company

ChatGPT maker says an autonomous agent escaped a controlled test and accessed AI firm Hugging Face’s servers.

ChatGPT creator OpenAI has said that two of its most advanced artificial intelligence models broke out of a controlled test and hacked another AI company.

OpenAI said on Tuesday that the “unprecedented cyber incident” took place during an internal exercise meant to test its models’ cyber capabilities.

Instead, an autonomous agent powered by the AI models – the newly released GPT 5.6 Sol and an unreleased “even more capable” model – escaped the test environment and reached the open internet. It then used stolen login details and found a previously unknown security flaw to access Hugging Face servers, the company said.

OpenAI claims that the hack represented the agent going to “extreme lengths” to retrieve information that would help satisfy the testing goals.

Hugging Face cofounder Clement Delangue said the company had suspected that a frontier lab was behind the attack, and that he believed there was no malicious intent on OpenAI’s part.

“It’s quite mind-blowing that all of this happened autonomously!” he wrote, adding that it “might be the first incident of its kind”.

Greg Casar, a Democratic member of the United States House of Representatives from Texas, called the incident “alarming”.

“AI is developing extremely fast with no real regulations to keep us safe,” he said, calling for mandatory independent safety testing, mandatory disclosure of security incidents, and international cooperation.

The disclosure comes weeks after US President Donald Trump signed an executive order creating a framework to vet the national security risks of the most advanced AI systems before their public release.

Experts have repeatedly sounded the alarm over AI-enabled cyberattacks and models slipping beyond human control. Last month, AI developer Anthropic urged the industry to pause development of its most powerful systems.

More Kraft Heinz products will be available in Walt Disney Co.’s U.S.-based theme parks and on cruise ships after the two companies recently inked a multiyear partnership.

Ten Kraft Heinz brands will be part of the deal, including Heinz, Philadelphia cream cheese and Kraft Mac & Cheese, the companies said in a statement Tuesday.

Both Disney and Heinz declined to comment on the financial terms of the deal, but a Heinz spokesperson said it is Disney’s “highest level of partnership” and designed to be an ongoing effort.

The partnership, which begins this summer, will result in new menu items, experiences and product offerings at Anaheim’s Disneyland Resort, Orlando’s Walt Disney World and on Disney cruise ships sailing out of ports in North America.

In the short term, new Heinz condiment stations and custom-designed equipment will be installed throughout the parks, the companies said.

Beyond the use of Kraft Heinz brands at Disney parks and on cruise ships, the partnership also allows for “integrated marketing campaigns” and digital content across Disney’s media platforms.

“Together we will build creative experiences for our consumers across our destinations, platforms, and fan touchpoints,” Becca Vodnoy, Walt Disney Co. senior vice president of corporate alliances, said in the statement.

It took an ancient Greek epic to ignite a fire at the box office last weekend, as Christopher Nolan’s adaptation of “The Odyssey” became one of the biggest movie events of the year.

The film, led by Matt Damon as Odysseus, hauled in $123.5 million in the U.S. and Canada on its way to a global total of nearly $264 million — the biggest-ever global opening for one of Nolan’s films.

In many ways, “The Odyssey” is a throwback to old-school Hollywood filmmaking, with Nolan’s use of practical effects and numerous on-location shoots. It’s also a sign that audiences will still pack theaters for the right kind of movie.

The Universal Pictures film also outperformed studio expectations of a $117-million domestic premiere and set a record for the highest-grossing opening weekend for a live-action or R-rated film this year.

“Audiences always want to be thoroughly immersed in the theatrical experience and engulfed by the story and the production, and Christopher Nolan’s ‘The Odyssey’ is a perfect example of that,” Jim Orr, Universal’s president of domestic distribution, said Sunday. “When you have a very substantial opening, and you have those kinds of audience scores, it only points to what should be a remarkable run throughout the summer and into the fall.”

That’s good news for the summer box office, which lately has seen a bit of ebb and flow.

“The Odyssey” now ranks as the third-largest domestic opening of the year, trailing only kid-friendly films such as Walt Disney Co. and Pixar’s “Toy Story 5” and Universal, Illumination and Nintendo’s “The Super Mario Galaxy Movie.” Though family-friendly films have become power players for theaters, the two most recent flicks — Disney’s live-action “Moana” and Universal and Illumination’s “Minions & Monsters” saw softer openings.

After the big weekend for “The Odyssey,” the summer box office is up 7.3% compared with the lackluster 2025 season, according to entertainment data firm Rentrak. More encouraging, the year-to-date domestic box office is now 10.4% higher than for the same period last year.

That’s been helped not only by big blockbusters such as “The Odyssey,” which had a production budget of $200 million to $250 million, but also by the success of smaller-budget films such as A24’s “Backrooms” and Focus Features’ “Obsession.”

The common denominator is the draw of directors who have cultivated strong fan bases. “Obsession” director Curry Barker, 26, and 21-year-old Kane Parsons, who helmed “Backrooms,” have been building their reputation on YouTube among Gen Z audiences, and that loyalty is starting to count for something at the box office.

Nolan, of course, is one of the masters of building a faithful following over more than two decades. Fans started grabbing Imax 70 millimeter tickets for “The Odyssey” when they first went on sale a year ago, and the film ended up driving record presales for the Canadian entertainment tech company, which operates out of Playa Vista.

The film has notched a 95% on aggregator Rotten Tomatoes and an A CinemaScore rating.

“His films have tapped into the cultural zeitgeist,” said Shawn Robbins, director of movie analytics at Fandango and founder of the website Box Office Theory. “That’s what keeps bringing people back. They know they’re going to get a different experience; there’s always going to be a watercooler conversation around his movies, and they’re part of the cultural fabric.”

For “The Odyssey,” part of that conversation was Nolan’s old-school movie magic, including the puppetry, animatronics and robotics he used in scenes with the Cyclops, as well as the real Viking ship that the actors learned to sail.

The film also has driven interest in 70mm screenings from film buffs and casual moviegoers.

Ahead of the premiere of “The Odyssey,” Allen Michaan, owner of Oakland’s Grand Lake Theater, knew the weekend would be very busy for his four-screen movie palace. He is showing the film both in standard digital format and on 70mm film.

Michaan has made 70mm showings a priority since 1982, when the projector was installed for the release of Steven Spielberg’s “E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial.” He said the theater played that movie for 45 weeks that year. Due to the demand at the time, he installed two more 70mm projectors, making three of his four screens capable of the old-fashioned format.

Demand for the 70mm showings of “The Odyssey” has significantly outperformed their digital screenings, he said.

“We’re thrilled to get any 70mm print because it’s a gift from the filmmaker and the studio,” Michaan said.

Enhanced format screenings for “The Odyssey” made up 53% of the domestic weekend box office, with Imax film and digital revenue accounting for nearly 24%.

Imax 70mm accounted for about 4% of that total, with Imax digital making up the rest. Non-Imax 70mm film screening revenue totaled 3%, while 35mm showings made up 0.3%.

The nearly three-hour epic also marked the first feature film shot entirely on Imax cameras, a feat that required extensive collaboration between Nolan and Imax.

Nolan first told Imax Corp. Chief Executive Rich Gelfond in early 2024 that he was considering making an entire film with Imax cameras and laid out what he’d need for that to happen, including a quieter and lighter camera, a way to make film reloads easier and getting enough trained projectionists.

“It took a fair amount of time and investment” to figure out those challenges, Gelfond said. But by August 2024, the Imax team put together a series of tests to show cinematographer Hoyte van Hoytema. Two months later, Nolan saw the tests and was impressed.

“As filmmakers and studios integrate Imax, we become an increasingly important part of the ecosystem,” Gelfond said. “When a film is released in Imax or shot in Imax, I think it’s a signal to audiences that it’s somewhat special, and the filmmaker is really leaning in in a unique way.”

Times staff writer Cerys Davies contributed to this report.

Stuff We Wrote

Film shoots

Number of the week

Streaming giant Netflix narrowed its 2026 revenue forecast to $51 billion to $51.4 billion from its previous, larger range of $50.7 billion to $51.7 billion in its last Thursday’s second-quarter earnings report, renewing concerns among investors and equity analysts about the Los Gatos-based company’s future growth.

On the Friday morning after the earnings call, Netflix stock slid 13% to $65.08 a share, marking a new 52-week low. Shares eventually closed that day at $68.95.

As my colleague Wendy Lee has reported, investors are growing nervous that in recent months, Netflix’s share of TV viewing time in the U.S. has been decreasing, while YouTube’s share has increased, according to Nielsen data. Investors are concerned that if consumers are watching Netflix less, they’ll cancel their subscriptions, and that will put pressure on the company’s ability to raise prices in the U.S.

Netflix has said its engagement rates are healthy.

What I’m watching

I love a good teen mystery show, especially when it has a bit of a “Veronica Mars” vibe, so I binged Paramount+’s “School Spirits” last weekend.

Where Veronica Mars was solving realistic crimes around her local beach city, “School Spirits” tries to dig into why so many teens have died at (and haunt) a Wisconsin high school. At times, they’re hitting at a lot of different themes and storylines, but I loved the colorful ensemble of ghost characters from different decades, and Jennifer Tilly makes for an incredible villain.

If you feel like your favorite morning news or talk show is frequently trying to sell you something, you’re right.

Shopping segments within the program content of NBC’s “Today,” ABC’s “Good Morning America” and “CBS Mornings” have grown in recent years. Using QR codes on the screen, viewers are taken directly to dedicated e-commerce sites where they can put in their orders, with the program getting 20% or more of the revenue generated.

The segments typically feature a contributor or expert presenting household items, fashion or personal care products, alongside the host viewers know and trust. While hosts typically don’t do the actual pitching, their presence provides a seal of approval that helps drive a purchase.

The segments are also a staple of talk shows and syndicated programs such as “The View,” “The Jennifer Hudson Show,” “Entertainment Tonight” and “Inside Edition” and have spread to local TV stations. Ownership groups have signed deals with companies that match them up with brands looking for exposure that goes far beyond what they get with a 30-second commercial.

“This is the savior for media, if they really focus on it,” said Brian Meehan, co-founder of Knocking, a Connecticut-based company that specializes in embedding e-commerce into TV and digital content.

That may seem bit hyperbolic, but there is little doubt that TV outlets are looking for help as they navigate the upended media industry.

Streaming has pulled viewers away from traditional television, driving down ad revenues. Since 2022, ad spending on broadcast and cable TV has dropped 23%, to $51 billion in 2025. Consumers bypassing or canceling their cable subscriptions are cutting into the fees stations receive from pay TV providers.

As a result, both networks and TV stations have had to make significant cuts in their news operations to maintain profit margins. The daytime syndication business has declined dramatically as well, with NBCUniversal exiting the market and canceling “Access Hollywood” and “The Kelly Clarkson Show.”

Networks and stations don’t reveal how much they earn from the shopping segments, which typically run four minutes, but insiders say it’s well into the eight-figure range.

Bill Hague, executive vice president for the media research firm Magid, said more TV stations are turning to the segments to help fill the additional hours of local news they are programming instead of syndicated talk shows.

“Why invest in syndication when you can have the same audience and more revenue tied to it?” Hague said, adding that the company’s research shows consumers don’t believe the practice diminishes the quality of a newscast.

Jeff Rossen, a former consumer reporter for NBC News, recently pitched online shopping deals for Tegna’s TV local stations. The products he demonstrated sold briskly, likely helped by the credibility and trust he has accrued as a journalist.

That authority matters to viewers. NBC says its research shows that 94% of “Today” viewers trust the product recommendations made on the program.

Morning shows, with their mix of hard news, entertainment segments and lighter fare, have always had more latitude in what they present. But the current dire circumstances of the TV business explain why there is little pushback.

“If helping me buy a better blender also helps pay for an investigative reporter, I’m fine with it,” said Andrew Heyward, a former CBS News president who has consulted for TV station groups.

Heyward said consumers have gotten accustomed to editorial content being a gateway to online shopping. The New York Times gets a cut of sales linked to its Wirecutter product review site.
Book reviews in the Los Angeles Times are linked to Bookshop.org, and the newspaper gets a commission for any sales.

Amazon and other web platforms have made e-commerce account for 21.8% of all U.S. retail purchases, according to the Department of Commerce.

Direct selling on traditional media goes back decades. In 1978, a Clearwater, Fla., radio station accepted 112 electric can openers from an advertiser who could not afford to pay for commercial time. Station owner Bud Paxson had a newscaster auction the inventory over the air and it sold out quickly, leading to a regular show called “Suncoast Bargaineers.”

In 1982, Paxson moved the concept to a local Tampa cable outlet, called it Home Shopping Channel and, after a few years, took it national as Home Shopping Network. HSN soon had celebrities pitching their own product lines, a technique that is now occasionally used by the morning shows.

Candi Carter, whose Cistus Media handles e-commerce for Tegna, said viewers have long been accustomed to seeing products touted inside of programming content, going back to the days of Oprah Winfrey’s “favorite things” segments.

“Brands do it for visibility,” Carter added. “They don’t have to pay a product integration fee and they get revenue from the sales.”

The broadcast networks experimented with direct selling to viewers over the years. NBC even put its name on ShopNBC, a cable channel it co-owned in the 1990s. But the concept was not mastered until NBC’s “Today” introduced “Steals and Deals” in 2010 as an occasional segment that grew over time.

The program now has 30 contributors who present wares in about 350 shopping segments each year. They are available across digital, social, newsletters and mobile platforms after they air on “Today.”

ABC’s “Good Morning America” started its own version in 2011, brazenly calling it “Deals and Steals.” The network now has daily segments on both “GMA” and the afternoon hours “GMA 3” and “The View.” Network contributor Tory Johnson has handled “Deals and Steals” since its launch and has long been one of the most familiar faces on “GMA.” Other contributors, such as former fashion magazine editor Laurie Bergamotto, have been added over the years.

Meehan recalls the biggest hurdle to launching the segments at ABC was the language explaining the arrangement to viewers — making it clear that the network stands to benefit.

“It came down to the attorneys just saying, ‘ABC may receive promotional or financial consideration,’” he said. “It took a long time to go through that process.”

CBS News, historically cautious about any endeavors that could tarnish its legacy as a journalism organization, was the last of the traditional networks to get into e-commerce in 2022 after COVID-19 lockdowns depressed ad revenues. The division was also under pressure to improve its financial performance as Shari Redstone, then-chair of parent Paramount, was intent on improving the company’s balance sheet ahead of a sale.

“Shop CBS” segments, as they’re called, are presented multiple times a week on “CBS Mornings” and “CBS Saturday Morning” and have become key revenue drivers for the struggling news division. Any resistance from producers or on-air talent recedes once they learn how much money e-commerce takes in, according to one veteran at the division not authorized to discuss the matter publicly.

While ABC and NBC broker their e-commerce deals in-house and through some of their contributors, CBS turned to Knocking to develop its segments. The company makes deals with product suppliers looking for in-program exposure, supplies the on-air talent that does the pitching with the network’s hosts and builds the websites that handle the transactions.

While on-air network journalists appear in the segments, they are not asked to do the selling. When CBS News signed on with Knocking, the division insisted the talent and producers involved be able to test the products before putting them on air. When they can react with enthusiasm, it’s a big help.

“When ‘CBS Mornings’ co-host Nate Burleson puts on a massager and he’s like, ‘Ooh, wow, this feels like real human hands,’ — none of that is scripted,” said Meehan.

Still, programs are putting their credibility on the line by selling the products. There is little margin for error or customer dissatisfaction, as disgruntled viewers will tune out.

Meehan said Knocking does its best to mitigate that possibility by accepting returns up to six months after purchase.

“A bad experience will hurt both the product or service being featured, and the broadcaster,” Heyward said. “All the parties have a vested interest in honesty, and in a good user experience.”

Tennessee propositioned Paramount Skydance, hoping to tempt it to become the next company to leave California.

As California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta gathered a coalition of 12 state attorneys general to try to block Paramount’s $111-billion takeover of Warner Bros. Discovery, Tennessee slid into Paramount’s DMs, suggesting it would be better treated in the southern state.

Corporate flight from the Golden State has increased in recent years, with many California-based companies fleeing for lower taxes and more lax business regulations. For the first time this year, California was not the state with the most Fortune 500 companies, after Texas dethroned it in June.

California companies packing up their people and headquarters to move to Texas has been a well-traveled road for those looking for options. Now Tennessee wants to be in the running as a prime destination as well.

Here is what you need to know about its efforts:

What happened with Paramount?

In a July 2 letter to Paramount Chief Executive David Ellison, Tennessee Deputy Gov. Stuart McWhorter pitched a relocation of the studio’s Hollywood headquarters to the Volunteer State. In the middle of a brutal legal battle with California regarding the proposed Warner Bros. merger, Tennessee may appear more appealing to Ellison. Paramount relocated its headquarters from New York to Los Angeles in August of last year.

“As Paramount Skydance writes its next chapter, Tennessee offers a compelling proposition: a state where creativity and technology converge, where talent is developed intentionally, and where innovation is embraced,” said McWhorter in the letter viewed by The Times. “We would welcome the opportunity to share our vision for how Tennessee could help shape the future of Paramount Skydance and its talented team.”

Though many in Hollywood have giggled at the idea of a major studio moving to the South, it isn’t totally ridiculous.

Ellison has backing from his father, tech billionaire and Oracle co-founder Larry Ellison. Oracle, once a California-based company, is now moving its headquarters to Nashville.

In December of 2020, the software tech company left California, where it was founded in 1977, to relocate to Texas. In April 2024, it chose Nashville as the home for Oracle’s “world headquarters,” which began construction in February.

Have other companies moved to Tennessee?

Oracle isn’t the first company to set up in Tennessee. Nissan, which had operated its U.S. headquarters out of Gardena since 1960, left the state in 2005 for Franklin. Nissan chose Tennessee for its drastically lower operational costs.

Mitsubishi Motors also moved its headquarters to Franklin from Cypress in 2019. Mitsubishi moved for lower operational costs and to be in a state with less-strict business regulations than California‘s.

Two beloved California burger chains moved to Tennessee.

In 2018, CKE, the parent company of Los Angeles-founded Carl’s Jr., also left California for Tennessee. CKE consolidated Carl’s Jr. and its St. Louis chain, Hardee’s, under its headquarters in Franklin.

In-N-Out — arguably California’s most iconic burger spot known for its animal fries and double doubles— began a transition out of California in 2023. It established a corporate office in Franklin, and last summer, owner and Chief Executive Lynsi Snyder announced her own move to Tennessee.

Last year, Snyder said pandemic-era restrictions and California policy motivated her decision to leave, but she has no plans for In-N-Out to expand farther East. The majority of In-N-Out locations are still in California.

“There’s a lot of great things about California, but raising a family is not easy here. Doing business is not easy here,” Snyder said.

What is so special about Tennessee?

The southern state’s highly business-friendly tax incentives make it an extremely desirable location. Businesses and billionaires are drawn to Tennessee by its lack of state income and property taxes. Instead, the state relies on a 7% sales tax as its main source of tax revenue. Tennessee also offers a number of tax credits and grants for businesses, including many designed to support newly relocated businesses, cover costs of training new employees, and construction.

Tennessee’s central location and well-connected infrastructure support supply chain logistics. Seven interstate highways run through Tennessee, and six of the United States’ class 1 rail lines operate there, allowing companies to cut transportation costs dramatically. Memphis is also home to the busiest cargo airport in the country.

The Tennessee Department of Economic and Community Development says the state has one of the best business incentive programs in the country and has been ranked the third best state for doing business by Chief Executive magazine.

Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee attributes the success to the state’s competitive tax policy, workforce, and quality of life.

“Companies choose Tennessee because they recognize the strength of our workforce, our strategic location and our ability to support long-term growth,” Lee said in an emailed statement. “Tennessee’s success comes from our commitment to helping businesses thrive.”

Paramount Skydance’s top antitrust attorney told a judge Friday that David Ellison’s company would voluntarily delay its proposed $111-billion takeover of Warner Bros. Discovery at least until mid-August amid a legal challenge brought by 12 state attorneys general.

The states, led by California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta, have asked a judge to issue a temporary restraining order that would prevent Paramount from finalizing its deal as the court battle ramps up. Paramount made the pledge in hopes of avoiding such a ruling that would tie its hands — and give the states an early win in the litigation.

Federal District Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín said she would decide by Wednesday whether to issue a restraining order.

Tech scion David Ellison has been a regular in Washington D.C. this year as he races to consolidate Warner Bros. Discovery — less than a year after his family bought Paramount.

(Anna Moneymaker / Getty Images)

Friday’s hearing in Oakland opened the first chapter in the fight over the blockbuster deal that both sides agree would dramatically reshape Hollywood. Two century-old film studios — with rights to Harry Potter, Batman, “Top Gun,” “The Big Bang Theory” and “Game of Thrones” — would be combined, and HBO and CNN would come under new ownership.

Antitrust attorney James H. Weingarten, of the Washington law firm Milbank, represents California and the other states. He told the judge it would be impossible to untangle the two companies if they are allowed to combine.

“If this merger is allowed to close … the harms begin,” Weingarten said. “The job losses, the synergies — that’s the fancy word for ‘we’re going to save money and there might be job cuts.’ All of that process starts rolling.”

Bonta filed the suit Monday, alleging the proposed merger — the largest in Hollywood in decades — would violate the U.S. Clayton Antitrust Act, a 112-year-old law to prevent mergers that weaken competition and raise costs for consumers.

The lawsuit alleges antitrust violations in three markets where the two companies currently compete: wide-release films, potential blockbuster movies and cable television, where the combined entity would own more than 50 cable channels.

Paramount shares fell 4.3% to $8.75 on Friday. Warner stock slipped 1.5% to $26.87 — below Paramount’s offer of $31 a share.

More than two dozen lawyers attended Friday’s hearing, including from Colorado, Oregon, Washington and New York who came to support California, which is leading the case.

Paramount, represented by antitrust lawyer Jeffrey L. Kessler, argued a temporary restraining order was not necessary. The two sides should instead focus on the next big step — whether the judge issues a preliminary injunction, he said. Such a ruling could delay the deal for months.

Kessler said Paramount should be allowed a hearing to defend against a preliminary injunction by the end of August. The company wants to wrap up the litigation by late September to avoid a higher payout to Warner Bros. Discovery shareholders.

In a show of confidence earlier this year, Paramount offered Warner Bros. Discovery shareholders a “ticking fee” of 25 cents for every quarter after Sept. 30 — until the deal was done. Such payments would cost Paramount more than $7 million a day, which Kessler called a “massive injury.”

California Atty Gen. Rob Bonta is leading a coalition of 12 state attorneys general to try to halt Hollywood’s biggest merger in decades.

(Genaro Molina/Los Angeles Times)

Paramount would also have to pay Warner a $7-billion breakup fee should the deal fall apart.

Kessler argued the states had not made a sufficient case that competition would be harmed. “We don’t think they’ve come close to jumping through that hurdle,” Kessler said.

Earlier this year, Kessler represented the state attorney generals in their winning case against Live Nation Entertainment. A jury found that Live Nation, which owns Ticketmaster, operated as a monopoly. This time, Kessler is representing corporate interests.

Prominent Los Angeles litigator Daniel Petrocelli is representing Warner Bros. Discovery.

Paramount hired attorney Jeffrey Kessler to lead its antitrust defense.

(Noah Berger / Associated Press)

The case was assigned to Martínez-Olguín Wednesday after Paramount requested an earlier judge be removed because he formerly worked as a labor attorney.

Martínez-Olguín said she inherited the case because she was already overseeing another lawsuit dealing with the merger — not because Paramount had agitated for a change.

Published on 17/07/2026 – 21:02 GMT+2•Updated
21:07

Apple reclaimed the title of the world’s most valuable company on Friday, overtaking Nvidia as investors grew more confident in its AI strategy.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Shares of Nvidia were down as much as four percent as worries about the valuation of artificial intelligence equities dogged the market, giving the company a valuation of about $4.8 trillion (€4.2 trillion), slightly below Apple’s $4.9 trillion (€4.3 trillion).

The company later clawed back the losses, with Apple and Nvidia trading neck and neck for the top spot.

Nvidia’s stock has soared more than 1,200% since January 2023, climbing from a split-adjusted $14.86 (€13.00) to about $205 (€179.30) by mid-July 2026. The company carried out a 10-for-1 stock split in June 2024.

Nvidia became the world’s most valuable company in 2025, driven by the AI boom sparked by the launch of ChatGPT in November 2022.

Originally designed for video games, Nvidia’s graphics processing units (GPUs) have become the core hardware used in AI data centres to train large language models developed by companies such as OpenAI, Anthropic and Google.

In recent weeks, however, analysts have begun questioning whether the massive investments in Nvidia’s chips and software will pay off as new AI products reach the market.

Those questions have intensified as ChatGPT-maker OpenAI and rival Anthropic, two of the most valuable private companies in history, having filed to go public.

Meanwhile, investor confidence in Apple confidence in Apple has strengthened in recent weeks, pushing its shares up about 20% since late June. Apple also unveiled a redesigned version of Siri, receiving broadly positive early reviews.

Apple regained world’s top spot with $4.88 trillion valuation, overtaking Nvidia which saw a 3.5 percent market value drop.

Apple has surpassed chipmaker Nvidia as the world’s most valuable company as artificial intelligence-driven market pressures weigh on investors.

Apple is now worth $4.88 trillion compared with Nvidia’s $4.86 trillion, following a 3.5 percent decline in Nvidia’s market value. The milestone marks the first time the Cupertino, California-based iPhone maker has held the top spot in more than a year.

Nvidia was previously the world’s most valuable company after surpassing the $5 trillion market valuation mark in October.

Last month, Apple unveiled a revamped version of its assistant, Siri AI, which enables the personal assistant to better understand the personal context of users’ questions, access real-time information from the Web, and perform more complex tasks on behalf of users.

“Market sentiment has shifted from rewarding model makers, then to semis, and now on to those companies that can turn compute into experiences and outcomes the customer will pay for, thus driving corporate earnings,” Michael Monaghan, founder of Founder ETFs, told Al Jazeera.

“Apple investors first questioned Apple’s lower AI spend, but now have treated Apple’s lower AI capital expenditure as an advantage, with the bull case being that Apple benefits from consumer AI without spending at cloud-infrastructure scale.”

The surge comes in advance of the company’s third-quarter earnings, which are scheduled for release on July 30. Last quarter, Apple executives forecast sales growth of 14 percent to 17 percent.

Apple has long trailed competitors in the AI space and only publicly debuted its enhanced Siri last week. However, analysts believe the trove of personal data stored on the typical iPhone could become a major advantage for the company’s AI ambitions.

“This is a natural extension of Apple Founder Steve Jobs’ thinking of starting with the customer experience and working backwards to the technology needed to deliver the experience,” Monaghan added.

It comes as CEO Tim Cook is set to hand over the reins of the tech giant to John Ternus in September. Ternus has served as Apple’s head of hardware engineering since 2021.

Pressure on Nvidia comes amid increased competition in the semiconductor industry, with competitors such as Micron crossing the $1 trillion market valuation in May and South Korea’s SK Hynix joining the Nasdaq in May.

“The new entrants to the market could spread out the focus away from the pure Magnificent Seven names into a wider number of names,” Benjamin Hall, vice president of alpha research at Segal Marco Advisors, told the Reuters news agency.

Despite Apple’s surge, the broader market trended downward. The tech-heavy Nasdaq was down 1.6 percent in midday trading, while the S&P 500 fell 0.9 percent and the Dow Jones Industrial Average dropped 0.25 percent from Friday’s market open.

Netflix stock plunged 9% on Friday morning to $67.74 a share, after the streamer’s second quarter earnings report renewed concerns among investors and analysts about the streamer’s future growth.

The Los Gatos-based company on Thursday narrowed its 2026 forecast to $51 billion to $51.4 billion from $50.7 billion to $51.7 billion, causing equity analysts to cut their estimates. The stock reached a new 52-week low on Friday and is down 49% from a year ago.

“This outlook likely reinforces investor concerns,” wrote analysts from Guggenheim Securities in a research note on Friday, which has a “buy” rating on the stock.

Netflix did not immediately respond to a request for comment on its declining stock price.

Investors have been skittish about the amount of time people spend on the streaming platform. Netflix’s share of TV viewing time in the U.S. has steadily declined in recent months as YouTube has gained market share, according to Nielsen data.

Investors are concerned that if people spend less time watching Netflix, it could cause people to cancel their subscriptions and make it more challenging for Netflix to raise prices in markets like the U.S.

Netflix said engagement is healthy on its platform and its programs continue to draw large audiences with popular shows like crime drama series “I Will Find You.”

Netflix said subscribers watched more than 97 billion hours on the streaming service in the first half of the year, up 2% from a year ago.

“We are increasingly concerned that younger generations are less interested in long form content as their time migrates to ‘free’ social media platforms,” wrote Jeffrey Wlodarczak, CEO of Pivotal Research Group in a report on Friday, who has a hold recommendation on Netflix stock. “We believe this will result in slower subscriber growth and attempts by the company to offset this via more aggressive price increases and investment in content.”

Netflix executives in a Thursday earnings presentation emphasized that measuring engagement at the company goes beyond hours spent watching the streaming service.

“There is not a linear relationship between view hours and revenue and profit because all hours are not created equal,” said Greg Peters, Netflix co-CEO on an earnings presentation on Thursday. “All hours don’t provide the same kind of value to the business.”

The streamer said it plans to allocate just over 5% of its content spend on live programming this year. Live content has been a key driver for subscriptions, accounting for six of the top 10 new member sign-up days over the last five years, the company said, even though it makes up roughly 1% of overall watch time this year.

The company is also diversifying the content it offers on its platform, adding live sports games and video podcasts, in addition its large library of TV shows and movies.

Netflix revenue rose 13% to $12.6 billion in the second quarter. Net income was $3.4 billion, up 9% from a year ago.

The company said its advertising business is on track to reach $3 billion in revenue this year, double the amount in 2025.

Only a few days ago, Paramount Skydance’s planned $111-billion takeover of Warner Bros. Discovery appeared to be on the glide path to completion.

The deal, which would be the largest merger in Hollywood history, had won approval from several foreign governments and, on June 12, Justice Department antitrust regulators.

The Justice Department’s assent looked to be a major step toward fulfilling the ambitions of David Ellison, the son of multibillionaire tech tycoon Larry Ellison, to bring together Paramount and Warners, which owns CNN and CBS among other properties, under one roof.

The Justice Department’s action ignited suspicions that the Ellisons had profited from their support of President Trump. But it has turned out not to be the last word on the deal. The very next day, California and 11 other states filed a motion to block the merger, stepping in where the Justice Department chose not to tread.

“I will not let Warner Bros. and Paramount merge without a fight,” California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said in announcing the states’ action. A hearing on the motion is scheduled for Friday in San Francisco federal court.

There’s more to this development than an effort to block Ellison’s attempt to repave the entertainment landscape for his own benefit, even though, as my colleague Meg James reports, the states’ motion “poses a major headache” for Ellison. It’s also a pointer toward a major restructuring of antitrust enforcement in the United States.

Customarily, state regulators have piggybacked on antitrust cases brought and managed by the federal government. The feds generally have greater resources than most individual states to conduct the investigations that can lead to antitrust lawsuits. States often have relied on the government to craft consistent and coherent theories of antitrust law to undergird their lawsuits.

But the Trump administration’s apparent pullback from aggressive legal pursuit of allegedly anti-competitive mergers has left a vacuum that states have moved to fill. That’s what’s driving their motion to block the Paramount-Warner Bros. deal.

Dating back to the first Trump term, California and other states have enacted new laws resembling federal statutes requiring merger proponents to provide detailed information about planned deals.

States also have filed their own lawsuits to challenge anticompetitive conduct by pharmacy benefit managers and algorithmic pricing that has driven up housing rents via alleged collusion.

States may have an advantage over the federal government in that their regulators can move faster on complex cases than the feds. That’s what happened in the fight against the proposed 2023 merger of supermarket companies Kroger and Albertsons, something that was widely feared to presage higher prices at the shelf.

Although the Federal Trade Commission moved to block the merger, so too did Oregon, Washington and nine other states in court. The companies called off the merger after a state court in Washington and a federal court in Oregon, ruling on that state’s lawsuit, simultaneously enjoined the merger on Dec. 10, 2024. One day later, Albertsons dropped the proposal.

Some supporters of effective antitrust enforcement suggest that the states’ involvement in these cases could be an effective counterweight to the mercurial approach taken toward enforcement under Trump, which seems to be driven by personal pique, as Paul Glastris, editor of the Washington Monthly, has written.

In 2017, Trump’s Justice Department sued to block AT&T’s acquisition of Time Warner, driven by Trump’s irritation over the coverage he received from CNN, which was owned by Time Warner. (I described the lawsuit as Trump’s doing the right thing for the wrong reason.) The merger eventually went through.

The best example of the states’ willingness to supplant the feds as antitrust enforcers in chief is the antitrust case against Live Nation Entertainment. The federal government and 30 states originally filed the case in 2024 in federal court in Manhattan. The lawsuit sought to break up Live Nation, which has controlled scores of top concert venues, in part by forcing it to divest Ticketmaster, the leading entertainment ticketing firm.

A few days after the trial began this spring, the Justice Department reached a settlement with Live Nation. The settlement led to accusations that the White House interfered in the Justice Department’s work on the case, including that Trump himself personally pushed for a settlement and that the deal was reached without the participation or even the knowledge of the Justice Department lawyers handling the case or of the state attorneys general who were participating. The White House referred my request for comment on these accusations to the Justice Department, which didn’t respond.

The states, asserting that the settlement wouldn’t cure Live Nation’s alleged violations of antitrust law, took over the lawsuit — and won. In mid-April, a federal jury found that Live Nation had maintained a monopoly over the live events business, exposing the company to the states’ claims of as much as $700 million in damages and a possible order that it sell Ticketmaster. The company says it will appeal.

The history of antitrust enforcement in the U.S. generally resembles the complaisant stance taken under Trump. Since the enactment of America’s first antitrust statute, the 1890 Sherman Act, industry has generally benefited from lax enforcement, in part because antitrust theory has been ever-changing. During the New Deal, President Franklin Roosevelt suspended antitrust enforcement so his National Recovery Administration could pursue its mandate to suppress industrial competition, which was thought to drive up prices and thereby foster the Great Depression.

The Supreme Court overturned the National Recovery Administration in 1935, though it had already lost credibility. Roosevelt responded in 1938 by appointing Thurman Arnold, a critic of existing antitrust theory, as the Justice Department’s antitrust chief. In his writings, Arnold implied that antitrust law as then interpreted was a fraud aimed at acclimating consumers to ever-larger business combinations through the pretense that “unfair” or “immoral” deals would be barred.

Arnold’s appointment marked what may have been the most productive period in antitrust enforcement. By the time he departed for a federal judgeship in 1943, he had brought more than 50% of all the cases brought under the Sherman Act in its half-century of existence. He broke the auto industry’s stranglehold on consumer auto lending, and started a case that concluded with the Hollywood studios’ forced divestment of their theater chains.

Since then, there have been a few notable antitrust successes, including the 1982 breakup of AT&T. That resulted from a Justice Department antitrust lawsuit launched in 1974. But the consolidation of major industries into fewer and fewer participants, especially in entertainment, has continued with very few roadblocks.

Occasionally, an aggressive enforcer comes into office. That happened under Lina Khan, whom President Biden appointed as chair of the Federal Trade Commission. (The FTC shares antitrust oversight with the Justice Department.)

Khan’s published academic work had taken aim at what she called the lax antitrust treatment of companies such as Amazon. Her argument was that antitrust enforcers’ focus on whether a monopolizing company brought consumers lower prices overlooked the longer-term consequences of giving companies the unfettered right to build market share at the expense of competitors and the free market.

Amazon “has evaded government scrutiny in part through fervently devoting its business strategy and rhetoric to reducing prices for consumers,” Khan wrote in a key article. Once it reached a critical mass, she argued, nothing would stop Amazon from extracting monopoly rents from consumers.

Khan’s aggressive stance on antitrust law earned her the enmity of targets such as Amazon and Facebook, which tried to force her to recuse herself from FTC cases against them. She refused, but due to corporate distaste for her policies, Trump replaced her as FTC chairman on his inauguration day last year.

The Paramount-Warner Bros. deal could be a key test of states’ authority and willingness to take over antitrust enforcement from the federal government. That’s because they’ll be fighting not only resistance from the merger partners, but the government’s conclusion that the deal poses no threat to consumers.

On the other hand, their case at least will be free of the suspicion that the government’s approval owed more to Trump’s friendship with the Ellison family than to sober, painstaking analysis of how reducing the number of big entertainment companies from five to four would be good for the rest of us.

A man who allegedly sent Las Vegas Aces guard Chelsea Gray a profane message that included a racist slur has been fired after social media users figured out where he worked.

On Monday, the former Sparks player posted a screenshot on her Instagram Story of a DM she said she received following her team’s loss to the Indiana Fever on Sunday.

“People act like we make this s— up,” Gray wrote. “And the audacity to tell us as athletes to ‘shut up and dribble.’”

Her post included the sender’s user handle. Folks on social media discovered that the man worked for Hilton Grand Vacations and pressured the company to punish him for his alleged misdeed. Initially, the company wrote on X that it was investigating the matter and would “take appropriate action based on the findings of our review.”

Hours later, Hilton Grand Vacations posted that the person allegedly responsible for the racist message “is no longer with the company.”

“His behavior was in violation of multiple company policies and does not reflect our company’s values in any way,” Hilton Grand Vacations stated.

The Aces posted a statement Wednesday on X condemning the messages directed at Gray and offering support for those who stand up against such attacks.

“We stand behind those who have the courage to speak up for themselves,” the organization stated. “We are united with anyone who has been targeted by this type of unacceptable behavior.

“We stand with organizations, like Hilton Grand Vacations, that hold individuals accountable for racist conduct. We commend them for the swift manner in which they acted in addressing this manner.”

The WNBA reposted the Aces’ statement and said it “stands with Chelsea and every member of our league.”

“We unequivocally condemn racism and all forms of hate,” the league wrote. “There is no place for this behavior in sports or anywhere, and we remain committed to protecting the players and fostering an environment built on respect and inclusion.”

As part of the collective bargaining agreement reached in March, the WNBA introduced a no-hate campaign that included a stronger fan code of conduct that specifies punishments for online abuse of players and other inappropriate behaviors.

Still, Phoenix Mercury forward Alyssa Thomas told reporters last month that she received death threats and racist abuse after an on-court incident in which her fist pressed into Fever star Caitlin Clark’s throat while they were scrambling for the ball. No foul was called at the time, but the WNBA later assessed Thomas a Flagrant 2 foul and suspended her for a game.

Speaking to reporters June 30, Thomas called out the league and commissioner Cathy Engelbert for not doing more to protect players off the court.

“Time and time again, players are going through this and the league remains silent,” Thomas said. “I’m sick and tired of it. It’s time for them to step up and have our backs.”

Engelbert released a statement following Thomas’ comments.

“We are aware of Alyssa Thomas’ comments, and what she and her teammates have experienced is completely unacceptable and not representative of the WNBA community,” the commissioner said. “The league and our security team have been in contact with the Phoenix Mercury organization and remain committed to protecting all players.”

During last weekend’s Fever-Aces game, Gray drew a foul on Clark while driving to the basket, but her elbow also appeared to make contact with the Indiana star’s stomach. Clark doubled over after the whistle in what some said appeared to be an attempt to get a foul called on Gray, but none was called.

The racist message received by Gray did not appear to mention Clark or any specific incident.

Winning six Gold Glove awards gives Mookie Betts more than enough credibility to design and market his own leather. And that’s exactly what he is doing with LGND, a line of baseball gloves that he says are “built around versatility, craftsmanship and player-first innovation.”

Betts, of course, is the Dodgers shortstop whose Gold Gloves all came playing right field. He is one of the few players in MLB history to be named an All-Star as an infielder and outfielder. He’s been part of four World Series championship teams and named to eight All-Star squads.

“Every detail matters when you’re on the field, and your glove is one of the most important tools you have,” Betts said in a statement. “I started this with the intention to build something that reflected the way I play the game, which is with passion, preparation and attention to detail.”

Two glove collections named MOOK and MVRK designed for players at every stage of development are available at LGNDsports.com. They are not inexpensive, selling for $250 to $330.

The MOOK Series gloves are inspired by Betts’ experience playing infield and outfield, featuring his personal game-worn colorways, his signature stamp in the palm and a “50 Tri-Star” logo embroidered on the thumb.

The MVRK Series gloves feature a versatile design and distinct styling for those who play multiple positions.

Both models are constructed with premium Japanese kip leather and engineered to offer a lighter feel and fast break-in period. The LGND website features an interactive platform that allows players to design a glove that reflects their individual preferences.

“LGND is about giving young players a glove they can trust from the first time they put it on,” Betts said. “Whether you’re chasing a championship, working toward a college scholarship or just falling in love with baseball, I want these gloves to help young players perform at their best.”

Betts, 33, founded the company alongside lifelong friends Cameron Lewis, Brandon McPhail and Andrew Montgomery. The quartet competed together in high school in the Nashville area.

The Dodgers acquired Betts in a trade ahead of the 2020 season and have won three World Series title with him in the lineup, including the last two years. He spent the first six years of his career with the Boston Red Sox, winning the American League Most Valuable Player award after leading Boston to a World Series title in 2018.

After playing outfield almost exclusively for the first nine years of his career, Betts saw substantial time in the infield in 2023 and 2024 before becoming the Dodgers’ everyday shortstop last season. He led NL shortstops in total fielding runs above average in 2025 while making only seven errors in 148 games. This season he has made only three errors.

TV station ownership groups may finally get their wish to own more outlets.

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr announced Wednesday that the agency will vote next month to end the rule that allows companies to own no more than two TV stations in a single market. The cap also limits the national coverage of any station owner to 39% limit of the U.S.

Carr said the agency will consider a “case by case” review on station merger and acquisition deals that would result in exceeding the current limits. The commission, which has two Republicans and one Democrat, will vote on Aug. 6.

“Previously, the cap operated as a blanket prohibition on any and all deals that would combine stations in [excess] of the 39% limit — regardless of whether it was a good deal or bad deal for the country,” Carr wrote on the right-wing website Breitbart. “Our new proposal would allow the FCC to approve deals that exceed the 39% cap, but only if doing so would promote the public interest.”

TV station owners and its lobbying group the National Assn. of Broadcasters have been clamoring for a change in the rule, citing the changes in technology that have occurred since the ownership limit. The 39% threshold was set in 2004 when streaming video was still a nascent business.

The station groups say the ability of tech companies such as Google and Netflix to reach every consumer in the U.S. puts them at a disadvantage. At the same time, streaming now accounts for more than 40% of all viewing, according to Nielsen, pulling consumers away from traditional TV. TV stations are also seeing their share of carriage fees from cable and satellite companies shrink due to cord-cutting.

The station groups also argue that declining viewership and revenue make it more challenging to support multiple local TV.news operations in a single market.

But proposed changes to the cap limits have been met with push back from consumer groups and state government officials. They have said station consolidation will result in journalist layoffs and fewer voices for the communities they serve.

Earlier this year, a group of attorneys general filed suit to block Nexstar Media Group’s proposed $6.2-billion acquisition of Tegna, arguing it violates a 112-year-old U.S. antitrust law by knocking out a major competitor. The deal would give Irving, Texas-based Nexstar control of 265 television stations across the country, up from 164. And, in dozens of markets, including San Diego and Sacramento, Nexstar would own multiple TV network affiliates.

U.S. District Court Chief Judge Troy L. Nunley issued a preliminary injunction in April that forbids Nexstar — which owns KTLA-TV Channel 5 in Los Angeles — and Tegna, from combining operations. Nexstar is appealing.

Carr’s proposal would largely put the FCC in charge of picking winners and losers on a case-by-case basis.

When faced with a merger proposal, Carr said the commission would consider such issues as commitment to local journalism and “viewpoint diversity.”

Carr has made his name by threatening to pull the over-the-air broadcast licenses of TV stations that irritate President Trump with their coverage and commentary.

In April, the FCC called for an early review of the licenses for Disney’s eight broadcast TV stations, a day after Trump demanded that ABC fire late-night host Jimmy Kimmel over a joke about First Lady Melania Trump.

Carr also questioned whether ABC’s daytime show “The View,” where negative Trump commentary is rampant, should qualify as a bona fide news program that is exempt from giving equal time to qualified candidates.

Carr’s Breitbart column also reiterated his view that large media companies such as Disney and NBCUniversal parent Comcast hold too much sway over their affiliates.

“New York and Hollywood interests have steamrolled those local TV stations and the broader media market in recent years in ways that run directly counter to the regulatory framework that Congress and the FCC put in place,” he wrote. “Their national programs naturally reflect the values of the New York and Hollywood executives that produce them. This power imbalance has contributed to a steady decline in locally produced news — and with it, a weakening of the public’s trust in the media.”

How owning more stations would give groups leverage in their dealings with networks is unclear. The networks control the rights to the NFL — the No. 1 TV ratings attraction for broadcast television by a mile. Stations pay the networks compensation for those games, which they use when negotiating the carriage fees they receive from cable and satellite companies.

Times staff writer Meg James contributed to this report.

The Writers Guild of America sued Paramount on Tuesday, alleging that the company’s planned $111-billion acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery violates federal antitrust law.
The union said that with fewer competitors, the merged Paramount-Warner Bros. Discovery business would be able to lower costs by reducing writers’ wages and work.

“Writers will be paid less and have fewer employment opportunities,” the WGA said in its lawsuit.

The move comes a day after California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta led a coalition of 12 Democratic state attorneys general who filed a federal lawsuit to block Paramount Skydance’s $111-billion merger with Warner Bros. Discovery.

Bonta has separately asked a judge in San Francisco for a temporary restraining order to hold up the deal while his case is pending in court.

“We feel we have a very strong case,” Bonta said Tuesday during a town hall meeting. “This proposed merger will raise prices. It will lower quality. It will reduce output. It will hurt the American people, and it’ll hurt the the economy and competition.”

The writers guild’s missive creates a second line of attack against tech scion David Ellison’s industry-reshaping deal.

Ellison’s proposed merger has been moving closer to the finish line after securing approvals from the U.S. Justice Department and numerous other foreign governments. President Trump, an ally of Ellison’s billionaire father Larry Ellison, favors the deal.

David Ellison wants to close the deal by September to avoid a higher payout to Warner Bros. Discovery shareholders.

A Paramount spokeswoman said the company is reviewing the lawsuit.

The proposed merger has sparked fears in Hollywood that it would bring thousands of job losses — similar to past consolidations, including Walt Disney Co.’s 2019 takeover of Fox entertainment properties.

“The Writers Guild of America will not stand idly by as Paramount attempts to violate our country’s antitrust laws and deepen the contraction entertainment workers already feel,” said Writers Guild of America East President Tom Fontana in a statement. “This proposed combined entity would be the largest employer of writers, with tremendous power to suppress our wages, eliminate opportunities for emerging writers, cut jobs across the industry, and produce less programming, affecting the range of storytelling. This merger is not inevitable and we are fighting to stop it.”

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta and 11 other Democratic state attorneys general filed a lawsuit Monday to block Paramount Skydance’s proposed $111-billion takeover of Warner Bros. Discovery — a last-ditch effort to derail a deal that would transform Hollywood.

Tech scion David Ellison’s proposed merger has been hurtling toward the finish line after securing approvals from the U.S. Justice Department and numerous foreign governments. President Trump, an ally of Ellison’s billionaire father Larry Ellison, favors the deal. He is eager for a big shakeup at CNN, which is currently controlled by Warner Bros.

David Ellison now faces his biggest challenge yet as he attempts to build a new entertainment behemoth.

A Paramount representative did not immediately comment.

The suit, filed in federal court in San Francisco, alleges that the proposed merger would violate the U.S. Clayton Act, a century-old antitrust law to prevent mergers that weaken competition and increase costs for consumers.

“Consolidation here not only leads to higher prices — it also leads to fewer opportunities for important stories to come to life, and fewer ways for audiences to encounter stories, ideas, and perspectives beyond their own experiences,” Bonta said in a statement.

“California and our sister states are fighting for free and fair markets, not rigged markets,” he said.

California and the 11 other states, including New York, New Jersey, Washington and Colorado, allege the merger would devastate the theatrical film business by combining two historic film studio rivals. The Ellison family would control such storied franchises as Harry Potter, Bugs Bunny, Batman, “Top Gun” and “Game of Thrones.”

The proposed purchase also would unite two prominent news organizations — CNN and CBS News.

The states have asked Paramount to delay the closing of its Warner Bros. takeover until the litigation can be resolved.

If Paramount refuses, Bonta said the coalition would seek a temporary restraining order asking a judge to hold up the merger, a move that would cause costly delays and escalate legal expenses for Paramount in their quest to finalize the deal.

Larry Ellison, co-founder of software giant Oracle, is bankrolling his son’s ambitions to acquire a second major entertainment company in less than a year. The Ellison family acquired control of CBS-owner Paramount in August and, at the time, David Ellison touted the move of Paramount’s headquarters from New York’s Times Square to Hollywood.

Now, Paramount is reportedly threatening to leave California in the face of Bonta’s legal action.

If the merger goes through, Paramount would own four streaming services, including Warner’s HBO Max and the dominant U.S. cable TV channel owner with HBO, TBS, HGTV, Animal Planet, Food Network, Comedy Central and Nickelodeon.

The U.S. Justice Department last month approved the merger, saying the combination would likely bolster competition — not harm it. The agency’s decision had been expected because of Larry Ellison’s strong support of Trump.

In a show of confidence earlier this year, the Ellisons agreed to increase the payout to Warner investors should the regulatory approval process drag on. Those extra 25-cent-per-share payments begin with the October-December quarter, and would add more than $650 million in deal costs each quarter — giving David Ellison an increased incentive to quickly close the deal.

The proposed merger has sparked fears in Hollywood that it will bring thousands of job losses — similar to past consolidations, including Walt Disney Co.’s 2019 takeover of Fox entertainment properties.

Some theater owners, hard hit by the pandemic and production slowdowns, have expressed concerns the merger would lead to fewer films being made.

The new colossus would significantly dampen competition, Bonta and the other Democrat prosecutors argue. They pointed to the wide-release movie film distribution business, where Warner Bros. and Paramount control about 27% of the market.

After the merger just four companies — Paramount-Warner, Disney, NBCUniversal and Sony Pictures — would control 86% of the films that were widely released, Bonta said.

Paramount has said the deal will boost competition — not hamper it. Ellison has promised to continue releasing 30 films a year with a combined Warner Bros.-Paramount studio, roughly the current output of the two studios.

Ellison also vowed to protect the HBO brand.

Another concern is the licensing of basic cable TV channels, including CNN and HGTV, to pay-TV providers such as Charter’s Spectrum, DirecTV and Google’s YouTube TV. Warner Bros. is the second largest cable channel owner and Paramount is the third largest. Together their channels would represent about 27% of the market.

The typical threshold for antitrust concerns is at least 30% marketshare.

More than 5,000 entertainment industry workers, including Jane Fonda, Ben Stiller, Bryan Cranston, Javier Bardem, Lin-Manuel Miranda and Mark Ruffalo, signed an open letter calling on Bonta to block the merger.

Some have expressed concerns about marrying CNN and CBS News following months of turmoil at CBS News since David Ellison hired journalist Bari Weiss as CBS News editor in chief. Last month, Weiss orchestrated a dramatic shakeup at the iconic “60 Minutes” news program, with top executives and three well-known correspondents tossed out.

The Ellison family recently shed its movie theater chain, which it picked up as part of the Paramount acquisition, to clear the way for the Warner deal.

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta is leading an effort by state attorneys general to block Paramount’s proposed takeover of Warner Bros. Discovery.

(Paul Kuroda/For The Times)

The deal also faces opposition outside the U.S.
. The British culture minister in late June said she was weighing whether to intervene in the deal due to concerns about maintaining a competitive media market. Britain’s Competition and Markets Authority also has opened an investigation into Paramount’s proposed merger.

In April, a federal judge in Sacramento granted a request from Bonta and seven other attorneys general for a preliminary injunction, which freezes the merger of Nexstar Media Group, which owns KTLA-TV Channel 5, and Tegna. The deal was designed to create the nation’s largest TV outlet group .

A larger group of state attorneys general also won a New York jury verdict against Live Nation Entertainment and its subsidiary Ticketmaster. Jurors found that Live Nation had illegally monopolized the live concert industry.

Bonta also has an ongoing case against Amazon for price fixing, which the company denies.

Still, legal experts say the states may face an uphill climb to detrail the Paramount-Warner Bros. merger because the arrival of Netflix, Amazon and Apple dramatically shifted the landscape.

The tech giants, which introduced consumer-friendly streaming options, have lessened the influence of traditional companies like Paramount and Warner Bros.

Paramount’s deal would mark the third time Warner has changed hands in the last decade.

AT&T bought the company in 2018 and then sold it to the smaller Discovery four years later. That deal left Warner Bros. burdened by debt, leading to deep cost cuts and setting the stage for the Ellison takeover.

STUDENTS have been left thouands of pounds out of pocket after a UK travel company unexpectedly went bust.

Customers have called the news “gut-wrenching”, as bosses say they “deeply regret” the decision to shut close after nearly three decades.

UK gap year students may lose thousands after volunteer travel company, Global Vision International (GVI), cancelled all its holidays.

The Exeter-based company offered a range of conservation and “voluntourism” placements all over the world, becoming especially popular with school leavers and gap year students who paid to take part.

On July 1, after 28 years, the company was plunged into liquidation in a move that bosses say they “deeply regret”.

CEO of GVI, Andrew Valentine, said in a statement: “It is with an incredibly heavy heart that I write to share that GVI is today closing its doors.”

HOLS OFF

Another travel company with holidays abroad forced to close after 28 years

TURK IT IN

The beautiful Turkish island where locals escape the crowds & tickets are £2.50

“I deeply regret the effect that GVI’s closure will have on staff, projects and customers, and we are committed to providing clear information to those affected as GVI goes through a formal liquidation process.”

GVI states on its website that “all current and future GVI programs have been cancelled”.

It continues to inform customer that “all impacted participants will receive formal correspondence detailing the liquidation process and instructions on how to lodge a claim”, and how to get their money back.

Amy Taylor, 21, a wildlife conservation and zoo biology student from Manchester, told BBC Newsbeat that GVI’s closure was “gut-wrenching”.

The student forked out £4,000 to pay for her once in a lifetime South Africa internship, hoping it would help her “stand out” on the job market -but now she is just filled with “disappointment”.

Linus Rowland-Bell, 23, from Liverpool worked two days a week alongside his university studies to pay for a programme in Peru.

Advertised as an internship in the Amazon rainforest, he found out about it through his university careers fair, paying £2,258 in total for his trip.

“The thought of all that money, all that time that I’ve saved up, that excitement completely vanishing into the ether, it was terrifying,” he told Newsbeat, after receiving the news of the liquidation.

Rowland-Bell received a full refund, but many more are waiting for more information from the liquidators.

Taylor further said she was relying on her bank to reclaim the money, as her insurance was booked through GVI.

“If I don’t get the money back, I can’t go anywhere else and I don’t really trust anyone at the moment to be able to go anywhere else.

“It didn’t seem like they were struggling – everything looked professional.”

The Sun reached out to RG Insolvency, who are overseeing GVI’s liquidation, that declined to comment.

As a student years ago, I dove deep into the history of the Red-hunting McCarthy era and became familiar with the actor who emerged second only to Wisconsin Sen. Joe McCarthy as the villain of that insidious time: his shameless, conniving young lawyer, Roy Cohn. Never would I have imagined that a future president would count Cohn as a mentor and role model.

Then came Donald Trump.

Now, in Cohn-inflected McCarthyesque style, President Trump is channeling his tutor yet again, baselessly labeling his political enemies — all Democrats — as communists as he looks ahead to the fall’s midterm elections. Once more Trump shows that his catchphrase “Make America great again” means regressing, this time to Trump’s formative 1950s and the McCarthy era that sadly helped define it.

In recent speeches, including on the Fourth of July, Trump’s utterances of “communist” or “communism” reached double digits each time. (As that implies, the president didn’t set aside his divisive rhetoric even for the nation’s 250th birthday.)

“Our warriors did not fight communism on battlefields across the world only to have that menace rear its ugly head right back here in America,” Trump said late on the Fourth on the National Mall.

Trump couples his commie-baiting with a dash of his trademark xenophobia. “There is now a resurgence of the communist menace in our land, including by newcomers to our country who embrace ideas totally opposed to our way of life and our great success,” he said at Mount Rushmore a day earlier. (He’s got it backward, of course: Immigrants come here for the American way of life and promise of success.)

Here’s the irony: Trump’s actions in his second term make him look more like the commie. He’s projecting again.

Now that Trump is exploiting a few victories lately by left-wing democratic socialists in Democratic primaries to paint the entire party as communists, it’s time to review the record — his record.

A hallmark of communism is government ownership of companies and control of the economy, at the expense of private property and free markets. In just over a year, Trump has used billions of taxpayers’ dollars to buy shares for the government in a growing list of private companies — U.S. Steel, Intel, Westinghouse and more — citing national security. The companies don’t always welcome their new stakeholder; at a minimum, they rightly fear it for the demands the government could make about prices and production.

“It’s what Putin did,” the estranged Republicans at the Lincoln Project posted online Monday. “Trump is the closest we’ve ever come to communism.”

“What began as a populist revolt against so-called elites has become a program of state ownership, price fixing and top-down industrial control,” free-market economist Veronique de Rugy wrote in The Times last October of Trump’s actions. “The power to ‘partner’ with business is the power to control it.”

Comrade Trump’s first big government grab, and a model for those to come, was in June last year, when he wrested a permanent “golden share” in U.S. Steel in return for approving its sale to Japan’s Nippon Steel. The company’s charter was revised to give the U.S. president extraordinary veto power over nearly a dozen corporate activities, including closing or relocating plants, supply-chain decisions, even pricing.

“We have a golden share, which I control,” Trump told reporters at the time, in words I never thought I’d hear from a president of the party once associated with free markets.

Just last week, Trump boasted to CNBC how he’d extracted a 10% stake in beleaguered chip giant Intel last August, after first demanding that its chief executive resign. “Intel came in. They had a problem. I said, ‘I can solve your problem, but I want 10% of the company.’ … Somebody said that’s not very American. I said, ‘No, I think it is very American, actually.’ And I’ve done that with other deals.”

And so he has.

The Pentagon is now the largest stockholder in struggling MP Materials, a large rare-earth mine in California, and guarantees a 10-year price floor for its output that stunned competitors. The administration has since taken shares in other rare-earth companies. The Commerce Department took an option for an 8% stake in Westinghouse, to spur construction of nuclear reactors, and has the right to 20% if the government decides the company should go public. The government takes a 15% cut of Nvidia’s and Advanced Micro Devices’ AI chip sales to China.

As much as anything he does, Trump’s direct intervention in private enterprise invites the question “What if Biden/Harris/Obama did that?” The answer, of course: Trump and Republicans would cry “Communist!”

Trump’s actions are the sort Americans generally have only seen during economic emergencies or major wars, and then rarely. I covered the frenzied and ultimately successful response to the near-collapse of the global financial system and the U.S. auto, insurance and housing industries. Behind the scenes in the Obama White House (and George W. Bush’s at the outset) was constant, angst-filled debate about any actions smacking of government takeovers and a determination that interventions be temporary, unlike Trump’s schemes. (For all the still-lingering unpopularity of the banking bailout, the Treasury — the taxpayers — got all the money back and then some, and exited the business.)

Trump’s economic big-footing isn’t the only way in which he resembles the commies Americans know best, and whom he so admires: Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping, Kim Jung Un. There are also the images of himself everywhere, monuments planned, drearily long and self-adulating speeches and interference in the nation’s cultural, educational and legal spheres and — worst of all — in elections.

At Rushmore, Trump closed with a demand that Congress pass his so-called SAVE America Act to restrict voting. “We do that and we’re not going to lose an election for 100 years,” he said, speaking of course about Republicans.

One-party rule through central government election finagling? Now that’s a communist.

Bluesky: @jackiecalmes
Threads: @jkcalmes
X: @jackiekcalmes

StubHub is getting a red card from some World Cup fans

Two World Cup customers are suing the New York-based ticket-selling company, alleging “false and misleading” advertising that left them without tickets or a refund for the World Cup games they paid to attend.

In federal court in New York last week, two Californians — Julia Reeker Moghal and Reuben Renteria — sued StubHub seeking monetary damages and a ban on the company selling World Cup tickets. The lawsuit aims to become a class action and comes after weeks of fierce criticism and complaints from customers regarding the company’s practices.

Throughout the World Cup, videos have emerged on Instagram and TikTok of StubHub customers describing their nightmare experiences with the ticket-selling platform.

Some said they had purchased tickets to World Cup games as early as November of last year, booked flights and hotels and arranged travel plans, then StubHub notified them days to weeks before the match of a refund for their tickets, which they never requested.

There were similar complaints about last-minute cancellations from people who bought Coachella tickets on StubHub.

In the lawsuit, Moghal said she had purchased three tickets for nearly $2,000 for the June 18 match between Switzerland and Bosnia-Herzegovina at SoFi Stadium in Inglewood, which were then canceled by StubHub. Moghal said she was contacted by StubHub and told her tickets would remain canceled, then was later told the tickets would be available one hour before the game.

When the match began, Moghal said she was at SoFi Stadium, but the tickets never came.

Renteria said he paid around $2,300 for the June 18 Mexico versus South Korea match in Guadalajara, Mexico, but they were canceled

“Devoted soccer fans have traveled from around the world to attend World Cup matches — and they reasonably relied on StubHub to provide the tickets they paid for as well as on StubHub’s warranty,” Blake Hunter Yagman, the attorney representing the two, said in a statement. “Instead of rewarding their business, StubHub sold them World Cup tickets that they either could not provide or on speculation, only to be stranded, in many cases, at the stadium gates without any recourse.”

According to StubHub’s website, its Fan Protect Guarantee states the platform will deliver valid tickets or refund in the event of a ticket issue, and that it will “go out of our way to find replacement tickets” of a comparable value. The lawsuit alleges the replacement tickets many fans were given by StubHub were worse than their original tickets.

FIFA, the World Cup organizer, states in its terms and conditions that the FIFA Marketplace, its own ticket-selling platform, is the only authorized platform for World Cup tickets, and that only tickets purchased through it are guaranteed by FIFA to be valid.

Despite the risk of purchasing through a third-party platform such as StubHub, many fans opted to do so to avoid the 30% FIFA resale tax, believing that the Fan Protect Guarantee would safeguard their order.

Since World Cup tickets began selling on FIFA Marketplace last September, fans have expressed disappointment in the expensive price tag. FIFA utilized a dynamic pricing system for the sale, and as sales phases progressed leading up to the games, the cost of tickets increased tremendously. In March, the extreme cost of tickets prompted 69 members of Congress to write a letter to FIFA urging them to lower their prices.

Tickets for the upcoming Friday match between Spain and Belgium in Los Angeles are selling on StubHub for over $1,300.

StubHub said in various statements to the news and in legal proceedings that ticket cancellations were a result of transfer problems and issues with FIFA’s ticketing infrastructure.

StubHub did not respond to requests for comment.

A FIFA spokesperson responded to this accusation in a statement, saying, “FIFA has no visibility over, or control of, secondary market ticket transactions carried out on third-party platforms. The transactions facilitated on these platforms occur entirely independently of FIFA’s official ticketing platform. With reference to the reliability of the services available to fans on FIFA’s official ticket platform, FIFA rejects any suggestion that the functional issues being experienced by users of third-party platforms with respect to FIFA World Cup 2026 tickets are the result of FIFA’s ticketing infrastructure.”

In 2023, California regulators levied more than $100,000 in fines against the private operator of a federal immigration facility, kicking off a three-year battle over whether detainees who do work at the facilities should be considered employees.

The question went beyond semantics: If considered employees, the detainees would be subject to state worker protection laws.

A legal settlement announced this week now affirms that private immigrant detention facilities are subject to California’s workplace safety and health requirements.

“Every worker deserves a safe and healthy workplace and should be able to report workplace hazards without fear of retaliation,” said Denisse Gómez, spokesperson for the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health or Cal/OSHA.

“Individuals who perform work in these facilities are entitled to workplace safety protections, and this settlement reinforces Cal/OSHA’s commitment to enforcing those protections and safeguarding vulnerable workers,” she added.

Under the settlement between California and the GEO Group, a Florida-based private prison company, the company recently withdrew its legal challenges and agreed to pay more than $100,000 in the fines.

The GEO Group did not respond to requests for comment.

Back in 2023, Cal/OSHA issued $104,510 in fines against the GEO Group. The agency had found six violations of state code by the company after detainees complained about a lack of protective equipment and proper training while cleaning the facility for $1 per day.

Detainees alleged they routinely wiped black mold off shower walls at the facility, saw black dust spew from air vents and used cleaning solutions that lacked instructions during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The biggest fine levied against the GEO Group was for failure to establish and maintain “effective written procedures to reduce employee risk of exposure to aerosol transmissible disease.”

Advocates viewed Cal/OSHA’S recognition of the detainees as workers as a victory that could pave the way for future labor rights fights at other detention centers in the state.

But the GEO Group appealed, arguing that detainees participating in ICE’s voluntary work program make their own schedules and aren’t employees, so hazard exposure couldn’t be “as a result of assigned duties,” as California law states. Plus, the company argued, there wasn’t enough evidence that detainees were exposed to any hazard.

Early last year, the state’s Occupational Safety and Health Appeals Board rejected the GEO Group’s argument and found that detainees should be considered “affected employees.”

The GEO Group sued, but three days before a California Superior Court hearing in May, the company and Cal/OSHA reached the settlement.

Along with paying the fines, the GEO Group agreed to draft plans for avoiding aerosol transmissions at 12 secure and reentry facilities in California, including five detention centers that hold immigrants.

“GEO ensures detainees are afforded the necessary tools, equipment, and personal protective equipment … to safely and effectively perform any necessary tasks,” the settlement states.

Gómez said the settlement also leaves intact the appeals board’s ruling that civil immigration detainees who participate in work programs can participate in proceedings anonymously, “acknowledging the potential for retaliation when individuals raise workplace safety concerns.”

But the question of whether detainees are employees and deserve certain protections isn’t entirely resolved — at least not for the federal government.

Last month, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement released new standards for detention facilities across the country. The revised guidelines “emphasize that detainee volunteers participating in the voluntary work program are not considered facility and/or government employees” and thus not entitled to labor regulations.

Attorney Mariel Villarreal said the timing of the new detention standards made her question whether the GEO Group had asked ICE to specify in its standards that detainees are not workers in response to its battle with Cal/OSHA.

“To me, it’s a reaction to this very settlement,” she said. Villarreal works for the California Collaborative for Immigrant Justice, which filed the original complaint on behalf of detainees who said they worked in unsafe conditions.

Villarreal pointed to a Washington Post report that GEO Group executives privately asked ICE to specify that detainees are not employees of the facilities where they work. Two top Trump administration officials, border czar Tom Homan and acting ICE director David Venturella, previously worked for the GEO Group.

New versions of ICE detention standards take effect as contracts are established or modified, so this year’s rules won’t immediately apply to every facility.

An ICE spokesperson did not comment about the settlement. The spokesperson, who did not provide their name in an emailed statement Wednesday, said the agency has begun transitioning detention facilities to meet the 2026 standards, “building on its longstanding commitment to safe, secure, and professional detention operations.”

“ICE has consistently implemented many of these best practices independently, reinforcing its role as the leader in detention operations,” the spokesperson added.

The GEO Group and other immigrant detention center operators have faced other legal battles over workers’ rights, including lawsuits in Washington, Colorado and California over the $1-per-day payment.

Villarreal said she’s confident that the Cal/OSHA settlement would continue to hold even if California facilities incorporated the new standards. But she said she believes the statements are an attempt by the GEO Group to “sidestep responsibility” and avoid the possibility of being fined under similar circumstances in other states.

“These statements in the new standards are a way for them to try and preserve profits as much as possible,” she said. “GEO and ICE are so intertwined at this point that they have the same motives.”

After 52 years of providing the Inland Empire with mini golf, roller skating and go-karting, Fiesta Village Family Fun Park is shutting down.

The Colton amusement park said in a statement Tuesday that it will remain open to the public for its final days this weekend.

“This decision has not been easy. For decades, Fiesta Village has been a place where families gathered, friendships grew and memories were made,” the company said in the statement.

Owner Michelle O’Brien said that rising operation costs and declining attendance were the main reasons behind the closure.

“It’s been a privilege to be the steward at the park. It’s devastating to have to close it, but you get to a point where there are no other options,” O’Brien said. “We’re so grateful that Fiesta Village carried a place in people’s hearts.”

The park first opened in 1974, with a mini golf course, waterslides and go-karts. O’Brien purchased it in 2002 and has operated it ever since. Under her and her husband Patrick’s ownership, the park added attractions such as the Scrambler and Tilt-a-Whirl, along with laser tag and a roller skating rink.

Since the COVID-19 pandemic, the theme park industry has struggled to fully rebound. Rising costs and a lack of tourism have made the business increasingly difficult to sustain.

Last year, California’s Great America, a Silicon Valley park operated by Six Flags Entertainment, had to cut its workforce and shorten its season. Even theme park giants such as Disneyland are seeing slight downturns in attendance. Disney previously said its U.S. theme parks saw a 1% drop in attendance compared with the prior year, which the company attributed to “continued softness” in attendance by international visitors. Disneyland’s Anaheim park also recently began offering $71 tickets to draw more local visitors.

For parks like Fiesta Village, the rising cost of essentials such as food ultimately makes survival harder, said Dennis Speigel, president of International Theme Park Services, a consulting firm. He added that competition from nearby parks is also drawing business away. As a Southern California venue, Fiesta Village sits within driving distance of destinations such as Knott’s Berry Farm and Disneyland.

“It’s hard for smaller parks to compete with the big entities that surround them. Particularly now as we continue to see this amazing growth in technology for rides and attractions,” Speigel said. “Big attractions are very expensive propositions for parks to put in, and parks like Fiesta Village can’t keep up with that.”

Given the current economic uncertainty, Speigel said, theme parks will probably see a “flat year” — meaning no major growth or decline industrywide.

After Fiesta Village’s final celebration with the public on Friday and Saturday, the park will host a private event Sunday before shutting down for good. It’s unclear what will happen to the property afterward.

“Thank you for allowing us to be part of your lives and your family traditions,” the company wrote. “We will always cherish the role Fiesta Village has played in bringing people together.”

Times staff writer Samantha Masunaga contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — The Department of Homeland Security bought two of the largest immigrant detention facilities in California for $1.5 billion, according to the private prison company that sold them.

The purchase comes as the department — flush with cash after Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act infused the agency with $170 billion — has moved to scale up its capacity to detain immigrants without relying as heavily on private prison corporations.

In announcement Monday, the Tennessee-based CoreCivic said the sale of the 2,560-bed California City Detention Facility and the 1,994-bed Otay Mesa Detention Center in San Diego closed on July 2.

The company said it expects net proceeds of about $1.1 billion after income taxes and transaction expenses.

Ryan Gustin, public affairs director for CoreCivic, said such sales are not uncommon and that “the process was marked with rigor and integrity.” He added that the valuations were established through the federal government’s required appraisal process, using independent appraisers, who determined objective fair market value.

The sale doesn’t immediately change anything at the facilities — CoreCivic expects to continue managing them under existing contracts with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, according to the company and a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

But the terms of those contracts could be modified given the change in ownership, the filing states. The California City facility contract expires in August 2027 and the Otay Mesa facility contract expires in December 2029, with the option to extend for another five years.

“We are pleased with the sales of these two mission-critical facilities for the Company’s government partner, which demonstrates the value of the Company’s underlying real estate portfolio, while reflecting our role as a long-term, flexible solutions provider to government,” CoreCivic CEO Patrick Swindle said in the announcement.

The Department of Homeland Security did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

During a quarterly earnings call in May, George Zoley, CEO of the GEO Group, another major private prison corporation, said that the company had been in discussions with ICE “regarding the potential sale of multiple facilities.”

Critics of the purchases of detention facilities say the Trump administration is simply looking to avoid state and local oversight by bringing them under federal ownership. That issue was raised during the GEO Group earnings call when a participant later asked why the federal government wants to own the facilities instead of contracting with third parties.

If the facilities are federally owned, Zoley replied, there are “more protections from unwarranted litigation that infringes upon the activities of the ICE processing centers.”

Zoley said federal ownership would bolster the legal defense of the facilities and the argument that “states can only have very limited involvement.”

“There’s been litigation regarding overseeing medical services, food services, general cleanliness, etc.,” Zoley continued. “It’s really unprecedented and I believe it’s fundamentally unconstitutional. As some blue states are considering more active involvement in oversight of facilities, I think the logical solution to much of that is federal ownership of the facilities.”

California tried to kick private detention operators out of the state, but the 2020 law was overturned in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Since then, state leaders have established oversight mechanisms through laws that allow for monitoring and investigation of detention centers by the California Department of Justice and local health authorities.

Asked to comment about the sale, Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) said his congressional oversight visits to facilities operated by CoreCivic have shown that immigrants who pose no public safety threat are being held in “unacceptable conditions.”

“Whether these facilities are operated by a private contractor or owned by the federal government, my expectations remain the same,” he said. “I will continue demanding transparency, accountability, and humane conditions that respect the dignity and rights of every person in immigration detention.”

Eight ICE detention facilities now operate in California, with a combined capacity to hold nearly 9,000 people.

The California City and Otay Mesa facilities have both been the subject of lawsuits by detainees alleging detainee mistreatment. CoreCivic calls such allegations unfounded and says it complies with all regulations concerning the treatment of detainees.

In its announcement on Monday, CoreCivic said the company is in discussions with ICE about potentially selling additional detention facilities, though it said those talks are in various stages and it’s unclear whether the sales will go through.