (D-San Mateo) and Sen. Thomas Umberg (D-Santa Ana), also caps the amount that can be earned by third-party investors who buy out a doctor’s lien in a personal injury case. These companies will purchase a doctor’s stake in the case at a reduced rate, then pocket a share of the payout if the case settles.

“Private equity and hedge funds buy them at a steep discount, then turn around and collect the full inflated amount,” Saeltzer said at a Tuesday hearing on the bill. “That’s money flowing to Wall Street investors, not patients.”

The law will require annual background checks for ride-share drivers and expand the list of offenses that disqualify someone from the job.

In addition to the ballot battle, has Uber sued two of LA’s most well-known personal injury firms — the Law Offices of Jacob Emrani and Downtown L.A. Law Group — accusing them of inflating medical bills and forcing clients to undergo needless and expensive surgeries to inflate the value of the claim. The firms asked the judge to dismiss the case Wednesday, arguing Uber had failed to prove fraud. Both firms have vehemently denied wrongdoing.

The lawsuit, filed last year, has put the plaintiff lawyers in the unusual position of playing defense. Listening in the audience at Wednesday’s hearings were the partners of Downtown L.A. Law Group and Jacob Emrani.

“Let’s be clear about what this Uber case really is,” said John Hueston, outside counsel for Emrani. “It’s brought by a $150 billion dollar company … to intimidate the plaintiff’s bar, exhaust its resources and chill the suits that hold Uber accountable.”

Michael Huston, one of the lawyers who represents Uber, countered that the case is “not an attack on the plaintiff’s bar.”

“We have brought suit against the two in this state … that are engaged in naked fraud,” he said.

The United States Supreme Court has sided with the maker of Roundup weedkiller in a ruling expected to block thousands of lawsuits alleging it failed to warn people the product could cause cancer.

The ruling on Thursday was tied to a case that came before the justices after a tidal wave of litigation that included some multibillion-dollar verdicts against the global agrochemical manufacturer Bayer, a Germany-based company that acquired Roundup when it bought its original producer Monsanto in 2018.

The decision is a victory for US President Donald Trump’s administration, but one that could be tricky politically since allies in the “Make America Healthy Again” movement want to rein in pesticide use.

The high court, in a 7-2 ruling, found that the company cannot face failure-to-warn lawsuits in state courts because federal regulations have found a cancer link unlikely and do not require a warning label.

The justices overturned a jury verdict in Missouri awarding $1.25m to a man named John Durnell who said he was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma after years of exposure to glyphosate in Roundup. The Supreme Court agreed with Bayer that a US law that governs pesticides precludes failure-to-warn claims that are brought under state law from moving forward in court.

Bayer shares jumped nearly 18 percent following the ruling.

Trump’s administration had backed Bayer in the case.

Conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who authored the ruling, said the US Environmental Protection Agency, or EPA, has concluded glyphosate does not cause cancer and has not required a cancer warning on Roundup.

The law preempts Durnell’s claim because it “would require Monsanto to add a cancer warning to Roundup’s label even though federal law requires Monsanto to use the EPA-approved label without a cancer warning”, Kavanaugh wrote.

Liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, in a dissent joined by conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch, said that Durnell’s claim would impose equivalent labelling requirements on Monsanto that the federal law requires and so should not be preempted.

Jackson called the ruling “remarkable and regrettable, for it unjustifiably closes the courthouse doors to state tort plaintiffs like Durnell”.

Bayer acquired Roundup as part of its $63bn purchase of agrochemical company Monsanto in 2018. More than 100,000 plaintiffs have filed cases in US state and federal courts alleging a cancer link, and the German drugmaking and crop science company had said that the lawsuits could threaten its ability to supply the herbicide to farmers.

The torrent of litigation already prompted Bayer to remove glyphosate from its consumer version of Roundup. Bayer said before the Supreme Court ruled that a decision in its favour could largely end the Roundup litigation.

“The US Supreme Court decision is good for science, farmers, and industries that depend on regulatory clarity for innovation. It should help significantly contain the Roundup litigation after nearly a decade of legal battles. The ruling should result in the dismissal of current warning-based claims and bar future failure-to-warn claims,” Bayer spokesperson Tino Andresen said in a statement.

The company emphasised throughout the litigation that the EPA repeatedly found that glyphosate does not cause cancer and approved its product labels without a warning.

Facing billions of dollars in potential liability, Bayer announced in February a proposed $7.25bn settlement to resolve tens of thousands of current and future lawsuits. The settlement would not affect claims that stem from pending appeals or that fall outside the deal, according to the company. Those amount to nearly $1bn, it said.

‘Disaster for public health’

Environmental activists and others criticised the court’s ruling on Thursday.

“Once again, the Supreme Court has sided with big business over people and the environment. Today’s ruling is a disaster for public health,” said Tarah Heinzen, legal director at the advocacy group Food and Water Watch.

“The harm from this decision will perpetuate our cancer, infertility and general chronic disease epidemic for generations to come,” said Kelly Ryerson, co-executive director of advocacy group American Regeneration and a Make America Healthy Again activist who posts on social media under the moniker “The Glyphosate Girl”.

The sprawling dispute centres on a US law called the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, or FIFRA, that governs the sale and labelling of pesticides and bars states from imposing differing or additional requirements.

The measure prohibits pesticides that are “misbranded” with labels that lack an adequate warning to protect health and the environment.

Bayer has argued that Durnell’s claims are preempted by this law. The EPA has repeatedly approved labels without such a cancer warning, demonstrating that these products are not misbranded, the company said, adding that labels cannot be substantially changed without the agency’s approval.

Durnell’s lawyers said that despite the EPA’s registration of Roundup, the label may still be challenged as misbranded. They also said Durnell’s claims are not preempted because Missouri state law that requires products to adequately warn of dangers imposes the same requirements as FIFRA’s prohibition on misbranding.

‘A new era’

Union Investment fund manager Markus Manns called Thursday’s ruling a significant milestone for Bayer, adding that a decade after the Monsanto acquisition, the company is “entering a new era”.

“While future lawsuits are not entirely off the table, they will become considerably more difficult. A final breakthrough would come if the settlement is accepted by the plaintiffs and approved by the competent court in July. This would bring Bayer’s glyphosate litigation chapter to a definitive close, allowing management to fully refocus on operational and strategic matters,” Manns said.

Durnell sued Monsanto in Missouri state court in 2019, claiming it failed to warn users of the dangers associated with Roundup and glyphosate.

He was diagnosed with a rare and often aggressive form of non-Hodgkin lymphoma, a cancer that starts in the white blood cells, and attributed the disease to his exposure to Roundup starting in 1996. For about 20 years, he was the “spray guy” for a neighborhood association in St Louis, killing weeds at local parks without protective equipment, according to court papers.

A jury sided with Durnell in 2023, and in 2025, a state appeals court upheld that verdict.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court sided with the maker of the Roundup weedkiller Thursday in a ruling expected to block thousands of lawsuits alleging it failed to warn people the product could cause cancer.

The case came before the justices after a tidal wave of litigation that included some multibillion-dollar verdicts against the global agrochemical manufacturer Bayer, which acquired Roundup when it bought its original manufacturer Monsanto in 2018.

The decision is a victory for the Trump administration, but one that could be tricky politically since allies in the Make America Healthy Again movement want to rein in pesticide use.

The high court, in a 7-2 ruling, found that the company can’t be sued in state courts because federal regulations have found a cancer link unlikely and do not require a warning label.

The decision “is good for science, farmers, and industries that depend on regulatory clarity for innovation,” Bayer said in a statement. “It should help significantly contain the Roundup litigation after nearly a decade of legal battles.”

Though Bayer said the ruling should result in the dismissal of pending lawsuits containing failure-to-warn allegations, the company said it plans to proceed with a proposed $7.25 billion class-action settlement intended to resolve many of the remaining claims.

Lawyers for some residents pursuing Roundup litigation criticized the court’s decision.

“This Supreme Court ruling wrongly slams the courthouse door on Americans sickened by pesticides,” said attorney Christopher Seeger, who is proposed as a claimants’ representative in the settlement. But he said a settlement still would allow some people to receive compensation.

The case before the Supreme Court was filed by Missouri resident John Durnell. He developed a cancer called non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma after more than 20 years of serving as the neighborhood association’s “spray guy,” using Roundup on parks in his historic St. Louis community.

A jury agreed that the company failed to warn him about possible cancer dangers and awarded him $1.25 million. It’s one of thousands of similar cases, including some multibillion-dollar damage awards.

There’s still fierce debate about cancer and Roundup’s key ingredient, glyphosate. The World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer classified the chemical as “probably carcinogenic” in 2015. The Environmental Protection Agency has determined that it’s not likely to cause cancer in humans when used as directed.

The agency approved a label without a cancer warning, and Bayer argues that it’s required to follow those federal standards — not the state laws that Durnell and others have sued under. The ruling still could allow other suits alleging problems with the way the product was designed, his attorney Ashley Keller has said.

Bayer disputes the cancer claims but previously set aside $16 billion to settle cases, and earlier this year proposed a $7.25 billion class-action settlement. A federal judge recently ruled that the proposed settlement will be heard in a Missouri state court, where many of the lawsuits have been filed. At the same time, the company has tried to persuade states to pass laws shielding it from liability in failure-to-warn lawsuits, and three states have agreed.

About 200,000 Roundup-related claims have been made against Bayer, mostly from home users. It has stopped using glyphosate in Roundup sold in the U.S. residential lawn and garden market.

The company has said it might have to consider pulling glyphosate from U.S. agricultural markets if it keeps getting sued. Agricultural industry group say could have a devastating effect on the food supply.

But pesticides have also created a rift between the Trump administration and members of Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy’s MAHA movement, adding to their frustration with an executive order aimed at boosting glyphosate’s production.

Kennedy himself has said repeatedly that glyphosate causes cancer, even as he says he recognizes the executive order was necessary for food supply and national security reasons.

Whitehurst writes for the Associated Press. AP writer David A. Lieb in Jefferson City, Mo., contributed to this report.

Passing “Go” has become especially lucrative for mobile game publisher Scopely.

The Culver City-based Scopely launched “Monopoly Go!” in 2023, betting fans of the classic board game would flock to a mobile version aimed at casual gamers.

By 2025, “Monopoly Go!” had accrued $6 billion in lifetime in-app purchase revenue, becoming the fastest free mobile game to do so, according to app analytics firm Sensor Tower.

This summer, the app is expected to reach $8 billion in lifetime revenue, the company says, solidifying “Monopoly Go!” as Scopely’s biggest game and far surpassing the company’s popular “Pokémon Go.” The company declined to disclose its total profits.

Scopely Co-Chief Executive Javier Ferreira.

As overall downloads in the mobile game market have stagnated and in-app purchases and retention become the main drivers of growth, Scopely has hit on an age-old Hollywood strategy — using known franchises and intellectual property to bring out fans.

“These are incredibly durable and long-lasting games that have really passionate communities and fandom around them,” said Javier Ferreira, co-chief executive of Scopely. “We’re in the business of building people’s favorite thing, and that’s a difficult thing to do. The power of [intellectual property] is that, in some cases, that is already their favorite thing.”

The company’s journey toward “Monopoly Go!” began in 2014, when Scopely formed a partnership with Rhode Island-based toymaker Hasbro. Its first collaboration was a Yahtzee mobile dice game that ultimately drew millions of players worldwide (though it was especially popular in the U.S.) and generated more than $1 billion in lifetime revenue.

After that, Scopely approached Hasbro about taking on the “crown jewel” of its board game empire — Monopoly.

Monopoly’s massive global popularity was an obvious draw. But adapting an hours-long real estate transaction game for a casual, mobile audience proved challenging.

Development of what would become “Monopoly Go!” ultimately took seven years, two of which were spent trying to make movement around the board more fun. In that time, the company scrapped two versions of the game; one deemed too competitive, and one that was too complex, Ferreira said.

Developers wanted to capture the “roller coaster feel” of the board game’s highs and lows, while also having simple rules and ensuring a strong social element, he said.

“We couldn’t just copy,” Ferreira said. “We had to reinvent it and re-imagine it, and that’s a complicated, creative endeavor.”

Today, “Monopoly Go!” brings in more than $2 billion in annual revenue and has been downloaded across the globe more than 300 million times.

Now with “Pokémon Go,” which the company owns after acquiring maker Niantic’s game business last year, “Scopely has gone from a successful publisher to one of the defining companies in mobile gaming,” Randy Nelson, head of insights at Appfigures, a mobile app analytics firm.

“The company cracked the code on licensed games years ago,” he wrote in an email. “Its biggest hits work because they’re great games first and recognizable brands second.”

Though the company’s overall game downloads have slowed, its gross revenue has largely increased every year since 2020, according to Appfigures data.

Shortly after Scopely released “Monopoly Go!,” the company was acquired by Savvy Games Group, which is owned by the Saudi Public Investment Fund, for $4.9 billion.

In a statement about the deal, Savvy Games Group Chief Executive Brian Ward touted the success of “Monopoly Go!” as “indicative of Scopely’s ongoing position at the forefront of the global games sector.”

Representatives of the Saudi investment fund are part of Savvy Game Group’s board and do sometimes give some feedback on company initiatives, though Ferreira said the company has remained “very independent.”

The proposed acquisition of gaming giant Electronic Arts by the Saudi Public Investment Fund is not expected to affect Scopely since EA largely focuses on high-budget console and computer games, he said.

As Scopely, now 3,000 employees strong, looks to the future, it has embarked on a number of entertainment partnerships with studios to add franchises such as “The Simpsons,” “Hello Kitty” and Marvel to its mobile game ecosystem.

“They give us access to these universes that millions of people love and are really invested in,” Ferreira said. “We see this as a very strategic part of our business.”

Sony Pictures will invest $100 million and take a minority stake in virtual reality venue operator Cosm, as the studio continues to build a business in communal experiences.

As part of the investment, Sony Pictures Chief Executive Ravi Ahuja will also join Cosm’s board of directors, the studio said Wednesday. The size of Sony’s minority stake was not disclosed.

The El Segundo-based Cosm currently operates three venues — one at Hollywood Park in Inglewood, and the others in Dallas and Atlanta. The company plans to open additional venues in Detroit and Cleveland.

Cosm bills itself as a “shared reality venue,” and its facilities center around a massive, wraparound screen that is intended to envelop viewers with additional digital effects. The company has largely focused on sports, though it has also shown Cirque du Soleil shows and done several collaborations with Warner Bros., including recent screenings of 2001’s “Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone” in honor of the film’s 25th anniversary.

“Cosm sits at the intersection of several trends shaping the future of entertainment,” Ahuja said in a statement. “We’ve followed Cosm since before launch and have been impressed with the quality of the experience and the enthusiasm it’s generating with audiences.”

The investment is Sony’s latest venture into experiential entertainment. In 2024, the Culver City-based studio acquired dine-in theater chain Alamo Drafthouse Cinema.

The Dodgers’ decision to deny U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents access to Dodger Stadium wasn’t the way the team intended to first address the surge of federal immigration enforcement a year ago.

Pressed by religious, labor and community leaders to take a stand, the Dodgers had prepared a response to Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol raids that triggered widespread protests — only to shelve the announcement as the team went public with their refusal to let federal agents onto stadium grounds. A day later, on June 20, the Dodgers unveiled their plan, centered on $1 million “toward direct financial assistance for families of immigrants impacted by recent events in the region.”

In total, the Dodgers donated $1.1 million, representatives for California Community Foundation and Labor Community Services — the two nonprofits that received the funds — told The Times.

“The Dodgers have been in L.A. for 68 years,” said Joseph Tomás McKellar, executive director of PICO California. “They’re beloved among immigrant communities in a way that no other sports team is. That gives the Dodgers cultural and financial power in the region. We applaud what they did, but they could do even more by exercising leadership.”

PICO California, the state’s largest faith-based organizing network, was behind a petition delivered to the Dodgers, the contents of which were largely addressed by the team’s $1-million commitment. But as the last of the money flowed to immigrant families in need in late August, another petition circulated that demanded Dodgers owner Mark Walter sell his “company’s stake in ICE jails and deportation flights.”

Walter’s massive investment firm, Guggenheim Partners, owned more than a million shares of GEO Group, valued at nearly $12 million. By the end of 2025, Guggenheim’s interest in GEO Group had fallen to around 10,000 shares. And by the end of March of this year, Guggenheim no longer owned any shares of the prison company that also assisted in the deportation of immigrants, according to SEC filings reviewed by The Times.

Walter also faced criticism over the partnership announced last year between Palantir Technologies and TWG Global — of which Walter is chairman and chief executive officer. Palantir provides AI and analytics software to ICE, tools the American Civil Liberties Union said “form the backbone for ICE’s mass deportation regime.”

There are no indicators as to why Guggenheim Partners divested from GEO Group. The Dodgers declined comment. Guggenheim Partners did not respond to The Times’ request for comment. GEO Group referred questions to Guggenheim Partners.

In January, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, or CHIRLA, filed a federal lawsuit against federal officials over the condition of the Adelanto ICE Processing Center in San Bernardino County, a facility operated by GEO Group. In the complaint, CHIRLA alleged “detained individuals face dangerous conditions and pervasive abuses — disease and illness are rampant, mold grows on the walls, and detained individuals are denied sufficient food, clean drinking water, proper medical care, and disability accommodations.”

Donald Trump’s reelection has been a major driver of profits for GEO Group. GEO Group founder, chairman and chief executive George Zoley said in a May earnings call the company was “awarded new or expanded contracts that represent up to approximately $520 million in new incremental annual revenues, which represents the largest amount of new business we have won in the single year in our company’s history.” Former GEO Group exec David Venturella is the acting director of ICE.

“It’s really good to know [of the Guggenheim divestment],” said Rabbi Susan Goldberg, a longtime immigrants rights activist and founder of Nefesh, a Jewish spiritual community in Echo Park. “We showed up so often at its [regional] headquarters in Culver City that they moved. We don’t know where they are located in the area now.”

The California Community Foundation received $1 million, which worked with Los Angeles city officials to distribute $1,000 in direct relief to 1,000 households impacted by the immigration raids. The money was distributed through cash cards, according to the foundation. The Dodgers’ gift amounts to a quarter of the $4 million the foundation has raised for its Los Angeles Neighbors Support Fund, $3.3 million of which has been “deployed to impacted communities with new investments continuing to roll out,” according to the nonprofit.

The Dodgers also donated $100,000 to Labor Community Services, a partner of the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor, that provided more than 4,000 families with food assistance with the team’s donation.

“The Dodgers’ generous donation has enabled us to reach and assist more families throughout Los Angeles County with dignity and compassion, providing critical food assistance at a time when it is needed most,” Labor Community Services Executive Director Norma López said in a statement to The Times.

A spokesperson for Labor Community Services said no other pro sports team outside the Dodgers made a similar donation to help impacted immigrant families.

“The Dodgers have a unique responsibility and they are an example of something we want to continue to see, especially as the World Cup and the Olympics come to L.A.,” said Carlos Martin Rodriguez, director of organizing for L.A. Voice, a multifaith coalition that organized several vigils and demonstrations when the raids were at their height. “I hope this wasn’t a singular moment, but the beginning of a movement.”

A coalition of advocacy groups for artists, songwriters and managers is warning musicians about the growing risks of artificial intelligence music.

Recently, many major record labels have inked deals with AI music startups such as Suno, Udio and Klay. But the coalition, which includes organizations such as the Music Artists Coalition and the Songwriters of North America, argues in a new letter that “artists and songwriters whose works, voices, performances, likenesses and creative identities make those deals valuable are not being meaningfully consulted.”

The letter, released Monday, stated that many artists and songwriters in existing recording and publishing agreements are currently receiving letters from their labels and publishers claiming that they “will be opted in to AI-related uses by default, with little actual choice offered.” Even new artists are receiving agreements that include “AI rights clauses as a standard condition of signing.”

“We support innovation and recognise that AI can create new opportunities for music,” the coalition wrote in the letter. “However artists are not simply catalogue assets, and innovation cannot be used to override artists’ rights.”

The National Independent Talent Organization, a live entertainment advocacy group that signed the letter, said many of its members are coming to the organization with label contracts that include “non-negotiable AI usage clauses.”

“We can’t allow for contract language signed decades before this technology existed to be the standard bearer. These rights belong to the creators and they get the final say on usage,” said Nathaniel Marro, NITO’s executive director, in a statement to The Times.

“Music companies are leading the fight to protect artists’ and songwriters’ rights in the age of AI,” said a spokesperson for IFPI, the recording industry’s global trade body.

“While our members have taken different approaches, they share the same fundamental objectives: combating the unauthorized use of music and establishing licensing models that return revenue to artists and songwriters,” the IFPI spokesperson added.

The coalition is asking the industry to move forward on AI deals only under four conditions: that musicians directly consent to any agreement; that artists receive fair compensation; that there be transparency between the companies and the talent; and that companies make a public commitment to end contracts built on default AI opt-ins and forced AI clauses.

“Artists need a real seat in these conversations, clear terms on revenue share, and the ability to say no without losing their deal,” said Ron Gubitz, the Music Artists Coalition’s executive director, in a statement.

This letter comes at a time when policymakers are reviewing copyright rules in response to AI and when streaming platforms and social media platforms are overflowing with AI-generated music.

A little over two weeks ago, the American Federation of Musicians sued Universal Music Group and Warner Music Group. The complaint claims the major labels “received significant compensation” from the AI companies for past copyright violations and licensed “substantial” portions of their music catalogs to them, but haven’t shared that with the musicians.

Despite the confrontational tone of the letter, some signatories struck a more conciliatory note. Overall, the industry seems to be receptive to these AI changes, said Willie “Prophet” Stiggers of the Black Music Action Coalition, another signatory advocacy group. At this point in AI’s development, he added, everyone in the industry — from artists and labels to AI start-ups and policymakers — has a responsibility to establish effective guardrails.

“The companies building these technologies understand that trust is essential to long-term success, and trust begins with respecting creators’ rights,” Stiggers said in a statement to The Times. “There’s still important work ahead, but we’re encouraged that the conversation has shifted from whether protections are needed to how we build them together.”

“The structures being created now will shape the music ecosystem for years to come,” the coalition’s letter said. “The future of music must be built with artists, songwriters and their representatives, not imposed on them.”

Times staff writer Wendy Lee contributed to this report.

It’s been more than 30 years, but Andy’s toys are proving irreplaceable at the box office.

Walt Disney Co. and Pixar’s “Toy Story 5” opened to a massive $160 million in the U.S. and Canada last weekend, marking the biggest domestic box office debut so far this year. Internationally, the film brought in $152 million for a worldwide total of $312 million.

With those numbers, “Toy Story 5” broke several franchise records for opening weekend totals. As my colleague Cerys Davies and I wrote last week, it’s a sign of the long-running juggernaut’s firm grip on audiences amid a sea of Hollywood sequels, reboots and spinoffs.

“‘Toy Story’ has been breaking ground since it first hit the screen more than 30 years ago,” Disney Entertainment Studios Chairman Alan Bergman said in a statement. “It’s wonderful to see ‘Toy Story 5’ continuing that tradition and connecting with audiences around the world to deliver the biggest opening for the franchise and the biggest of this year as well.”

For theater owners, “Toy Story” may have seemed like a surefire bet. After all, the franchise has grossed more than $3 billion in worldwide box-office revenue, and its third and fourth installments each made more than $1 billion globally.

The big opening weekend for “Toy Story 5” has no doubt brightened the outlook for many theater operators as the all-important summer movie season gets underway.

Already, last weekend’s box-office totals were a whopping 80% improvement compared with a year ago, when Universal Pictures’ live-action “How to Train Your Dragon” was in its second weekend in theaters. But more importantly, the domestic box office is now up 14% to $4.46 billion compared with the same time a year ago, according to data from Rentrak.

This summer’s lineup of films, including “Toy Story 5,” will play an important role in terms of whether 2026 will truly be the year that the theatrical business turns the corner from the COVID-19 pandemic and the dual Hollywood strikes of 2023.

In one promising sign, summer box-office revenue so far is up 15.2% to about $1.84 billion compared with the same May to mid-June period in 2025. (That summer ultimately ended in a dismal finish of $3.67 billion.) Compared with pre-pandemic 2019, this year’s summer box office to date is down just 1.9%.

Studio executives and theater owners have told me they feel good about this summer and are optimistic about the overall outlook for 2026.

It’s easy to see why. The deck is stacked, with upcoming titles such as Universal and Illumination’s “Minions & Monsters,” Disney’s live-action “Moana,” Christopher Nolan’s “The Odyssey” and Sony Pictures’ “Spider-Man: Brand New Day.”

In a propitious sign, presales for “The Odyssey” and “Spider-Man” have already shown massive demand. Overall, there’s just more and varied movies in theaters now, which expands the pool of potential moviegoers, theater owners have said.

Take A24’s “Backrooms” or Focus Features’ “Obsession,” for instance. The two original and digital-native films shocked the industry by keeping a weeks-long grip on the box office, largely by attracting Gen Z audiences who were familiar with the 20-something directors from their followings on YouTube.

Beyond these two, as well as Steven Spielberg’s “Disclosure Day,” many of this summer’s films continue established franchises.

Although not all spinoffs have performed this year — including Disney and Lucasfilm’s “Star Wars: The Mandalorian and Grogu,” which saw ticket sales drop sharply after its late May opening — “Toy Story” has remained a consistent force in theaters over the decades.

Disney and Pixar executives credit the films’ focus on character relationships, particularly that of Tom Hanks’ Woody and Tim Allen’s Buzz Lightyear. And as the franchise spanned years, its appeal became generational.

“Having parents now that say, ‘I grew up with ‘Toy Story,’ and now I’m showing my kids,’ has been really gratifying,” Pixar Chief Creative Officer Pete Docter told me by phone a week before the movie’s opening.

“Toy Story” is now the most-watched franchise on the Disney+ streaming service, with more than 2 billion hours streamed. And its beloved characters have spawned 19 theme park rides, four themed lands, two hotels and roughly $1 billion a year in global retail sales.

That has no doubt kept the franchise front and center for both adults and children, as well as fueling interest in future stories.

Stuff We Wrote

Film shoots

Number of the week

The FIFA World Cup has been a major boost for broadcasters, as an average of 6 million viewers tuned in to Fox and cable network FS1 for the first 16 group stage matches, an increase of 128% compared with the last World Cup in 2022, according to Nielsen data released last week.

On Spanish language network Telemundo, which is owned by Comcast, the first 12 group stage matches drew an average of 7.5 million viewers, up 234% from four years ago. (The Telemundo telecasts are also streamed on Peacock.)

I was in the Bay Area last week on vacation and didn’t watch many of the games, but I did catch my colleague Clara Harter’s great read about the mutual love and respect between fans of Mexico and South Korea and how that has played out in Los Angeles.

What I’m watching

Since I was out of town last week, I didn’t watch a ton of TV. But I did make time to watch the series finale of “The Way Home,” a quirky time-travel drama on Hallmark that I’ve followed for all four seasons.

I’m a big fan of time-travel stories (The “Back to the Future” trilogy is one of my favorites), so the usual past-future questions, plus the complicated family dynamics anchored by matriarch Andie MacDowell, made this a must-watch for me. The series finale was a satisfying ending, though there are definitely some loose strings that deserve further exploration.

Attorneys general in seventeen states are suing California over its landmark single-use plastic law, which went into effect on June 1.

The lawsuit comes after a coalition of environmental groups sued the state over the same law this month, arguing the new final regulations create loopholes so large they gut the law.

The states are led by Nebraska Atty. Gen. Mike Hilgers, and the plaintiffs include the National Assn. of Wholesaler-Distributors. The coalition is asking the court to block enforcement of the law immediately.

“Once again, California is trying to enact a policy that negatively impacts the rest of the country,” said Hilgers in a news release. “If California goes unchecked, consumers will be forced to pay more for basic necessities.”

The other states in the coalition are Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah and West Virginia. The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court of Eastern California in Sacramento on Monday.

State Senate Bill 54, the Plastic Pollution Prevention and Packaging Producer Responsibility Act, was signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom in 2022. It was considered landmark legislation because it requires plastic and packaging companies to use less single-use plastic and ensure by 2032 that all food packaging is either recyclable or compostable.

Accumulating plastic waste is overwhelming waterways and oceans, sickening marine life and threatening human health.

The intent was not only to reduce single=use plastic, but also to put the onus and cost of dealing with it on packaging producers and manufacturers, not consumers and local governments. It was supposed to incentivize companies to consider the fate of their products and spur innovation in material redesign.

Plastic bottles of dishwashing liquid at Compton’s Market in Sacramento on June 17, 2022.

(Rich Pedroncelli/AP)

According to one state analysis, 2.9 million tons of single-use plastic and 171.4 billion single-use plastic components were sold, offered for sale or distributed during 2023 in California.

The single-use plastic law is what is known as a producer responsibility law. It emphasizes the idea of a “circular economy” in which the producer of a material must consider its fate — making sure it can be reused or recycled, or at least reduced.

In California, all producers of single-use packaging and plastic foodware (plates, knives, spoons, etc.) join a private entity known as a producer responsibility organization. Only one such organization has been approved in California: the Circular Action Alliance.

The states and the National Assn. of Wholesaler-Distributors say the plastic law discriminates against businesses selling into the state in two ways: by making them change or alter their plastic packaging and by conferring government authority upon the alliance, enabling a private entity to regulate and impose taxes and fees on businesses selling into California.

“California is not entitled to pronounce nationwide policies,” Eric Hoplin, president and chief executive of the wholesalers group, said in a statement. “Because the Act extends California’s regulatory reach far beyond its borders and brings within its sweep conduct wholly unconnected to California, the Act violates principles of federalism, the horizontal separation of powers, and due process.”

In addition, the attorneys general say the law suppresses their free speech by compelling companies to join and fund the speech of an organization with which they may disagree.

Hoplin and his organization filed a similar suit in Oregon in February. Oregon has a comparable single-use plastic law. A federal judge blocked enforcement of that law. A trial begins on July 13.

Heidi Sanborn, executive director and CEO of the National Stewardship Action Council, which advocates for the producer responsibility laws and a more circular economy, said in May that both SB 54 and the Oregon law are public policies that were “passed by legislatures and implemented with government oversight.”

She said the laws create clear and consistent rules so all producers contribute fairly to the cost of recycling and waste management.

Meanwhile, environmental groups are also unhappy.

On June 2, Oceana, the Natural Resources Defense Council and Californians Against Waste Foundation filed a lawsuit in San Francisco Superior Court.

They allege that the final regulations for the law, drafted and approved by the state’s waste agency, include exclusions for large categories of plastic packaging that companies could use indefinitely. In addition, they say, the regulations also allow for recycling technologies that pollute, such as chemical recycling, which the law as originally drafted forbids.

“While SB 54 remains a monumental achievement as the nation’s strongest single-use plastic reduction law, some of the final regulations implementing the statute undermine the law’s ambitions,” Christy Leavitt, Oceana’s senior campaign director, said in a statement.

HARRISBURG, Pa. — Six months after President Trump warned states not to regulate artificial intelligence, they are increasingly doing just that.

Congress has stalled on producing federal regulations of artificial intelligence as states forge ahead and scrutinize how chatbots interact with children, how AI systems are used by employers and what developers must do to try to prevent an AI-caused catastrophe.

State lawmakers have stepped back from earlier, wider-ranging attempts to regulate AI that were vetoed or otherwise derailed by governors who viewed the measures as too onerous toward the industry’s development, including efforts to hold developers accountable for bias in AI systems.

But they are returning with legislation that is more targeted and, often, probes the corners of life where Americans interact with AI but may not know it.

Presidential power versus state power

Trump’s move to restrain states’ actions on AI drew criticism from members of both political parties and civil liberties and consumer rights groups who worried that banning state regulation would amount to a gift to AI giants, who enjoy little to no oversight.

Trump has made AI a top national and economic security priority, and he said that letting states clutter the regulatory playing field for an industry that’s spending trillions of dollars and driving the economy is too risky in the race with China for AI superiority.

Trump issued an executive order that directed the attorney general to create a task force to challenge state laws that are more than “minimally burdensome,” and directed the Commerce Department to draw up a list of problematic regulations. It also threatened to restrict funding from a broadband deployment program and other grant programs to states with AI laws.

The White House said it wouldn’t target state laws that seek to prevent fraud and protect consumers and children.

In the meantime, the Trump administration released a “national policy framework” in which it urged Congress to preempt state AI laws that are out of step with its regulatory worldview and to pass legislation to protect children, intellectual property rights and free speech. A recent bipartisan draft proposal in the House was met with withering criticism from key Democrats and Republicans.

The White House has given no indication that it has made good on its threat to enforce the president’s executive order by going to court against a state’s AI law or withholding money. In a statement, it said the Trump administration is “eager to work with partners” to enact its policy framework.

States seem largely unrestrained by Trump

Trump’s executive order didn’t seem to discourage states from trying to regulate how AI is used. More bills have been introduced this year than last, including by Republicans, said Justine Gluck, policy director of the Future of Privacy Forum, a nonprofit that advocates for data privacy in technology and whose members are from industry, academia and civic groups.

In Illinois, legislation on the desk of Democratic Gov. JB Pritzker piggybacked on elements of laws passed last year in California and New York that require developers of large advanced AI models to create protocols to prevent their systems from causing catastrophes such as a biological weapons attack, power outage or large-scale hack.

Illinois added a requirement that AI developers must get an independent auditor to review whether they are complying with their own policies. Analysts see it as a step toward requiring AI developers to take greater accountability for their products.

The bill’s sponsor, Democratic state Sen. Mary Edly-Allen, brushed aside Trump’s threat.

“I don’t know if you’ve met Illinois, but we’re pretty independent,” Edly-Allen told the Associated Press.

The bill drew nearly unanimous support, signaling a willingness by members of Trump’s party to cooperate with Democrats in filling the AI regulatory vacuum left by the federal government.

This kind of legislation is expected to expand to other states.

Regulating chatbots, especially for children

A growing number of states are imposing restrictions on how AI chatbots can interact with people, especially children. A mix of Republican- and Democratic-led states have passed such laws this year, including Colorado, Connecticut, Idaho, Iowa, Nebraska and Oregon.

In many cases, states want companies to tell people when they are interacting with AI instead of a human. Many want chatbots to be restricted in how they interact with minors, parents to have control over their child’s access, and data given to chatbots to be kept private.

In recent weeks, Connecticut enacted provisions for companion chatbots that sustain an ongoing relationship with a human. Under them, a chatbot must not be able to interact with someone under 18 unless it is programmed against encouraging self-destructive behavior and provides parents with tools to manage the child’s use.

Transparency in AI and decision-making

In California, lawmakers are advancing the “No Robo Bosses Act of 2026” to prohibit employers from relying solely on AI to fire or discipline workers, and an expansion of how the state regulates AI chatbots, including banning chatbot outputs to children from being used for advertising.

Colorado in May required companies that deploy AI systems in important areas such as employment, education, housing or banking to tell people when AI is being used to influence a decision made about them.

It was a stab at regulating what researchers say is the bias inherent in AI systems that sort through a consumer’s data and render consequential decisions — including who gets hired, a home loan or medical care. But it watered down a 2024 law aimed at preventing AI’s penchant to discriminate, amid pressure from Democratic Gov. Jared Polis.

In Connecticut, lawmakers required employers who are using employment-related AI systems to tell employees or job applicants that they are interacting with AI.

Meanwhile, Connecticut, Washington and Utah required AI developers to embed data into digital content that will allow users to determine whether the content — such as photos or video — has been created or altered by AI.

More laws are possible this year.

Some Republican-led states hold back

In Florida, the state House refused to advance what Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis called his AI “Bill of Rights” legislation. It included provisions to give parents control over their children’s access to companion chatbots and to require companies that use chatbots to tell consumers when they are interacting with AI instead of a human.

Florida House Speaker Daniel Perez, a Republican, said Trump had made it clear that the federal government should be in charge of AI regulation. DeSantis panned that idea, noting that the federal government isn’t acting.

In Utah, progress stalled on legislation modeled on laws in New York and California after the White House sent a one-sentence memo to lawmakers there to warn that it was “categorically opposed” to the bill.

Levy writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — In congressional races across the country, a new crop of super PACs is taking to the air with millions of dollars worth of advertisements to sway voters.

“President Trump said it best, ‘Celeste Maloy will never let you down,’” says one advertisement supporting the Utah Republican representative in her upcoming primary election.

“Standing up to big pharma, fighting for local jobs, Val Hoyle doesn’t back down,” says an ad backing the Oregon Democratic representative ahead of her primary victory last month.

The super PACs have nondescript names — such as Jobs and Democracy PAC and American Mission — and the text is so generic that it almost seems to have been created by artificial intelligence.

That isn’t so far off the mark. The AI industry has funded the ads.

One network of super PACs is linked to Anthropic, maker of the popular AI tool Claude, and the other to Open AI, maker of ChatGPT.

They have been among the most prolific political spenders so far in the 2026 midterm elections, splashing out more than $37 million to date to influence races across the country and making the groups among the biggest outside spenders so far in congressional races. That number could grow exponentially as campaign season heats up closer to the November election — and as the Silicon Valley giants prepare initial pubic offerings that are poised to raise billions of dollars for the companies and their executives.

The AI political spending boom comes as emerging technology companies have become increasingly “comfortable with using their power to achieve a political goal,” said Adam Kovacevich, a former Google public policy executive and founder of Chamber of Progress, a technology trade group with a progressive orientation.

The leading AI companies have a history.

Anthropic was formed by former OpenAI employees who were concerned that the company was less focused on its original mission to safely harness the power of AI.

The companies are now the leading drivers of the burgeoning AI industry, and their competing views about how the technology should be regulated are playing out in a wide-ranging political ad spending war that has targeted congressional races in big cities and rural areas alike.

OpenAI thinks AI should be regulated solely at the federal level.

Anthropic calls for more stringent regulation and supports efforts by states such as New York and California that have passed more aggressive AI laws.

The groups spending in these races are super PACs, which are able to raise and spend unlimited amounts of money in federal races thanks to the 2010 Citizens United Supreme Court decision.

In some races, the AI-backed political groups have spent more than the candidates they are backing.

“There was no way as a grassroots person that I could compete with that kind of money,” said Al Olszewski, whose opponent in a Montana Republican congressional primary beat him by 30 points after getting a boost from $877,000 in ads from a super PAC backed by OpenAI’s co-founder. “I got crushed.”

The AI behemoths have emphasized that they are independent from the political groups.

One group counts $25 million in support from OpenAI co-founder Greg Brockman and his wife, Anna, alongside $100 million tied to one of Silicon Valley’s biggest venture capital firms, which holds a large stake in OpenAI. The global policy chief for OpenAI was reportedly involved in conceiving the group.

The other side has gotten $20 million from Anthropic and millions more from donors whose identities are not public.

This anonymous political cash is commonly known as dark money, and its prevalence is growing.

(Los Angeles Times photo illustration; source photos courtesy of the Tech Oversight Project)

“This has become very normalized now,” said Brendan Glavin, director of insights at OpenSecrets, which tracks campaign spending. “In 2024, we tracked over $1 billion in dark money.”

That total was $350 million higher than the previous presidential election.

The crypto playbook

The political activity of these AI companies and executives reflects a dramatic shift from how emerging technology companies have historically engaged with politics.

Google, for example, didn’t hire its first in-house Washington lobbyist until after the company had gone public in 2005.

“I think that for a long time, the tech industry lobbying strategy was just ‘leave us alone,’” Kovacevich said.

He sees the spending by these AI-linked super PACs as following the recent playbook developed by the cryptocurrency industry, which has funded the only network of political groups that has spent more on congressional races this year than those linked to OpenAI.

“I think what the crypto industry realized was that there’s no substitute for building up political power,” Kovacevich said.

The political stakes for these technology companies are significant.

“AI policy is far from settled,” said Asad Ramzanali, the former deputy director for strategy in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy during the Biden administration and the director of artificial intelligence and technology policy at the Vanderbilt Policy Accelerator.

Earlier this month, the Trump administration banned foreign nationals from using the most powerful AI model developed by Anthropic — and even banned the company’s own employees from it — which forced the company to restrict access for all users.

Manhattan matchup

The two super PAC networks have largely shied away from producing ads that mention AI and have mostly chosen to avoid competing against each other in the same races.

There’s one big exception.

In the marquee Manhattan Democratic congressional primary to replace retiring Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), each side has spent millions of dollars.

While the field includes Kennedy scion and social media star Jake Schlossberg and former Republican turned Trump critic George Conway, the target of all the AI-backed spending has been Alex Bores, a former Palantir data scientist who now serves in the New York state Assembly.

New York congressional candidate sponsored a state measure Bores requiring major AI companies to be transparent about their safety protocols and promptly report safety incidents.

(Yuki Iwamura / Associated Press)

That’s because Bores sponsored a state bill, known as the RAISE Act, that requires major AI companies to be transparent about their safety protocols and promptly report safety incidents. The bill was signed into law in December 2025.

The ads sponsored by the group tied to OpenAI, which has spent more than $7.5 million in the race, paint Bores as someone who can’t be trusted.

They cite his support from other tech billionaires, including former crypto mogul and convicted financial fraudster Sam Bankman-Fried, whose super PAC spent $100,000 to support Bores in 2022 when he first ran for New York Assembly.

“Is that really who should be shaping AI safety for our kids?” one ad asks.

An ad sponsored by the Anthropic-backed network, which has also spent more than $7.5 million supporting Bores, makes the case that the bill he sponsored is exactly why he should be elected.

“As a computer engineer, Alex Bores saw how dangerous unregulated AI could be and he wrote New York’s RAISE Act to put real safeguards on A.I. and hold big tech accountable,” the ad says.

The AI ad barrage in New York has even included what might be considered a kumbaya moment in the ad wars — another super PAC created to support Bores is most heavily backed by both an employee of Anthropic and an employee of OpenAI, who both focus on AI safety.

The group, Dream NYC, has spent more than $1.7 million supporting Bores.

Bores and fellow New York State Assemblymember Micah Lasher have been atop the most recent polls in the race ahead of the June 23 primary.

A general view of businesses in St. George, Utah, on Wednesday.

(Ian Maule / For The Times)

Rural Republicans

For voters in many parts of the country, the debate over AI policy has played out locally as a debate over the massive data centers required to power the technology.

In Utah, a proposed data center in Box Elder County, backed by “Shark Tank” television personality Kevin O’Leary, has generated controversy because of questions about its impact on resources in the drought-prone state and its environmental effect on the nearby Great Salt Lake.

In the state’s most competitive Republican congressional primary — the vast, newly drawn 3rd Congressional District — both candidates expressed concerns about how the project has been developed and called for greater transparency in this plan and for future data centers in the state.

Utah congressional candidates Phil Lyman and Celeste Maloy in a debate on June 1. A super PAC backed by Anthropic has spent more than $920,000 to support Maloy.

(Rick Egan / Pool / The Salt Lake Tribune Via Associated Press)

Despite their similar position on the project, a super PAC backed by Anthropic has spent more than $950,000 to support Maloy, who is running in the new district after the boundaries of her old district changed.

“It’s a lot of money to throw at a race,” said her opponent, Phil Lyman, a former conservative Republican state Representative who ran to the right of Utah Republican Gov. Spencer Cox in an unsuccessful primary challenge in 2024.

Lyman insists he is no AI skeptic.

“I’m not anti data centers, I’m pro-transparency,” he said. “I think the future is bright with AI.”

The group said it is backing Maloy because it sees her as “someone who’s worked the issue” of AI regulation and who “has demonstrated leadership” with Republicans in Congress.

Maloy’s campaign didn’t respond to request for comment.

Utah congressional candidate Phil Lyman speaks during a Cottage Meeting at the SunRiver Community Center Ballroom in St. George, Utah, on Wednesday.

(Ian Maule / For The Times)

But Lyman suspects the group’s support for Maloy ahead of their June 23 primary has more to do with old-fashioned politics than any emerging technology.

One of the two co-founders of the political group is Chris Stewart, Maloy’s predecessor in Congress.

“Everything that they’re doing feels very coordinated,” Lyman said. “It makes you wonder if he’s still really controlling that seat.”

PARIS — A founder of global gaming company Ubisoft, maker of “Assassin’s Creed,” was killed in a plane crash in western France, authorities said Saturday.

Claude Guillemot, co-founder of the company and president of the Guillemot Foundation, died in an accident, Ubisoft said in a statement to the Associated Press. It did not elaborate.

A Cessna plane carrying Guillemot and one other person crashed Friday evening in a field just before landing at La Baule Airport on the Atlantic coast, a La Baule airport official said. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to be publicly named.

Local media said both people aboard were killed.

Guillemot and four brothers founded Ubisoft in 1986. In addition to the popular “Assassin’s Creed” franchise, Ubisoft’s games include “Just Dance,” and the “Rayman” and Tom Clancy game franchises.

Charlton writes for the Associated Press.

ATLANTA — Bina Ramroop broke down in tears when she realized she wasn’t going to get the World Cup tickets she had bought for her grandson’s 13th birthday.

As thousands poured into Atlanta Stadium on Monday to see Spain face Cape Verde in what turned out to be a remarkable scoreless draw, Ramroop stood outside, increasingly stressed as she went back and forth for hours between StubHub representatives on the phone and FIFA representatives in the ticket booth. Each blamed the other.

No one could figure out why the tickets Ramroop bought months ago on StubHub for $485 apiece couldn’t be transferred from the original seller to the FIFA ticketing app. StubHub offered her a refund and, as Ramroop heard the crowd roar for the start of the match, she knew she had no choice but to give up and take the offer.

“I didn’t want a refund, I didn’t want my money back,” Ramroop said. “I wanted to go to the game.”

The World Cup has delivered thrills on the pitch, but fans have flooded social media with complaints about tickets that never arrived, orders that were canceled at the last minute and hours they spent trying to sort out problems between FIFA’s ticketing system and outside resale platforms.

The vast majority seem to be about industry titan StubHub, but people who bought through competitors such as SeatGeek and Vivid Seats have also reported issues. Interviews with fans and industry experts show that some cases stem from technical glitches in the transfer process, while others could involve sellers who never had tickets to deliver in the first place, though StubHub denies such sales happen on its platform.

A grandmother’s disappointment

FIFA has urged fans to buy resale tickets through its own marketplace, where it slaps a 30% surcharge on every resold ticket — 15% each from the buyer and seller. But many fans bought through other resale sites, either out of habit or because those sites have lower prices or are easier to navigate.

Ramroop didn’t realize she was taking a risk when she bought through StubHub, which she had used in the past without issues.

As she and her grandson Elijah Gomes took the long, lonely train ride back to the Atlanta suburbs, Elijah followed the score on his phone. The match had ended scoreless, and he tried to cheer up his devastated grandmother by telling her they hadn’t missed much after all (Cape Verdeans would beg to differ ).

“He’s telling me, ‘Grandma, it’s OK, Grandma.’ And he’s trying to console me,” Ramroop said the next day.

She was hardly alone. An Associated Press journalist witnessed more than a dozen frustrated fans at the match who said they were stuck in similar situations.

StubHub blamed FIFA for the transfer problems that buyers like Ramroop have experienced. In a statement, it said FIFA has “poor technology infrastructure,” enacted last-minute transfer restrictions and didn’t launch its new ticketing app until a few weeks before the tournament. The company also called out organizers that “take anti-competitive actions” that limit where fans can buy and sell tickets.

Asked about the technical issues, FIFA on Wednesday reiterated that sales through its official site are guaranteed to go through.

An industry’s longstanding problem

Industry observers say the problems appear to stem from more than one cause. For some, it may indeed be technical glitches — an issue that StubHub says is “very, very rare” and one that it is hard at work to solve. For others, they say it’s likely a more longstanding scourge: speculative sellers.

Scott Friedman, an industry veteran and co-founder of a consultancy called the Ticket Talk Network, said some sellers list tickets before they actually have them, betting that prices will fall closer to the event so they can buy the tickets at a better price later. But because World Cup ticket prices have surged since the tournament began, those sellers have been forced to either buy expensive tickets to fulfill their orders or cancel and accept penalties from resale platforms. StubHub’s penalties are typically 200% of the ticket price, Friedman said.

“This is not new at all,” said Friedman, pointing to other high-profile events where frustrated fans were left empty-handed, including Taylor Swift’s Eras tour. “This has been going on, but it’s making global news because it’s the World Cup.”

StubHub says it requires sellers to prove they have tickets before they list them.

But regardless of the reason for the canceled sales, Friedman said “StubHub should fill every single order to make sure fans get in the biggest global sporting event that happens every four years.”

That’s what many fans say they expected when they purchased through StubHub.

StubHub’s FanProtect Guarantee promises replacement tickets or a refund if tickets fail to arrive. But the policy repeatedly says those remedies are provided at StubHub’s “sole discretion,” meaning the company can choose a refund instead of securing replacement seats.

“That is pretty explicit language,” said Michael McCann, a sports law expert at the University of New Hampshire. McCann noted that a buyer could try to challenge the language under state consumer protection laws, but it would be an uphill battle.

A father’s regrets

Pape Ndaw is crestfallen that the high school graduation gift he got for his son — tickets for them to see the Netherlands and Japan near their home city of Dallas — never arrived.

He bought the tickets for about $550 apiece in December. Then, two days before the June 14 match, he received an email from StubHub telling him, “The seller can’t deliver your original tickets.”

Ndaw accepted store credit rather than a refund, thinking he would use the funds to quickly get replacements, only to then realize that the cheapest last-minute tickets were going for more than $1,500 each. Not only were they not going to get to go to the game, but Ndaw said StubHub rejected his belated request for a refund instead of store credit.

Breaking the news to his soccer-obsessed son was brutal, Ndaw said.

“It was a disastrous thing,” he said. “He had told all his friends that he was going to that game. He literally cried. I mean, he is a 17-year-old kid, but he cried.”

A family’s attempt to make the best of it

Others fared somewhat better.

Patrick O’Neil of Pittsboro, North Carolina, traveled to Atlanta with his wife, son and relatives after purchasing five tickets through StubHub for the Spain-Cape Verde match. Two tickets transferred successfully, but three never arrived.

O’Neil’s 15-year-old son and his uncle ended up using the two tickets, while O’Neil, his wife and another relative watched from a nearby bar.

After local media caught wind of their ordeal, O’Neil said StubHub contacted the family and offered tickets to another game. Since the family had already bought tickets to one, though, he and his wife asked the company to instead give the seats to local nonprofit Soccer in the Streets so they could go to people who otherwise might not be able to attend a match.

“StubHub is not evil, but they’re part of the whole system that makes it really hard for just normal kids and people who might want to see a match get to go,” O’Neil said.

On Thursday, a StubHub representative confirmed to the AP that the company would honor the O’Neils’ request and send tickets to the nonprofit.

Rico and Megnien write for the Associated Press.

When Brian Grazer has an idea for a movie, he now starts with a chatbot. The co-founder of Imagine Entertainment — the company behind “A Beautiful Mind,” “Apollo 13” and “Liar Liar” — said he sits down with Anthropic’s AI assistant, Claude, to rough out a story before handing it to a writer.

“You can build the whole thing into an outline. You still need a screenwriter. I always believe you need a screenwriter,” Grazer said during a keynote at UCLA’s Entertainment Symposium on Thursday. What once could have taken up to a year, he said, now takes him about a week — but the human writer stays.

That balance — AI as an accelerant rather than a replacement — captures where much of Hollywood has landed in practice. Amazon MGM, Lionsgate, Netflix and Disney have all made major investments in the technology. The sharper question at the symposium, which drew many of the industry’s top lawyers and dealmakers to the Westwood campus, was not whether to use AI but how: who authorizes it, how far it goes and who gets paid.

For the companies building the tools, the answer increasingly comes from the client. Studios, production companies and distributors regularly approach Promise, a generative AI company, to bring AI into their productions, and each arrives with its own usage guidelines, said the company’s president, Jamie Byrne. Those rules govern which AI models Promise may use and what protections apply — effectively letting each client decide how heavily AI figures into the work.

“It comes down to a risk appetite,” Byrne said during a panel on AI. “We know that there’s talent that are staunchly against it. We know that there are many who are okay with it.”

He framed adoption as a competitive necessity: “Every time there’s a technology change, certain studios or production companies rise. Others fall, and it’s usually the ones that are not leaning into the new tool.”

Ron Howard, also of Imagine Entertainment, argued the limits will ultimately be set elsewhere — by viewers. “Sure, it’s about efficiencies and budgets, but more than anything, audiences are going to tell us where those restrictions are,” he said. He expects AI-generated content to settle into its own subgenre over time, with audiences signaling what they will accept.

The most contested ground is labor, where consent has become the dividing line. The emergence of synthetic performers such as Tilly Norwood has made AI a central issue in SAG-AFTRA’s contract. The union’s most recent agreement draws a clear line between authorized digital replicas, which use a performer’s likeness with their consent, and fully synthetic creations.

Talent agencies are organizing around the same principle. In recent years, Creative Artists Agency began digitally scanning clients into what it calls the CAA Vault, building a replica of a client’s image, likeness and voice while leaving the talent in complete control of how it is used.

That control is beginning to carry real value, said Tammy Brandt, CAA’s deputy general counsel, who said she is seeing more deals that involve digital likeness. Hollywood has been slow to work out how to monetize these replicas, she said, but once it does, audiences will start to encounter them more often.

“You have to lean into the technology and understand what it can do, and honestly, how you can make money, work with talent and with creative assets in a way that the user is interested in,” Brandt said. “There’s a little bit of trial and error as you go with that.”

Before the lights dim and the trailers roll, moviegoers will start to see microdrama ads in movie theaters.

National CineMedia (NCM), the company responsible for the pre-show programming on the big screen, announced a new partnership with AI-native microseries studio aTwist on Wednesday. The company will begin advertising aTwist’s upcoming slate of vertical series in theaters later this summer.

“Movie theaters have always been where people go to lose themselves in storytelling,” Mike Rosen, NCM’s chief revenue officer, said in a statement. “This partnership brings new, exciting content to the pre-show experience, and gives brands the opportunity to speak more authentically to an audience that is naturally drawn to compelling, innovative content.”

The partnership was first reported by the Hollywood Reporter.

The deal will feature brand-sponsored series, previews of aTwist originals and a QR code that will take viewers directly to the aTwist platform.

These advertisements will be integrated into NCM’s regular programming, which spans more than 18,500 screens in over 1,650 theaters nationwide. The advertiser works with major movie chains such as AMC, Cinemark and Regal, across 185 markets. NCM was founded in 2002 and is best known for its “Noovie” preshow hosted by Maria Menounos.

ATwist is set to launch later this summer. The Los Angeles-based company, founded by former Hollywood executives Jana Winograde, Susan Rovner and Lloyd Braun, is entering an increasingly competitive format.

Microdramas, which originated in China, have continued to gain traction in the U.S. Some of the industry’s major players include ReelShort and DramaBox. The short-form content, engineered for a vertical phone screen, has drawn comparisons to a new addictive form of soap opera. The vertical video market is expected to generate around $150 billion in revenue this year, according to media consulting firm Owl & Co.

Brands such as Marc Jacobs and Crocs have already positioned the storytelling format as a way to advertise new products and reach new audiences.

By advertising to moviegoers, aTwist is hoping to distinguish itself among its competitors.

“We built aTwist around the belief that great storytelling should meet audiences wherever they are,” Winograde, aTwist’s chief executive officer, said in a statement.

“There is no better partner than NCM to introduce microseries to moviegoers and bring our storytelling into one of the most immersive entertainment environments.”

Published on
17/06/2026 – 11:13 GMT+2

Elon Musk’s space and AI conglomerate ended its third day of public trading worth roughly $2.65 trillion (€2.28tn), having displaced Amazon in the global market-capitalisation rankings.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

The stock settled at $201.8 per share, in a debut week that has rewritten the upper reaches of the world’s equity leaderboard at remarkable speed.

The milestone caps an already extraordinary stretch for the company, which listed on the Nasdaq under the ticker SPCX only last Friday.

SpaceX priced 555.6 million Class A shares at $135 each, raising around $75 billion (€65bn) in what was the largest initial public offering in history, comfortably eclipsing the $29.4 billion (€25.3bn) that Saudi Aramco raised in 2019.

The company also increased the total capital raised to $85.7 billion (€73.8bn) after underwriters exercised the “greenshoe” option to purchase additional shares on Monday due to exceptional demand.

At Tuesday’s close, the stock was trading more than 50% above its IPO price.

During the trading session, share prices climbed as high as $225.6, briefly pushing SpaceX’s valuation above $3 trillion (€2.58tn) and, for a moment, ahead of Microsoft as the world’s fourth most valuable company.

The stock later pared those gains, closing below that threshold, but the intraday spike underscored the intensity of investor appetite for the listing.

Based on Tuesday’s closing prices, only Nvidia ($5tr), Alphabet ($4.5tr), Apple ($4.4tr) and Microsoft ($2.9tr) had larger market capitalisations than SpaceX. Eight of the world’s ten most valuable listed companies are tied to the technology and AI sector, a concentration that has defined markets throughout 2026.

The Cursor deal fuels the surge

Tuesday’s advance coincided with a significant strategic move.

Before the opening bell, SpaceX announced an all-stock agreement to acquire Anysphere, the developer behind the AI coding assistant Cursor, in a deal valuing the startup at $60 billion (€51.7bn).

According to a regulatory filing, a SpaceX subsidiary will merge into Anysphere, leaving Cursor as a wholly owned arm of the group, with completion expected in the third quarter, subject to regulatory approval.

The purchase deepens SpaceX’s push into enterprise AI, a market where rivals such as OpenAI and Anthropic have gained early commercial traction, and it follows the company’s merger with Musk’s xAI venture in February.

The acquisition stems from an option SpaceX secured in April, under which it agreed either to acquire Cursor for $60 billion (€51.7bn) later this year or pay $10 billion (€8.6bn) for a more limited partnership to access its computing technology.

However, despite all the positive news, the speed of the climb has drawn caution.

Sceptics argue that SpaceX remains overvalued, given that it has yet to turn a profit and only 3% to 4% of its total equity is publicly traded.

A fast-track route into major stock indices, which compels passive funds to buy the shares, is expected to further amplify demand for the limited supply of shares in the opening days of trading.

This article does not constitute financial advice, always do your own research and invest according to your specific circumstances.

Several studios in Microsoft Corp.’s Xbox gaming division, including Montreal-based Compulsion Games and San Francisco-based Double Fine, are in active negotiations to spin off as they try to thwart closure, according to people familiar with the company’s plans.

Cambridge, England-based Ninja Theory, the maker of Hellblade, is also in conversations with Xbox, as are several other studios across the portfolio that are at risk of being shuttered.

The studios may still have the opportunity to buy themselves back from Xbox and go independent, although many employees will probably lose their jobs as a result, said the people, who asked not to be named because they were not authorized to speak to the press.

Employees at several studios have been informed of the situation and given permission to seek new work but were told that the status of the studios is still in flux.

An Xbox spokesperson declined to comment.

The potential closures are part of a broader reorganization being overseen by Asha Sharma, who took over as Xbox’s new chief executive in February.

Last week, Bloomberg News reported that the gaming division is planning significant layoffs. Sharma sent out a memo to staff lamenting the bleak state of the business, which has seen revenue and margins plummet in recent years. “Going forward, this cannot continue,” she wrote.

Compulsion Games, Double Fine and Ninja Theory all made award-winning games that were not commercial hits. But even some of Xbox’s more commercially successful studios are not yet sure how they will fit into Sharma’s new mandate, which will prioritize the biggest franchises as the company looks to return to growth.

Compulsion Games is the developer behind South of Midnight, which was released last year. Double Fine, best known for the Psychonauts series, released the smaller games Keeper and Kiln over the last year.

Xbox is facing the current challenges despite having made major purchases in recent years, including its acquisition of Activision Blizzard Inc. for $69 billion in a deal that closed in 2023.

Xbox Game Studios head Craig Duncan stepped down last week ahead of the layoffs, said the people familiar with Microsoft’s plans. Gaming newsletter the Game Business previously reported his departure.

Schreier writes for Bloomberg.

Fox Corporation has agreed to acquire the streaming platform Roku Inc. in a deal valued at $22 billion, the companies announced Monday.

The deal will combine the Murdoch family’s media assets, which include its news, sports and broadcast channels, with the San Jose-based streaming platform that reaches 100 million consumers globally.

The acquisition would give Fox access to consumer households at a time when the traditional pay-TV universe continues its slow decline as viewers move away from cable and satellite services to video streaming. Fox already owns the free ad-supported streaming service Tubi, which recently became profitable.

“This is a defining moment for Fox and a natural extension of the deliberate and focused strategy we have been executing for nearly a decade,” Fox Corp. Executive Chair Lachlan Murdoch said in a statement.

By owning Roku, Fox gets access to data from the 100 million households connected to the service, which can be used to better target audiences with advertising. The combination would also make Fox less dependent on traditional pay TV platforms for the distribution of its channels.

According to Nielsen data, 21% of all internet-connected TV viewing comes through Roku. The Roku Channel, which carries 500 ad-supported streaming networks, accounts for 3% of all TV viewing.

An image of a Roku branded TV.

(Roku)

Research firm Emarketer projects ad revenues of $3.57 billion for Roku this year, up 19% from last year.

Lloyd Grief, chief executive of the Los Angeles investment bank Greif & Co., said Roku would have been challenged to compete against far better capitalized competitors in the streaming business and that a sale was “inevitable.”

For Fox, the proposed deal makes them a larger player in the digital advertising business. Emarketer senior analyst Ross Benes said the Roku business will “more than double,” the company’s revenues in that area.

“It remains to be seen how well the combination of a digitally innovating streaming company will mesh with a media conglomerate rooted in legacy assets,” Benes said.. “But the strategy makes sense and it jibes with the continual consolidation that’s occurring in streaming.”

Fox sold its TV and movie production assets to Walt Disney Co. in 2018. Rather than invest heavily in scripted entertainment to compete with emerging streaming companies, Fox decided to concentrate on sports and news.

The Roku deal will put Fox deeper into the distribution network. Over its history, the company has held stakes in satellite TV provider DirecTV and Sky TV.

The companies said they are committed to keeping Roku as a “partner-friendly” platform that carries program services that compete with Fox. Brian Wieser, a consultant at Madison and Wall said that might require some convincing.

“Other content owners may still need Roku’s distribution, but they may be less comfortable with the idea that one of their competitors controls an increasingly important part of the streaming interface,” Wieser wrote in his note on the proposed deal.

Roku shareholders will receive a combination of cash and Fox Corporation stock valued at $160 a share.

The companies say they expect cost savings of $400 million in the combined entity.

Roku was founded in 2002 by Anthony Wood, a British digital entrepreneur. The company launched a streaming device, the Roku player, in 2008. Within six years, the company sold more than 10 million devices, as the popularity of streaming video rapidly grew.

Fox Corp. shares were down 10 to 15% on news of the deal, trading around $55.57 Monday morning. Roku shares were down slightly to $142.

Times staff writer Wendy Lee contributed to this report.

When CBS announced that it planned to outsource the hallowed “Late Show” slot occupied by Stephen Colbert and David Letterman before him to “Comics Unleashed,” the syndicated, low-budget talk show with stand-ups riffing on their routines, many saw politics at play.

But the show’s host and producer, comic-turned-mogul Byron Allen, saw the math. Once a cultural touchstone, late-night television has seen its prominence erode greatly over the years with viewers and advertising dollars shifting away from broadcast TV to streaming.

“I said, ‘Look guys, you’re spending a small fortune on late night,’” recalled Allen, who estimated that the programming was costing the network more than $200 million. He offered it a solution.

His company, the Los Angeles-based Allen Media Group, would pay $15 million for the airtime to run “Comics Unleashed,” which previously aired after “The Late Show,” while keeping most of the advertising time on the program to sell. It was the same time-buy model that propelled his fledgling media empire and made him wealthy many times over.

“Comics Unleashed” drew 1.1 million viewers in its debut in the new time slot last month, down substantially from the 2.7 million Colbert’s show averaged in its final season. Critics chimed in, with one outlet even calling it a “ratings disaster.”

But Allen, typically, was not fazed, saying his show bested the competition in key markets and was more comparable with the same time period last May before Colbert’s post-cancellation victory lap.

“CBS has won big-time because they have zero production costs and now they are saving $55 million a year,” he said in an interview.

Media mogul Byron Allen at his studio on the set of “Comics Unleashed” in Culver City.

(Jason Armond/Los Angeles Times)

A relentlessly driven, shrewd dealmaker and entrepreneur, Allen is used to defying skeptics and seeing opportunity in assets overlooked by others. He was one of the first entertainers to recognize that there was more money to be made in owning your content, rather than just performing it.

Over the last three decades, he has built a multibillion-dollar business, Allen Media Group, which now has 2,000 employees across various media properties.

In addition to creating a trove of accessible, family-friendly programs, he’s taken a number of big, bold swings, buying up distressed assets that now span broadcast, cable, streaming and film distribution.

At times, he appears like a minnow trying to swallow a whale. Although many deals have landed, others, such as his bids for ABC, BET, Paramount Global and Tegna, have not.

“He’s had misses, but that doesn’t stop him from going to bat,” said Lloyd Greif, president and chief executive of Greif & Co., a Los Angeles-based investment bank.

After a major restructuring that began two years ago during which the company laid off staffers and sold off properties, Allen is back with a slew of ambitious acquisitions. In addition to owning CBS’ late-night block, he also took over the 12:35 a.m. slot with his comic game show, “Funny You Should Ask.” He declined to reveal how much he paid for that airtime.

Allen recently snapped up controlling interest in the digital media company BuzzFeed (including HuffPost) for $120 million and bought a 10.7% stake in cable channel Starz for $25 million.

Although Allen’s programming has been dismissed as low-budget, apolitical comedy, and his finances have been questioned by some, he remains undaunted by doubters.

“I like to say I’m a 65-year-old overnight success.” And he remains focused on his mission, even proclaiming he is “building the world’s biggest media company.”

An entrepreneurial streak

Allen was born in Detroit, where his grandparents owned a roller rink where he worked as a floor guard. Being surrounded by a family of factory workers and the legacy of 20th century American industry set the stage for his entrepreneurship. “I didn’t play sports; I played office,” he said.

At age 7, after his parents’ divorce, Allen moved to Los Angeles with his mother, Carolyn Folks. It was the summer of 1968 and they planned a two-week vacation. But Detroit was in flames following the assassination of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., and they stayed.

Folks put herself through UCLA and eventually worked her way up at NBC from an intern to a publicist, a move Allen credits with changing the trajectory of their lives. His mother couldn’t afford child care, so Allen often accompanied her at the studio, where he soaked up tapings of “Sanford and Son” and “The Tonight Show.” After Johnny Carson finished filming and the studio was empty, Allen would sit at his desk, mimicking the legendary late-night host.

At 14, he convinced his mother to let him do stand-up at the Comedy Store on Sunset Boulevard.

“There were literally four people and 200 chairs. And I said, ‘I have to figure out how to make these chairs laugh.’”

A writer for Jimmie “J.J.” Walker, who was starring on the groundbreaking Norman Lear hit comedy “Good Times,” caught his act. He hired Allen to write jokes for Walker along with a pair of yet-to-be discovered comics: Jay Leno and David Letterman. Allen earned $25 a joke.

Howie Mandel met Byron Allen when they were both starting out at The Comedy Store.

(Allen Media Group)

“Most people in my business wait for other people to give you an opportunity,” said Howie Mandel, the actor and comic who met Allen when they were starting out at the Comedy Store during this period. “Byron and his mom constantly made their own opportunities.”

In 1979, when Allen was 18, he became the youngest comic to appear on “The Tonight Show.” Like a shot out of a cannon, the performance catapulted his career.

While various offers poured in, Allen chose the NBC prime-time series “Real People” as a host and correspondent. It was an embryonic version of reality TV. Allen traveled around the country showcasing quirky, heartwarming stories. The hit show brought Allen to every pocket of America. It also made him a star, delivering him to the country’s living rooms each week.

He continued to tour, doing stand-up and serving as the opening act for such musicians as Lionel Richie and Dolly Parton, and starred in TV movies.

Allen became a hero to young, Black entertainers who were just starting out. Among them was Eddie Murphy, who has called Allen “one of my first inspirations.”

“He just loves comedians,” said Whitney Cummings, co-creator and executive producer of the hit CBS sitcom “2 Broke Girls.” She recalled crucial career and financial advice Allen gave her after she first appeared as a young comic on “Comics Unleashed.” “It gave me like a true north. It changed my life.”

Whitney Cummings says Allen helped her early in her career.

(Troy Conrad)

As Allen’s success swelled, he said, he realized the industry was what he calls “business show, not show business.”

“You need to know the business side and learn the business side and then you can do as many shows as you want. And I knew that I didn’t want to work for anybody,” he said.

While on “Real People,” he sat in on sales meetings and went to the National Assn. of Television Programming Executives, where he introduced himself to Al Masini, the syndication trailblazer who produced “Entertainment Tonight” and “Star Search.”

“I understand you’re the best. I’m here to learn from you,” Allen said.

In 1989 he began hosting the syndicated “The Byron Allen Show.” Two years later, he created BYCA Television Distribution to take over his talk show’s distribution and syndicate other shows.

But Allen and his new company were soon facing legal and financial issues. A group of former employees and an investor sued, claiming they had not been paid. The dispute forced the company into Chapter 7 bankruptcy.

Allen pressed on. He had absorbed another key lesson.

Learning from Richard Pryor

When he was still hanging out at the Comedy Store, he watched Richard Pryor trying out new material.

Iconic comedian Richard Pryor.

(Bettmann / Bettmann Archive)

“He would bomb night after night for almost three months,” Allen said. “I’ll never forget, he told me, ‘Byron, you’re only as good as you dare to be bad.’ I learned, OK, take risks. It’s about growing and taking chances.”

In 1993, Allen launched CF Entertainment on his dining room table in Los Angeles. The production company, later Entertainment Studios, became the foundation of his media empire. He focused on producing low-cost, syndicated programming, including interview series and court shows. Allen produced and often served as host.

His first show, “Entertainers With Byron Allen,” packaged the five-minute celebrity interviews during hotel press junkets, a conveyor belt of actors promoting their latest projects set up by the studios into an hourlong talk show.

Allen bartered the show for free to TV stations in exchange for a split of the revenues from selling commercials to advertisers. Success was not immediate. He said he received countless rejections at first.

“My house went in and out of foreclosure probably 14 times,” he said. At one point, he said, his telephone service was turned off, forcing him use a pay phone for calls.

But the format established the template for what became Allen’s highly successful business. Forbes has estimated his net worth in the billions. Allen declined to discuss his personal or business finances.

The mogul now owns multiple homes, including a $91.3-million mansion in Aspen, Colo., that was recently featured in the Wall Street Journal.

“A lot of people didn’t take him seriously and saw him as a comedian,” said Joan Robbins, Allen’s first employee, who has stayed on for 32 years as president of talent relations. “I don’t think anybody realized the extraordinary business sense he had.”

Byron Allen gets final touches at his studio on the set of “Comics Unleashed.”

(Jason Armond/Los Angeles Times)

As Allen’s media ambitions have expanded beyond comedy and syndicated talk shows, so has his company. It produces, distributes and sells advertising for 74 television programs (“Mathis Court With Judge Mathis” and “Career Day” among them) as well as owns 13 broadcast stations affiliated with the major networks in 11 markets and several dot-TV cable and digital networks including Cars.TV, Automotive.TV and Comedy.TV.

In 2016, he acquired the Black entertainment platform TheGrio and later purchased the assets of the Black News Channel out of bankruptcy for a reported $11 million, merging its TV assets and carriage deals into TheGrio’s network.

A year earlier, Allen made waves by filing the first of several multibillion-dollar racial discrimination lawsuits to tackle what he called the “trade deficit between Black America and white corporate America.” His case against Comcast for not carrying Allen-owned stations and networks reached the Supreme Court before being settled.

“I feel good about starting that conversation … because we were going in circles and we were definitely suffering from economic genocide,” he said.

In 2018, Allen’s company bought the Weather Channel and the streaming service Local Now for $300 million. His firm also announced it had raised $500 million in credit facilities organized by Deutsche Bank Securities, Jefferies Financial Group, Brightwood Capital Advisors and Comerica Bank to finance production and other acquisitions.

What unites these disparate assets? “We’re directed at where the viewers are,” he said. “That’s where we’ll be.”

But in his tireless push to expand his sprawling company, Allen has made several failed bids for high-profile assets.

In 2023, he offered Disney a reported $10 billion for ABC and some of its cable networks, and the following year bid $30 billion for Paramount Global. He also made plays for Tegna and BET.

None of his offers succeeded, prompting skepticism about his ability to finance such deals. Allen Media Group is wholly owned by the entrepreneur.

Allen dismissed such concerns. “I raised the money to buy the Weather Channel in one day,” he said. “There’s trillions of dollars looking for really good executives and really good deals. I have no problem raising capital.”

The Times viewed multiple letters from private equity firms and banks. Several indicated that Allen had financial backing on the deal to buy BET, and another showed he had $4 billion in funds to back the purchase of Paramount assets.

Over the years, former employees have criticized some of Allen’s employment practices. In 2012 he faced a class-action suit from performers and staffers on “Comics Unleashed” who alleged they were not paid residuals or reimbursed for travel and other expenses. The suit was settled in 2023.

Allen called the suits “frivolous,” saying, “I couldn’t be in business if I actually conducted myself that way.”

Last year, Allen came under fire after announcing sweeping cuts at about two dozen local affiliates that included laying off meteorologists, part of a reorganization to centralize forecasts at the Weather Channel in Atlanta. The move sparked viewer outrage and the plans were reversed.

The controversy came as Allen’s company was retrenching. He sold off about a third of the TV station portfolio for $171 million.

Allen said this was a case of “rightsizing,” paying down debt and investing more in digital. “I sold 10 of my ABC, NBC, CBS and Fox affiliates to Gray [Media] at a great price for us and a great price for them.”

Allen confirmed he is negotiating with lenders over substantial debt payments coming due in the next year, but said he is “highly confident they will get refinanced or extended.”

Shortly after he bought a stake in Starz, Allen announced his intentions to own the cable channel. Starz responded by adopting a poison pill.

“Good luck,” he said. “I still plan to take over Starz, and I will eventually get control of Starz.”

June 12 (UPI) — SpaceX began trading Friday at $150 and has gone as high as $176 as SPCX in its initial public offering, the largest one in history.

Elon Musk and SpaceX President and COO Gwynne Shotwell rang the opening bell Friday. Musk was in Texas and Shotwell was at the Nasdaq in New York City.

After trading opened, the stock topped $160, sending the company to more than a $2 trillion market cap. By early afternoon, the stock was at $176.52.

“I love the incredible people of SpaceX beyond words,” Musk wrote Friday afternoon on X.

The company had traded more than 360 million shares as of 2 p.m. EDT Friday. It has more than 172 million shares on the Nasdaq alone, CNBC reported. Polymarket bettors believe, at 70%, that SpaceX will close at more than $2 trillion Friday. Five other U.S. companies have reached the $2 trillion market cap: Nvidia, Apple, Alphabet, Microsoft and Amazon.

Already a trillionaire, Musk is about to be CEO of two of the Top 10 most valuable publicly traded companies at the same time.

Musk said before the IPO that SpaceX had been cash-flow positive since around 2015, CNBC reported. He said he chose to take the company public now to raise capital for “a significant growth phase.” Some plans for that growth include putting more than 100,000 satellites in orbit for communications and building artificial intelligence data centers in space.

“Having a private company was important to us early on because we weren’t really focused on quarterly financials, we were so focused on the long-term outlook for the company,” Shotwell told CNBC in an interview.

Shotwell said interest from investors also helped drive the decision.

“We’ve been feeling, over the last few years, a lot of pressure from everyday Americans and our friends that wanted to buy stock, and there was just no way for these folks to get in,” Shotwell said.

According to its prospectus, SpaceX has had a total loss of $41.3 billion since it was founded in 2002. Originally founded as a maker of reusable rockets, the only profitable part of the business has been the Starlink satellite Internet service.

In February, SpaceX acquired Musk’s startup xAI, which has been embattled this year for its ability to undress people in AI-generated images. Several countries and people have sued the company to force it to not allow the bot to do so against the victims’ will.

Citadel Securities, which helps execute trade orders, processed more retail activity for SpaceX than any other IPO auction on record, CNN reported the company said. Retail investors are regular people trading stocks instead of professionals.

The Ellison family-controlled Harbor Lights Entertainment has sold its Showcase Cinemas theater chain to a major European cinema group in a $30-million deal.

Belgium-based Kinepolis will soon operate 13 cinemas across the United States. Seven are in Massachusetts, four in New York, one in Ohio and one in Rhode Island.

David Ellison, who is now in charge of Paramount Skydance, acquired National Amusements last year from the Redstone family. He renamed the company Harbor Lights. National Amusements was the start of Redstone’s media empire, which at one point included control of CBS, Paramount and Viacom.

Paramount is in the process of acquiring Warner Bros. Discovery in a $111-billion deal. Under the proposal, Ellison has said the two studios will release 30 films per year. But he and his team would also have to make $6 billion in cuts and take on $79 billion in deal debt.

The deal is awaiting regulatory approval, but officials in several state states recently announced plans to try to block the merger. The potential lawsuit would seek to challenge the proposed merger on antitrust grounds, arguing it would decrease competition, lower wages and lead to widespread job losses.

With the sale of the theaters, Kinepolis will add 164 screens to its portfolio. The company was formed in 1997 and currently operates 63 cinemas in Europe and nearly 60 theaters in the U.S. and Canada.

The newly acquired theaters welcomed about 4 million visitors and generated more than $90 million in revenue last year.

“This acquisition allows us to expand our market position in the U.S. from Michigan to the East Coast with an asset and a team that enable us to implement Kinepolis’ operational model and corporate strategy, ultimately enhancing the experience for moviegoers in these markets,” Eddy Duquenne, Kinepolis’s chief executive, said in a statement.

The company said Showcase Cinemas would retain its name. It expects the acquisition to be complete by the end of the summer.

Times staff writer Wendy Lee contributed to this report.