faces

A visitor has filed a $5-million lawsuit against Disneyland for allegedly failing to properly disclose the use of facial-recognition technology at park and collecting sensitive data on guests.

Summer Christine Duffield of Riverside County filed the lawsuit after a May 10 visit to Disneyland and sister park California Adventure, alleging that the resort violates privacy and consumer protection laws collecting biometric data of visitors, without adequate consent.

“Disney does not adequately disclose the use of their biometric collection, so consumers — which almost always include children — have no idea that Disney is collecting this highly sensitive data,” the plaintiff noted in the lawsuit. “Guests should be able to expressly opt in to this type of sensitive facial recognition technology with written consent — the onus of privacy rights should not be on the victim.”

The suit was filed on May 15 in U.S. District Court in New York. The lawsuit cites an article from The Times on consumer reaction to Disney’s use of facial recognition.

The Walt Disney Company didn’t respond to a request for comment.

“People are getting fed up with being force-fed new tech, new AI, new tracking tools,” said Ari Waldman, Professor of Law at the UC Irvine.

Walt Disney Co. rolled out its facial recognition technology in late April across Disneyland Resort to verify tickets. The way it works is guests’ faces are scanned, converted into a numerical identifier and matched with ticket data.

Disney’s privacy policy notes that the identifiers created for identification are deleted within 30 days unless they need to be kept for legal or fraud prevention purposes.

Guests who don’t want to use the technology can enter through a separate entrance marked with a silhouette of a head and shoulders with a slash through it. However, of the dozens of lines to enter Disneyland and California Adventure, there were only four that didn’t use facial recognition, during an April visit.

The sign saying “Use of this technology is optional,” adorn the security checkpoint entrances.

“This technology facilitates ease of reentry into our parks and helps prevent fraud,” the company noted in its website.

Use of facial recognition technology for crowd management and ticketing has become increasingly commonplace.

Dodger Stadium deploys facial recognition for guests using the “Go Ahead Entry” at certain gates without producing a physical or digital ticket to enter the stadium. At Intuit Dome in Inglewood, visitors can use “GameFaceID” to quickly move through a separate lane with their face as their ID.

The lawsuit comes at a time when there is increasing concern of surveillance in public places, and privacy advocates have rallied against the normalization of surveillance. More recently, concerns of the potentially abusive use of artificial intelligence by government to analyze large quantities of data — from texts to facial scans — to surveil U.S citizens resulted in a high-profile showdown between the Pentagon and Anthropic.

Former Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero is under investigation in Spain over alleged influence peddling and related crimes in the long-running Plus Ultra airline case.

The High Court said on Tuesday that Zapatero’s office in Madrid was searched along with three other premises, adding that the former premier had been summoned to testify on June 2.

The investigation is tied to the 2021 state rescue of Plus Ultra, which received 53 million euros ($62m) through the state holding company SEPI during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The case escalated in late December after several arrests, including businessman Julio Martinez Martinez, known as Julito, who is considered key to understanding the links between Plus Ultra and Zapatero.

Zapatero is alleged to have been the driving force behind the airline’s bailout and is accused of having pressed the Ministry of Transport, then led by Jose Luis Abalos, to approve the rescue.

Suspicion also centres on Analisis Relevante, Julito’s company, which allegedly received the same amount Plus Ultra later paid to Zapatero. Víctor de Aldama, a Spanish businessman involved in other corruption probes, has alleged Zapatero received 10 million euros ($12m) in commissions.

The bailout remained politically controversial because critics questioned both Plus Ultra’s financial viability and the company’s ownership links to Venezuelan businessmen seen as close to the government of then-President Nicolas Maduro, raising concerns about transparency and possible political influence.

The court is examining whether the aid was properly approved and whether any improper lobbying or influence was involved.

Speaking to the newspaper El Pais, the president of the Andalusian regional government, Juanma Moreno, said: “There has never been a serious investigation process, much less an indictment of a former president. This is something unprecedented and will shake up the government.”

The conservative opposition People’s Party has used the case to sharpen its attacks on Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez of the Socialist Workers’ Party, to which Zapatero also belongs. Sanchez’s administration is already facing separate corruption probes involving figures close to the prime minister as well as investigations touching his wife and brother.

Zapatero, who governed Spain from 2004 to 2011, has long been a key ally of Sanchez and has also drawn criticism from the opposition over business and political ties with Venezuela after leaving office. He has denied wrongdoing before a parliamentary committee.

A new series of Married At First Sight was planned for September but plans are now on hold, according to TV sources.

The 2026 series of Married At First Sight will not air on Channel 4 as planned – after a BBC Panorama investigation raised serious concerns about the programme. Two women who have appeared on MAFS UK in the past alleged they were raped by their ‘husbands’ during the filming.

In light of these serious allegations and other claims raised on the programme about the welfare of those taking part, Channel 4 announced an external review into the show, which is made by CPL productions.

It leaves the future of MAFS UK uncertain, and the 2026 series which has already been filmed, will not currently go out as intended in September. The Mirror understands plans for series are now completely paused, with a final decision of when the series could go out to be made at a later date, once the review presents its findings to Channel 4.

READ MORE: Channel 4 statement in full as MAFS UK is pulled amid rape claims from contestantsREAD MORE: Two Married at First Sight UK brides tell BBC they were ‘raped by onscreen husbands’

In the past few years, the MAFS UK series has always launched in mid-September and that was thought to be the original plan for this year. However those plans have been thrown into chaos by the Panorama investigation and the allegations made.

One source at series makers CPL said they felt the series would “definitely be delayed” whilst a Channel 4 source also confirmed that the broadcasters would be awaiting the results of the lengthy external review before making any firm decisions on the future of MAFS, along with the edit of the new series.

Even if the external review presents their results to Channel 4 before September, a source said they intend to “react responsibly” to the findings and implement any changes that need to be made. This will also take time and is expected to delay any future episodes being transmitted.

On Monday, Channel 4 removed all episodes from streaming and linear services, alongside MAFS UK social channels. Hours before the Panorama investigation was aired on the BBC, Channel 4 also put out a statement.

They insisted MAFS UK was “produced under some of the most comprehensive and robust welfare protocols in the industry”. Their statement added that the show included: “most thorough background checks available, a Code of Conduct which clearly sets out behavioural standards, daily contributor check-ins with a specialist welfare team and access to additional support before, during and after filming.”

But despite this, a number of contributors clearly feel let down and Channel 4 said that in April “Channel 4 was presented with serious allegations of wrongdoing against a small number of past contributors, allegations that we understand those contributors have denied”.

Channel 4’s recently appointed CEO, Priya Dogra has now instructed an external review of contributor welfare on MAFS UK.

This review is now underway and has two elements. The first, conducted by law firm Clyde & Co, is examining the welfare protocols in place on this programme at the time claims were raised, as well as the handling of these claims.

Channel 4 says it expects the review to report in the coming months and will share a summary of findings and recommendations at the appropriate time.

Priya Dogra, Chief Executive of Channel 4 said: “I want to express my sympathy to contributors who have clearly been distressed after taking part in Married at First Sight UK. The wellbeing of our contributors is always of paramount importance.

“It would be wholly inappropriate for me to comment on what are very serious allegations made against some MAFS UK contributors. Those allegations – which I understand are disputed by the contributors accused – are not something that Channel 4 is in a position to adjudicate on. We are also mindful of our ongoing duty of care to all contributors, and the need to preserve the anonymity and privacy of all involved.

“On the claims that Channel 4 may have failed in its duty of care, I believe that when concerns about contributor welfare were raised, and based on the information available at the time, Channel 4 acted quickly, appropriately, sensitively and with wellbeing front and centre.

“Nevertheless, because we aspire to the highest standards of contributor welfare, I felt strongly as Channel 4’s new CEO that it was right that we look again at how we handled issues raised at the time and ask whether changes should be made to further strengthen contributor welfare.

“That’s why last month I commissioned an external review of contributor welfare on MAFS UK. That review will report to me in the coming months.

“We take these issues very seriously and are committed to ensuring that we continue to lead the industry in our duty of care for contributors.”

Production company CPL have yet to release a statement in light of the Panorama findings. But lawyers for CPL, which makes the UK version of the show, said its welfare system is “gold standard” and industry-leading, and that it acted appropriately in all these cases.

The unnamed men accused of sexual misconduct on Panorama all deny all the allegations against them.

There have been 10 series to date on Channel 4 of the British version and it is one of their most popular shows, with consolidated audiences of over two million viewers per episode.

Like this story? For more of the latest showbiz news and gossip, follow Mirror Celebs on TikTok , Snapchat , Instagram , Twitter , Facebook , YouTube and Threads .

WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth faced tough questions Tuesday from Republican and Democratic lawmakers about the Trump administration’s end game for the Iran war, the cost of the conflict and its impact on diminishing U.S. weapons stockpiles.

For his part, the Pentagon chief softened his tone from hearings before Congress nearly two weeks ago, notably avoiding the same pointed criticism of lawmakers in his opening remarks as he outlined the Trump administration’s efforts to ramp up production of weapons and other military capabilities.

Even so, Hegseth insisted that the military has plenty of missile defense systems and other munitions for the Iran war or future conflicts as both Republicans and Democrats hammered him with those concerns.

“I take issue with the characterization that munitions are depleted in a public forum,” Hegseth said. “That’s not true.”

The cost of the Iran war has risen to about $29 billion, the vast bulk of which — $24 billion — is related to replacing and repairing munitions but also includes operational costs to keep forces deployed, Pentagon comptroller Jay Hurst said. That’s up from $25 billion that he told lawmakers nearly two weeks ago.

The powerful House and Senate Appropriations subcommittees that oversee defense spending are holding back-to-back hearings to review the Trump administration’s 2027 military budget proposal, which calls for a historic allocation of $1.5 trillion. The discussions in the House quickly veered into the handling of a war that appears locked in a stalemate as higher fuel prices pose political problems for Republicans in the midterm congressional elections.

Hegseth and Caine face bipartisan pushback on munitions stockpiles

Rep. Rosa DeLauro, the ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, told Hegseth that the “question must be answered at the end of this crisis: What have we accomplished and at what cost?”

“This administration has not presented Congress with any kind of clear or coherent strategy week to week, day to day, hour to hour,” DeLauro said. “The rationale shifts, the objectives change. The end game is ill-defined when it is defined at all.”

California Republican Rep. Ken Calvert, the House subcommittee’s chair, also asked about the impact of the Iran war on military funding as well as the U.S. military’s weapons stockpiles.

“Questions persist about whether we are building the depth and reliance required for a high-end conflict,” Calvert said.

Minnesota Rep. Betty McCollum, the defense subcommittee’s ranking Democrat, pressed Hegseth on whether the military has a plan to draw down troops in the Middle East if Congress passes so-far-unsuccessful efforts to end the Iran war.

“We have a plan to escalate if necessary,” Hegseth said. “We have a plan to retrograde if necessary. We have a plan to shift assets.”

He said he would not reveal any next steps publicly. Noting repeated questions from lawmakers over the military’s weapons stockpiles, drawn down from the Iran war, Hegseth said the concerns have been “unhelpfully overstated” and that “we have plenty of what we need.”

He said the defense industry has been told to “build more and build faster,” blaming the military industrial base’s inadequate capacity on previous administrations and U.S. aid to Ukraine in its war with Russia.

Trump administration faces pressure from impact of the Iran war

President Trump is facing increasing pressure from the economic shocks of Iran effectively closing the Strait of Hormuz, a vital shipping corridor where 20% of the world’s oil normally flows. The U.S. military in turn has blockaded Iranian ports and the two sides have traded fire, with American forces thwarting attacks on their warships and disabling Tehran-linked oil tankers.

Trump said Monday that the ceasefire is on “massive life support” and criticized Iran for its latest proposal, pointing to his demands that Iran significantly limit its nuclear program.

“I would call it the weakest right now after reading that piece of garbage they sent us,” Trump said.

The Republican president also said he wanted to suspend the federal gas tax to help Americans shoulder surging fuel prices. He has previously said higher costs are worth it to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.

Tuesday’s hearings are giving a mostly new group of lawmakers the chance to grill or applaud Hegseth and Gen. Dan Caine, chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, on the planning and execution of the war.

The Senate hearing later Tuesday will include Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, a Republican whose reelection this year is far from guaranteed. She voted with Democrats on an effort to halt the conflict late last month, saying she wants to see a defined strategy for bringing the war to a close.

Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski, another Republican on the Senate Appropriations defense subcommittee, has voted against the string of unsuccessful war powers resolutions but spoken of the need for congressional authorization so Americans will know the war’s limits and objectives.

He also will face plenty of friendly Republicans, including the Senate subcommittee’s chair, Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, and perhaps the Iran war’s biggest booster in Congress, Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina.

Finley, Toropin and Barrow write for the Associated Press. Barrow reported from Atlanta.

BRITISH Airways’ multi-million pound superjumbo refit faces certification delays over fears crew cannot safely restrain drunk passengers in its new business class seats.

The airline is in the process of upgrading its Airbus A380 fleet with its latest Club Suite, which comes with a sliding privacy door.

But the makeover could hit delays because of concerns over how staff would deal with an air rage passenger on the upper deck.

BA plans to move a small section economy seats off the top floor and replace them with a larger Club World cabin.

Its passenger restraint kit is understood to be approved for economy and premium economy seats – not the new suite-style business seats.

That could leave crew with a major problem if a passenger became violent or disruptive upstairs.

secret code

Flight attendants spill the tea on what ‘Bob’ passenger nickname actually means

SPAIN PAIN

Ryanair warns Spain to stop new entry rules as ‘queues are longer than flights’

Sources said hauling a violent passenger down the A380’s narrow staircases could put crew and other passengers at risk.

The first aircraft are currently being worked on in Manila, Philippines, as part of the refurbishment programme.

Industry sources have also suggested there may be certification concerns over the weight of the new business seats, which include motors and sliding doors.

Extra weight on the upper deck could affect the plane’s payload limits.

However, any delay may also be linked to wider supply chain issues affecting premium aircraft seats across the industry.

British Airways said the A380 refit programme remains on schedule for 2026.

TV star Bradley Walsh faces one of his fears in the latest episode of ITV’s Breaking Dad

Bradley Walsh pleads “I don’t want to” as he confronts his well-known fear of heights in the latest instalment of Breaking Dad.

The ITV programme follows The Chase presenter and his son Barney as they journey to various destinations, taking on a series of daunting challenges. Now in its seventh series, the pair have ventured Down Under to discover Australia, and in the forthcoming episode Bradley tackles a zipline high above the Blue Mountains while Barney urges him on.

In a preview clip, Bradley appears visibly terrified, gripping his rope tightly and breathing heavily, reports the Express.

“I really, really tell you, guys, I really don’t want to do this,” muttered the star, who has a well documented fear of heights.

“Dad, you can do it!” exclaims Barney, but the TV star insisted: “No, I can’t. I don’t want to do it Barns. Please don’t. Please don’t do none of that for me.”

“Well, you can do it, you can,” urged Barney, who is known for hosting TV hit Gladiators alongside his famous dad.

But Bradley said: “What did I just tell him? Didn’t I just tell him?”

“I really don’t want to, though,” he went on. “I really don’t want to do it.”

Nevertheless, he pressed ahead, beginning to edge his hands along the ropes while murmuring: “Please, God.”

With Barney shouting encouragement, yelling “you got it”, Bradley gradually made his way along the rope before reaching solid ground on the opposite side.

Yet when questioned about how he felt after completing the challenge, he appeared to let slip a swear word, confessing: “Awful.”

“You smashed it, you smashed it,” Barney insisted as an exhausted-looking Bradley caught his breath.

Breaking Dad first launched in 2019 and it is now in its seventh series.

The show’s latest run kicked off earlier in May, with the opening episode following the father and son duo as they touched down in Sydney. The pair took in iconic landmarks including Sydney Harbour Bridge and the Opera House, before braving a thrilling aerobatic flight and a nerve-shredding ride on an extreme, high-altitude cable car.

Bradley and Barney Walsh: Breaking Dad airs on Friday May 8 at 7.30pm on ITV1, ITVX, STV and STV Player.

Robert Luna seeks a second term as L.A. County Sheriff but faces nine challengers, including predecessor Alex Villanueva, whom he defeated in 2022.

(Eric Thayer/Los Angeles Times)

Robert Luna is hoping to be the first L.A. County Sheriff to win a second term in more than 10 years. He points to a reduction in crime for the county during his term and says he brought stability after a series of one-term sheriffs since 2014.

Last year, deputy-patrolled areas of the county experienced a 12.5% drop in serious crimes from the previous year, including a drop of 12% in murders and 20% in auto thefts.

Perhaps the most vocal and well-known of Luna’s opponents is his predecessor, Alex Villanueva, who paints a picture of a department in disarray, with low morale and trouble in recruiting. Villanueva claims his return would keep deputies from leaving and appeal to new hires.

Former sheriff’s Lt. Eric Strong, who also served as chief of campus safety and security operations at the county probation office, has entered the fray once again after finishing third in 2022. Strong has called for increased transparency by the department, advocating for the agency to work with oversight bodies like the Office of Inspector General and the Civilian Oversight Committee.

“Nothing has really changed, and that’s why I’m running,” Strong said.

Mike Bornman, a retired former captain, also is vying for the job. He’s looking to lift morale inside the department, which he said has faced a series of challenges with social movements that have been “anti-cop,” such as the George Floyd protests of 2020 and calls to defund the police.

“There’s been no real pushback from law enforcement; there’s been nothing coming from this office relative to that,” Bornman said.

He said the department is struggling with difficulty in recruitment, significant overtime hours and deputies at risk of burnout.

Sgt. Karla Carranza is running again after an unsuccessful campaign in 2022. At one point assigned to the Twin Towers Correctional Facility in downtown L.A., Carranza has made jail reform one of her top campaign focuses, promising to reduce violence and lower the risk of lawsuits and what she says are preventable inmate deaths.

Brendan Corbett, also running for the job, served as assistant sheriff during Villanueva’s tenure. He’s looking to restructure the department, focus resources on patrol and line functions and increase the reserve program.

Lt. Oscar Martinez, assigned to the department’s Palmdale station, is running to unseat his boss and criticizes Luna for fostering relationships with the county board of supervisors and oversight bodies, saying his focus should be on law enforcement, not politics .

“The sheriff is more interested in protecting the political establishment,” Martinez said. “Under my leadership, the mission of the sheriff’s department is to fight crime. Our job is not to fix politics.”

Andre White, a detective with about 11 years at the department, also vowed to take a “community-oriented approach” if elected.

Some voters may recognize Sonia Montejano, a former senior deputy in the department’s court services division, as the court bailiff in the television court program “Judge Joe Brown.”

Montejano filed paperwork for the position and listed her personal website on campaign forms. Her website, however, makes no mention of her campaign or position on issues involving the department. She did not respond to requests for comment.

April 26 (Asia Today) — South Korea’s race for dominance in high-bandwidth memory, a key component for artificial intelligence chips, is diverging as SK hynix consolidates its lead while Samsung Electronics faces mounting labor tensions.

Industry analysts say the competition is increasingly defined not just by technology, but by timing – with early execution and customer alignment proving decisive in securing long-term market share.

SK hynix recently received a corporate innovation award from the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, recognizing its leadership in developing and mass-producing successive generations of HBM chips. The company has capitalized on surging demand driven by AI computing, strengthening partnerships with major global clients.

SK hynix is rapidly expanding sales of its HBM3E products while simultaneously preparing for next-generation HBM4, supplying samples to key customers and advancing toward mass production. Analysts say early validation and supply relationships formed at this stage are likely to shape long-term market positioning.

In contrast, Samsung is attempting to close the gap through its own HBM4 development but faces internal challenges. Labor disputes over performance-based bonuses have escalated, with unions warning of a general strike. Industry observers say the tensions could affect not only production but also research, development and customer engagement.

HBM products require close collaboration with customers on customized designs and process validation, making speed of initial response a critical factor. Delays in testing or supply can lead to lost contracts, while early entry into supply chains often results in long-term partnerships.

Analysts warn that Samsung’s internal disruptions could weaken its ability to respond during what they describe as a “golden time” in the rapidly expanding AI semiconductor market. If supply stability and development pace falter, customers may shift toward multi-vendor strategies, potentially solidifying SK hynix’s advantage.

Experts also point to structural issues behind repeated labor disputes, including disagreements over performance-based compensation. They suggest moving beyond short-term negotiations toward a more transparent system based on objective metrics such as return on invested capital, total shareholder return and economic value added.

Such reforms, they say, could help prevent prolonged conflicts and support the company’s competitiveness in a fast-moving global market.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260427010008233

WASHINGTON — The Southern Poverty Law Center says it’s the subject of a criminal investigation by the Justice Department and faces possible charges over its past use of paid informants to infiltrate extremist groups.

The civil rights group made the announcement on Tuesday, saying President Trump’s administration appears to be preparing legal action against it or some of its employees.

“Although we don’t know all the details, the focus appears to be on the SPLC’s prior use of paid confidential informants to gather credible intelligence on extremely violent groups,” CEO Bryan Fair said in a statement.

The Justice Department had no immediate comment.

The SPLC previously paid informants to infiltrate extremist groups and gather information on their activities, often sharing it with local and federal law enforcement, Fair said. It was used to monitor threats of violence, he said, adding that the program was kept quiet to protect the safety of informants.

“When we began working with informants, we were living in the shadow of the height of the Civil Rights Movement, which had seen bombings at churches, state-sponsored violence against demonstrators, and the murders of activists that went unanswered by the justice system,” Fair said. “There is no question that what we learned from informants saved lives.”

He said the organization “will vigorously defend ourselves, our staff, and our work.”

The SPLC, which is based in Montgomery, Alabama, was founded in 1971 and used civil litigation to fight white supremacist groups. The nonprofit has become a popular target among Republicans who see it as overly leftist and partisan.

The investigation could add to concerns that Trump’s Republican administration is using the Justice Department to go after conservative opponents and his critics. It follows a number of other investigations into Trump foes that have raised questions about whether the law enforcement agency has been turned into a political weapon.

The Southern Poverty Law Center has faced intense criticism from conservatives, who have accused it of unfairly maligning right-wing organizations as extremist groups because of their viewpoints. The SPLC regularly condemns Trump’s rhetoric and policies around voting rights, immigration and other issues.

The SPLC came under fresh scrutiny after the assassination last year of conservative activist Charlie Kirk brought renewed attention to its characterization of the group that Kirk founded and led. The SPLC included a section on that group, Turning Point USA, in a report titled “The Year in Hate and Extremism 2024” that described the group as “A Case Study of the Hard Right in 2024.”

FBI Director Kash Patel said last year that the agency was severing its relationship with the SPLC, which had long provided law enforcement with research on hate crime and domestic extremism. Patel said the SPLC had been turned into a “partisan smear machine,” and he accused it of defaming “mainstream Americans” with its “hate map” that documents alleged anti-government and hate groups inside the United States.

House Republicans hosted a hearing centered on the SPLC in December, saying it coordinated efforts with President Joe Biden’s Democratic administration “to target Christian and conservative Americans and deprive them of their constitutional rights to free speech and free association.”

Binkley and Richer write for the Associated Press.

Amid the bustle and glitz of last week’s CinemaCon in Las Vegas, one question loomed over the annual trade convention — how will the proposed Paramount Skydance-Warner Bros. Discovery deal affect the movie theater business?

That anxiety showed up in a state of the industry speech from Cinema United trade group President Michael O’Leary, who reiterated his organization’s opposition to further industry consolidation.

It showed up in a trailer for Amazon MGM Studios’ upcoming film “Spaceballs: The New One,” when a voiceover poked fun at Hollywood studios “merging willy-nilly” as images of the Paramount sign and Warner Bros. water tower flashed across the screen.

And the subject again took center stage — literally — when Paramount Chief Executive David Ellison himself gave a speech during his studio’s presentation at Caesars Palace. He sought to reassure the assembled movie theater operators and exhibition executives that the combined company would indeed release a minimum of 30 films a year.

“I wanted to look every single one of you in the eye and give you my word,” he said during an onstage speech, in which he also committed to a 45-day theatrical window and 90-day period before films go to streaming services. “People can speculate all they want, but I am standing here today telling you personally that you can count on our complete commitment. And we’ll show you we mean it.”

It’s true that Paramount has nearly doubled its theatrical releases since Ellison took over. As he noted in his speech, the storied studio is now planning 15 films this year, up from eight in 2025.

But as I’ve written previously, theater owners and other studio executives question how releasing 30 movies a year across the combined Paramount-Warner Bros. would work — not only in terms of giving each film the proper marketing campaign to succeed in theaters but also because of the massive cost cuts that will inevitably occur once the merger is final.

Still, Ellison’s commitment to 30 films a year got a round of enthusiastic applause — and at least one high-profile boost.

A day earlier, AMC Entertainment Holdings Inc. Chief Executive Adam Aron told me in an interview that he backed Ellison’s takeover of Warner, saying he and AMC believed in the tech scion’s talent as a filmmaker and a movie executive, as well as his pledge to release those 30 films a year.

“We’re enthusiastic that David will fulfill his promises,” Aron said. “And that in the end, this will prove to be a good thing for our company and our industry.”

Not everyone shares that enthusiasm.

More than 4,000 people have now signed an open letter opposing the Paramount-Warner deal, arguing that consolidating two studios will lessen consumer choice and job opportunities for creatives, particularly at a time when Hollywood is already struggling. (Notable signatories include “Dune” director Denis Villeneuve, actors Glenn Close and Emma Thompson, as well as director and producer JJ Abrams.)

O’Leary of Cinema United similarly wasn’t convinced.

“While recent pledges attempt to address the threats of consolidation to our industry, they are not yet sufficient in addressing our concerns,” he said in a statement released hours after Ellison’s speech. “We remain open to tangible commitments that will ensure a vibrant global theatrical exhibition industry for years to come.”

Elsewhere at CinemaCon, the mood was upbeat.

Warner Bros. film chiefs Mike De Luca and Pam Abdy struck a triumphant tone after an award-winning year for the studio, capped off by the best picture win for “One Battle After Another.”

They unveiled footage from new films like the upcoming “Digger” from director Alejandro G. Iñárritu and brought out lead actor Tom Cruise to a sustained standing ovation from the audience. And both De Luca and Abdy espoused optimism for the future of the theatrical business. The studio plans to release 14 films this year and as many as 18 for 2027.

“The film business has always required smart betting, and we have 4 billion reasons from last year to think we’re holding the right cards,” De Luca said during the presentation, referring to the studio’s worldwide box office revenue last year.

“We all know they’re not all going to work. That comes with taking swings,” Abdy said of the studios’ films. “There’s no version of this business that’s risk-free. But our job is to step up, make our bets and own it when it doesn’t work.”

But the end of the presentation felt more somber, with the executives asking the heads of Warner Bros.’ labels to come to the stage and be recognized. Shortly after, they asked Warner Bros. employees in the audience to stand for applause. It was hard to escape the feeling that this may be the end of an era.

Stuff We Wrote

Film shoots

Number of the week

1,000

Last week, Walt Disney Co. began a sweeping round of layoffs that’s expected to cull 1,000 jobs across multiple divisions.

As my colleague Meg James reported, the cuts hit Disney’s television and movie studios, sports giant ESPN, its product and technology unit, corporate functions and marketing. Even Marvel Studios’ visual development team was affected.

The layoffs are one of the first major moves under new Disney Chief Executive Josh D’Amaro, who took the reins of the company last month. In a message to employees, he said the company needed to “constantly assess how to foster a more agile and technologically-enabled workforce to meet tomorrow’s needs.”

What I’m watching

Some friends and I watched “Fukushima: A Nuclear Nightmare” this past weekend, a truly eye-opening documentary that explains what happened during the March 11, 2011, nuclear accident and whether the world has learned anything from it.

Keir Starmer is facing renewed calls for resignation after fresh revelations surrounding the appointment and vetting of former UK ambassador to the United States Peter Mandelson. The controversy has reignited scrutiny over governance standards inside the Labour government, coming at a politically sensitive time just months after Labour’s landslide election victory in 2024.

The Vetting Controversy:
The core of the scandal centres on reports that Mandelson did not properly pass security vetting before being appointed as ambassador. Despite this, official communications suggested that clearance had been confirmed. Downing Street has since dismissed a senior Foreign Office official, intensifying questions about how the appointment was handled and who within government was aware of the vetting status.

Political Fallout Inside Government:
The issue has exposed tensions within the Labour Party, with some lawmakers expressing concern over administrative failures while others defend the Prime Minister. Senior minister Darren Jones said Starmer was “furious” about not being informed of the vetting issues, while acknowledging serious breakdowns in communication between departments.

Opposition Pressure and Leadership Questions:
Opposition figures, including Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch, have accused Starmer of misleading Parliament and questioned his credibility. The central allegation is whether the Prime Minister knowingly misrepresented the status of Mandelson’s clearance when defending the appointment. These accusations have intensified calls for resignation from political rivals.

Wider Political Context:
The controversy comes at a politically sensitive moment for Starmer, as Labour prepares for key local elections across England, Scotland, and Wales. The government is also managing broader foreign policy challenges, including Britain’s positioning in global conflicts involving the United States and Middle East tensions, adding further pressure on leadership stability.

Institutional and Governance Concerns:
Beyond individual accountability, the scandal has raised broader concerns about administrative competence within the Foreign Office and Downing Street. The dismissal of senior officials has highlighted breakdowns in communication and vetting procedures, raising questions about how high-level diplomatic appointments are approved and overseen.

Analysis:
The Mandelson vetting scandal has evolved from a procedural controversy into a wider test of political authority and administrative control for Starmer. While there is no clear evidence yet that the Prime Minister deliberately misled Parliament, the perception of mismanagement and lack of oversight has created significant political vulnerability.

At its core, the issue reflects a deeper challenge of governance: maintaining institutional trust while managing complex bureaucratic systems. Even if the government survives immediate calls for resignation, the damage is likely to linger, particularly if further inconsistencies emerge. With elections approaching and internal party tensions rising, Starmer’s ability to project control and competence will be central to whether this episode becomes a temporary setback or a longer-term political liability.

The election victory of Hungary’s Tisza party on April 12 marks the end of the 16 year rule of Viktor Orbán, a figure who has long defined Hungary’s contentious relationship with the European Union. His tenure reshaped Hungary’s domestic institutions and repeatedly placed the country at odds with EU norms, laws, and political consensus.

The incoming leadership under Péter Magyar now inherits not only a domestic mandate for change but also the complex task of rebuilding trust with the EU after years of institutional confrontation.

A fractured relationship with Brussels

Under Orbán, Hungary frequently clashed with EU institutions over rule of law, judicial independence, media freedom, and migration policy. One of the most controversial measures was the lowering of the retirement age for judges and prosecutors, which critics argued enabled political reshaping of the judiciary.

Tensions escalated further after 2022, when Hungary’s stance on sanctions against Russia and support for Ukraine created repeated deadlocks within EU decision making processes.

Financial pressure also became a key tool of EU leverage. The European Commission suspended billions of euros in funding to Hungary, citing concerns over corruption and democratic backsliding, deepening the political divide.

Allegations and escalating mistrust

Relations deteriorated further following leaked reports alleging that senior Hungarian officials coordinated with Russian counterparts during sensitive EU discussions. These claims intensified accusations within parts of the EU that Hungary had undermined collective decision making during a period of heightened geopolitical tension.

While Budapest has rejected many of these allegations, they contributed to a climate of mistrust that severely weakened Hungary’s position within the bloc.

A new government with a reform mandate

The Tisza party’s victory signals a clear domestic demand for change, particularly around governance and corruption. The new administration has strong incentives to restore relations with the EU, not least because of the approximately 17 billion euros in suspended funding that could be unlocked if conditions are met.

EU leaders, however, have made it clear that financial normalization will depend on compliance with a wide set of governance and legal reforms. These include anti corruption measures, judicial independence safeguards, and adjustments to policies affecting migration and minority rights.

Structural constraints on reform

Despite political momentum for rapprochement, significant obstacles remain. Hungarian society remains more socially conservative and more sceptical of the EU than many of its Western counterparts. This limits the political space for rapid liberal reforms, particularly in sensitive areas such as LGBTQ+ rights and asylum policy.

Economic pressures further complicate the situation. The new government will inherit fiscal strain linked to years of disputed EU funding and broader geopolitical uncertainty, including the economic effects of the ongoing war involving Iran, which has disrupted global energy markets and increased financial volatility.

Ukraine and the Russia question

One of the most sensitive areas in Hungary’s future EU relationship will be its position on Ukraine. While Péter Magyar has signaled a willingness to improve relations with Ukraine and align more closely with NATO and EU policy, key ambiguities remain.

His stated openness to continuing Russian energy imports for the foreseeable future, combined with proposals for a referendum on Ukrainian EU membership, suggests that strategic continuity with aspects of the previous government may persist.

Given public scepticism toward Ukraine within Hungary, any referendum could significantly complicate EU enlargement plans.

Analysis

The end of Orbán’s long tenure represents a clear political inflection point in EU Hungary relations. It removes a persistent source of institutional confrontation and opens the possibility of renewed cooperation with Brussels.

However, the assumption that relations will automatically normalize is overly optimistic. The structural sources of tension between Hungary and the EU extend beyond one leader. They include divergent political cultures, competing interpretations of sovereignty, and deep disagreements over migration, rule of law, and foreign policy alignment.

The new government’s dependence on EU funds gives Brussels significant leverage, but also creates domestic political risk if reforms are perceived as externally imposed. This creates a delicate balancing act between compliance and legitimacy.

On foreign policy, Hungary’s position on Russia and Ukraine will remain the most consequential test. Even partial continuity with previous policies could reintroduce friction at a time when EU unity is under pressure from multiple geopolitical crises.

Ultimately, Orbán’s departure may mark the end of one chapter, but it does not resolve the underlying tensions that have defined Hungary’s relationship with the European project. The reset, while possible, will be gradual, conditional, and politically contested.

With information from Reuters.