The IOC and Saudi Arabia call it quits on their Olympic esports partnership

The esports partnership between the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and Saudi Arabia is no more. On Thursday, the IOC said that it and the Saudi Olympic and Paralympic Committee (SOPC) have "mutually agreed" to part ways. The breakup comes weeks after Saudi Arabia's sovereign wealth fund and other investors bought EA for $55 billion.

The IOC and SOPC agreed on a 12-year esports partnership in 2024. At the time, the IOC was reportedly in talks with publishers of Rocket League, Street Fighter and League of Legends. The two sides discussed holding the Olympic Esports Games every two years. (The first games were initially scheduled for this year, but were pushed back to 2027.) Potential hosts for later installments were said to include South Korea and the US.

Instead, the two sides are now "committed to pursuing their own esports ambitions on separate paths," according to the IOC. The organization now plans to "spread the opportunities presented by the Olympic Esports Games more widely." It still wants the inaugural games to happen "as soon as possible."

The AP notes that the dissolution comes seven months into Kristy Coventry's IOC presidency. We don't know the details of how the deal came apart. However, the IOC wants to connect with younger fans through esports, but in a way that "Olympic values are respected." Saudi Arabia's Esports World Cup features MOBAs, shooters and fighting games.

If the IOC wants to project a squeaky-clean image while connecting with young gamers, it may have an uphill battle. (For the record, games don't lead to violence.)

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/gaming/the-ioc-and-saudi-arabia-call-it-quits-on-their-olympic-esports-partnership-163148341.html?src=rss

The best iPad deals this week include the iPad mini for $100 off

The iPad, of course, isn't the only tablet computer out there — it wasn't even the first — but Apple's version redefined the category. In our opinion, it's the best tablet you can buy and these slates consistently earn high scores in our reviews. That doesn't mean you should have to pay full price for your next iPad. We are continually on the hunt for good deals on iPads (and other Apple gear while we're at it) and each week, we round them up right there.

Current discounts include the iPad mini and the 11-inch iPad Pro, each for $100 off the list price. Beyond iPads, are a few other Apple deals are going around, such as the latest AirPods Pro 3 for the lowest price yet at $199 and certain colors of the Apple Watch Series 11 for $299. Here are the best Apple deals we found this week.

Apple iPad Air (M3, 11-inch) for $499 ($100 off): The iPad Air is the top overall pick in our guide to the best iPads. Yes, it’s pricier than the entry-level iPad (A16), but its faster chip, extra RAM, laminated and more color-rich display, better speakers and superior accessory support add up to a more pleasant experience in day-to-day use. This isn't the lowest price we've tracked — the price went as low as $450 just after Black Friday, but this is still $100 cheaper than buying directly from Apple.

Apple iPad Pro (11-inch, M5) for $899 ($100 off): The latest iPad Pro is still more tablet than most people will ever need, but its class-leading OLED display, impressively thin design and super-powerful M5 chip make it a luxury experience for those who can afford it. The device was only released in October, so this deal ties its lowest price to date. Also at Best Buy and B&H.

Apple iPad Pro (13-inch, M5) for $1,199 ($100 off): It’s not a massive discount, but this matches the lowest price so far for the larger iPad Pro, which may be worthwhile if you’ve got cash to burn and want to use an iPad as your main computer. We gave it a score of 85 in our review. Also at B&H.

Apple AirTags (4-pack) for $65 ($34 off): These are the best Bluetooth trackers for iPhone users thanks to their vast finding network and accurate ultra-wideband features for locating your things when they’re close by. Just attach them to your keys, wallet or bag with the right AirTag holder and keep track of everything in the Find My app.

Apple AirPods 4 for $74 ($55 off): If you don't need active noise cancellation and hate the feeling of headphones that just into your ear canal, the standard AirPods 4 remain a good buy. They lack built-in volume controls, and no open-style earbuds can produce the same level of bass as typical in-ear headphones, but they generally sound more pleasant than most pairs along these lines and still offer the usual array of Apple-friendly features. This discount is only $5 more than the all-time low we saw around Black Friday. Also at Best Buy for $85 if that runs out of stock. 

Apple Watch SE 3 for $199 ($50 off): This discount has been around for a few weeks, but it’s the lowest price to date for Apple’s newest entry-level smartwatch. We gave the SE 3 a score of 90 in our review last month: The big upgrade is an always-on display, which makes it so you no longer have to wake the watch to check the time or notifications. It still includes most of the essential health and fitness features beyond that, plus it now runs on the same chipset as the higher-end Apple Watch Series 11. Also at Walmart.

Apple Pencil Pro for $95 ($34 off): The Pencil Pro is Apple’s most feature-rich stylus, offering pressure sensitivity, wireless charging, haptic feedback and unique gesture controls compared to the standard USB-C model (which isn’t significantly discounted). Just note that it’s not compatible with the entry-level iPad and other older models. While this discount is only $5 below the device’s usual street price, it’s still the largest discount we’ve seen this year. Also at Walmart.

Apple MacBook Air (15-inch, M4) for $949 ($250 off): The 15-inch MacBook Air is nearly identical to the smaller version; apart from its roomier display, it adds better speakers and a more spacious trackpad. This deal matches the all-time low, and other configurations are similarly discounted. 

Apple MacBook Pro (M5, 14-inch, 512GB) for $1,350 ($249 off): Apple’s most recent M-series chip is the M5, and only comes equipped on the 14-inch MacBook Pro and the iPad Pro. When the M5 MacBook Pro M5 came out in October, we promptly reviewed it and awarded it a 92. The new chip gives the laptop an impressive graphics upgrade, which only adds to the Pro's known qualities: a sturdy build, excellent trackpad and speakser paired with an impressively long battery life — we clocked 34 hours in a video run-down test. Also at Walmart. It's $1,399 at Best Buy and B&H.

Apple Mac mini (M4) for $479 ($120 off): The latest iteration of Apple’s tiny desktop PC has a smaller footprint, a faster M4 chip, 16GB of RAM by default, two front-facing USB-C ports and an extra Thunderbolt 4 port. It can also drive three external displays, though it lacks USB-A ports entirely. We gave a higher-end model with Apple’s M4 Pro chip a score of 90 in our review. This deal on the base model with an M4 chip, 16GB of RAM and 256GB of storage is $10 more than the best deal we've seen but $20 less than the config's typical street price. 

Apple MagSafe cable 25W for $24 ($15 off): With this puck, the iPhone 17 can wirelessly recharge at 25-watt speeds. You can also get those speeds with iPhone 16 handsets that have updated to the latest OS 26 version. Just note that you’ll need to plug it into at least a 30 watt adapter, which isn’t included. This is the lowest price we've tracked. 

Apple USB-C Magic Mouse for $68 ($11 off): This isn't a record-low price for Apple's popular mouse — it went for $60 in October. It's lightweight, supports multi-touch features including scroll and the battery life is fairly long — just note that the charging port is on the bottom so you can't use it while it refills. The discount only applies to the white model.

Read more Apple coverage:

Follow @EngadgetDeals on X for the latest tech deals and buying advice.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/deals/the-best-ipad-deals-this-week-include-the-ipad-mini-for-100-off-150020342.html?src=rss

Creative Labs is crowdfunding a modular Sound Blaster audio hub

Creative Labs, the maker of Sound Blaster audio cards, has launched a Kickstarter for a modular audio hub called Sound Blaster Re:Imagine. The universal hub, which is reminiscent of Elgato's Stream Deck, is meant to allow routing from any input to any output with the press of a button. Users can connect their gaming consoles, PC and musical instruments to the Re:Imagine, as well as speakers, wired headsets and wireless headphones, transitioning seamlessly between them.

The system uses magnetic modules including a 3-inch smart screen, four-button pad, rotary knob and dual sliders that can all be rearranged on the base unit. The Horizon base with five slots is the default design for the Kickstarter project, with an expanded six-slot Vertex base listed as a stretch goal.

Re:Imagine sports an octa-core ARM processor with a small NPU, 8GB of RAM, 16GB of flash storage and is expandable thanks to a microSD card slot. The hub's audio prowess is powered by a high-resolution 32-bit digital-to-analog converter (DAC), and it supports Wi-Fi and Bluetooth. The hub runs on Linux and can be used in a standalone setup, or as a PC-tethered audio hub.

The Re:Imagine also comes with an AI DJ that can generate music, a built-in DOS emulator for retro gaming, one-tap audio recording and more. The modular hub is also developer-friendly, with an included SDK and sample source code that encourage users to build their own custom apps and then share them with the Creative Labs community.

The Kickstarter campaign will run through December and lists an estimated shipping date of July 2026.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/audio/creative-labs-is-crowdfunding-a-modular-sound-blaster-audio-hub-161957129.html?src=rss

Trump’s FCC is officially moving to make it easier for internet companies to charge hidden fees

The Republican-led FCC has voted on and approved a proposal that would make it harder for consumers to receive itemized bills with accurate information from their ISPs, as originally spotted by CNET. This proposal revises previous "unnecessary" requirements on the grounds that a fact-based list of charges "may confuse customers."

These changes would minimize the benefit of the so-called "nutrition labels" which are otherwise known as Broadband Facts labels. You've likely run into these simple itemized labels when shopping for a broadband plan. They tell consumers exactly what we are paying for, even if it may "confuse" our fragile little minds.

The FCC passed a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on October 28 that would significantly scale back the Broadband Facts label. ISPs have been required to publish these labels since April, 2024. All Republican commission members voted to approve the change, while the lone Democrat dissented.

As previously noted, this is technically just an NPRM. So it's not a done deal just yet. There will be a final vote in the near future, but it's expected to pass given the political makeup of the commission.

Once passed, ISPs will no longer be required to read these labels over the phone to customers, make them available in account portals or give a complete accounting of fees to customers. The FCC previously stated that these transparency requirements are "unduly burdensome and provide minimal benefit to consumers." I happen to think that knowing what I'm shelling $100 out for each month to be of maximal benefit. Maybe that's just me.

These labels were initially proposed all the way back in 2016, before being implemented by the Biden administration in 2024. They offer a breakdown of every little thing that goes into a bill for a service plan, including many "hidden fees" that ISPs don't include in advertised plan prices.

It's worth noting that the labels will technically still exist, they will just be harder to find and won't be all that useful. Raza Panjwani, senior policy counsel at New America’s Open Technology Institute, refers to this as a political "two-step." He told CNET that the modus operandi here is to make the labels "less useful" and then say "Oh, look, it's not that useful. We should get rid of it."

Anna Gomez, the only Democrat on the commission, called the proposal "one of the most anti-consumer items I have seen" and expressed extreme displeasure with the results of the vote. “What adds insult to injury is that the FCC does not even explain why this proposal is necessary,” she said. “Make it make sense.”

Despite claims to the contrary by Brendan Carr and the current FCC, consumers actually like these labels. A 2024 study of nearly 5,000 broadband customers found an 85 percent satisfaction rate.

As an aside, Americans pay a lot for internet service when compared to many other countries throughout the world. We pay around twice as much as customers in Europe and most of Asia.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/big-tech/trumps-fcc-is-officially-moving-to-make-it-easier-for-internet-companies-to-charge-hidden-fees-155004909.html?src=rss

Perplexity signs deal to use Getty Images

Perplexity AI has agreed to a multi-year licensing partnership with Getty Images that will allow its users to access the latter’s extensive library of images. Leveraging Getty’s API, Perplexity will integrate the visual media distributor’s huge collection of stock and editorial imagery within its AI search and discovery tools, with correct attribution being a key part of the agreement.

In a press release, Getty said that Perplexity will be "making improvements on how it displays imagery, including image credit with link to source, to better educate users on how to use licensed imagery legally." As generative AI tools become more widely accessible, thorny issues around copyright and attribution have been the source of a number of lawsuits, no shortage of which have been targeted at Perplexity.

In August, the company was sued by two Japanese media groups, Nikkei and Asahi Shimbun, for allegedly copying and storing article content from the pair’s servers illicitly, as well as crediting them with inaccurate information Perplexity supplied. It was also one of four companies sued by Reddit earlier this month for allegedly using scraped data without the correct license. Even the dictionary has taken the AI company to court.

Getty itself has bumped up against AI many times on the road to its new deal with Perplexity. Back in 2022 the company outright banned AI-generated art on its platform due the legal murkiness around copyright, and it later sued the AI art tool Stable Diffusion over for allegedly copying and processing millions of protected images from its collection.

On the Perplexity agreement, Getty Images’ Vice President Strategic Development, Nick Unsworth, said that "partnerships such as this support AI platforms to increase the quality and accuracy of information delivered to consumers, ultimately building a more engaging and reliable experience."

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/ai/perplexity-signs-deal-to-use-getty-images-152343900.html?src=rss

How an Oregon court became the stage for a $115,000 showdown between Meta and Facebook creators

Some of the most successful creators on Facebook aren't names you'd ever recognize. In fact, many of their pages don't have a face or recognizable persona attached. Instead, they run pages dedicated to memes, animal videos and yes, AI-generated photos and videos.

The people behind these pages are experts at creating content that can catch Facebook's algorithm and go viral. Successful pages can generate tens of thousands of dollars a month from performance bonuses, revenue-sharing and other monetization programs that pay Facebook creators for popular content.

For years, Meta fostered this industry of viral content on Facebook. As the company transformed Facebook's main feed into a "discovery engine" of recommended posts from random pages and accounts, creators supplied a stream of content crafted for the algorithm. But over the last year, some creators say this dynamic has broken down. Meta has penalized creators for the very same content it once rewarded. Other creators have seen Facebook's payment systems break down due to glitches and other errors.

One creator has become so frustrated, he's filed dozens of lawsuits in small claims court against Meta over the last year. Some of those lawsuits are related to missing payments and account issues he's experienced, but he's also brought 23 cases related to other creators' Facebook pages. As several of those cases are now winding their way through small claims court, he hopes his actions will bring attention to what he says is a wider breakdown in Meta's relationship with Facebook creators.

The cases shine a light on how Meta's lack of human-centered customer service can impact creators who rely on the platform. But it also offers a glimpse into the volatile dynamics of viral Facebook content. 

Mel Bouzad is a former photojournalist for Getty Images who for the past eight years has made his living running popular Facebook pages with names like "The Meme Bros" and "FunkiestShitEver." He posts memes, travel content and AI-generated videos. Over the years, he's become an expert at figuring out what type of content is most likely to rack up views and comments on Facebook. 

"It's basically jumping on the trends as they're happening," he explains. "If you can jump on the trending topics right at the beginning, then you get the momentum, it kicks in the algorithm, and it sends your content viral. And if one post goes viral, the algorithm is going to send the next post viral, because it thinks the next post is going to get the same type of engagement." He's also learned little tricks for drawing more Facebook comments: adding a small error in a travel-focused listicle, or asking questions like "what's the most boring state in America?"

Example of recent posts from one of Bouzad's travel-themed pages on Facebook.
Example of recent posts from one of Bouzad's travel-themed pages on Facebook.

He estimates that at their peak, his pages collectively earned between $10,000 to $20,000 a month — primarily from performance bonuses and in-stream video ads — though they sometimes earned much more than that. Last September, 12 of his pages earned more than $68,0000 combined in performance bonuses, according to documents viewed by Engadget.  

But last year, five of his meme and travel pages were suddenly demonetized. The pages received a "monetization policy violation," a vague, catch-all term that can describe many supposed infractions. After some digging, he discovered they had been flagged for allegedly operating in a country ineligible for Meta's monetization programs. "To monetize, you must reside in an eligible country where the product or feature is available," a notice in the Facebook app said. "You may lose your ability to monetize if you move to an ineligible location or if Facebook changes product eligibility." Bouzad, who lives in the United States, assumed it was a misunderstanding and would be an easy fix.

But, like so many others, he quickly found that getting help from Meta was far from straightforward. "Despite 20+ support tickets and using paid support, I receive only automated replies," he later wrote in his first filing in small claims court last November. 

Bouzad had heard of people using small claims court to get Meta's attention and decided to try it for himself. "I thought, I'm going to go in and sue for only one page … something small, just to get in the door [and] speak to somebody." At that point, Meta was withholding $2,498 in payments from the page called "Man Cave USA," according to court documents. He requested Meta pay the outstanding balance, along with $409 to cover court fees and interest. 

His filing succeeded in getting a response from Meta. Bouzad said that about three weeks later he received a call from a law firm representing the social media company. After an extended back and forth, Meta eventually restored the page's ability to earn money. By February he officially dropped the case, telling the court that the company had "corrected the issue and remitted the payments owed." 

Meta's conflicting explanations

While he was dealing with that case, he tried to resolve the issues related to his other pages. Since he was still in mediation with Meta for his "Man Cave USA" page, he asked Meta's representatives if they could help with his other pages. He says that during a mediation session over Zoom, Meta's legal reps told him they wouldn't help with other pages unless they were tied to a lawsuit. 

So in February he opened six new small claims court cases against the company. At the time, he said, Meta owed him more than $40,000 in unpaid invoices from accounts that had been wrongfully flagged; $15,000 of which were earnings from a single Facebook page. Because small claims court limits damages to $10,000 per case, he could only sue for a combined $35,000, but hoped that Meta would reinstate the payments if it were to re-examine his accounts.

In the meantime, Bouzad continued to try to resolve his account issues through Meta's official support channels and received confusing, and sometimes downright conflicting, information. In one email, Meta support told him he had been flagged for "limited originality of content," but didn't explain. He also, again, received notifications saying that he was in a country that was "ineligible" for Meta's monetization programs. 

In two separate chats with Meta Verified, the social network's paid subscription service for customer support, he was informed that he was ineligible because his page was linked to a bank account in Malta. The representatives then closed the chats without giving him an opportunity to respond, according to screenshots viewed by Engadget. Bouzad was getting more and more frustrated. "One, I've never been to Malta, two, my bank is Wells Fargo and three, I live in Oregon," he says. 

A chat with Meta Verified support in which Bouzad was told his accounts were demonetized because his bank was based in Malta. Bouzad says he's only ever banked with Wells Fargo.
A chat with Meta Verified support in which Bouzad was told his accounts were demonetized because his bank was based in Malta. Bouzad says he's only ever banked with Wells Fargo.

He now sees his issues as part of a wider pattern from Meta. While the company had once provided him with a partner manager — a Facebook employee who could help sort out issues and provide advice — he hasn't had a dedicated contact at the company since 2020. 

To him, the problem is twofold: Meta has become overly reliant on artificial intelligence for content moderation, which results in too many errors. At the same time, he claims Meta has largely outsourced the customer service it does offer — like through Meta Verified — and these workers aren't able to handle the types of issues he and other creators increasingly encounter. 

Some creators who Bouzad has named in his lawsuits claim to have missed out on tens of thousands of dollars in payments for what they describe as glitches in Meta's processes. Brent, a creator who asked to be identified by his first name only, was running a successful Facebook page that posts history-themed AI-generated videos. One recent clip features a group of supposed German prisoners-of-war walking through the snow, accompanied by a caption claiming that some POWs chose to immigrate to Canada following the war after experiencing "humane treatment" from their captors. 

The page was doing well for a few months until April, when Meta asked Brent to verify his identity in order to keep receiving payments. His account had more than $11,000 in unpaid earnings at the time, according to documents reviewed by Engadget. 

Several months later, Brent has been unable to complete this seemingly mundane step, despite repeatedly providing Meta a copy of his ID. Brent says that the issue stems from Meta mistakenly classifying his payout account as a "private corporation" rather than a "personal account." He says he has spent thousands of dollars on Meta Verified (the highest tier costs $500 a month) and has opened numerous support cases but has not been able to get the issue resolved.

Another creator is stuck after encountering a similar issue that prevented him from confirming the tax information associated with his payout account on Facebook. "My payout earnings were locked due to non editable 'greyed out' details when it came to entering tax information and other fields," the creator explained. "After about a year of trying to get support Meta finally came back with an archaic form to transfer the payout account to a new one associated with my page." But, after filling out the form for the transfer, Meta informed him that the more than $16,000 in unpaid earnings from his page were unable to be transferred to a new account. 

The creator, who asked to remain anonymous, has spent more than a decade running music-related pages championing independent artists on the platform. "We're collectively sick of how Meta treats everyone, failing to provide adequate support, reasoning, reports and outcomes for content creators," he told Engadget. "There's little to no consistency or confidence in their ability to fairly reward creators." He's also battling stage 4 cancer, and says the missing funds have interfered with his treatment, and added to the stress he's already facing. His doctors recently informed him he likely has only a few months left to live; he's still hoping to recover the missing funds. 

Gaps in support

Social media is filled with numerous complaints about the ineffectiveness of Facebook's support tools, including Meta Verified. Daniel Abas, the president and founder of the Creators Guild of America, a nonprofit organization that advocates for creators, says that demonetization is a "chronic issue" affecting creators on many platforms, including Meta's. "What's really difficult is not having consistency in terms of the enforcement and having policies that are opaque, having appeals processes that are inconsistent," he said.

Abas says that creators, especially high-earning ones, should have more resources to get support from companies like Meta. "Working with a web chat to get something resolved, or submitting an email to get something resolved, and not having that human touch is a major gap, and contributes to a lot of stress and a lot of uncertainty when you're trying to build a company."

Meta has seemingly been changing some of the standards it has for creators on Facebook over the last year. The company in recent months began to crack down on creators sharing spammy and "low quality" content, though it only described a few specific examples of such activity, like pages that share posts with "long, distracting captions." The company does not prohibit creators from monetizing AI-generated content. In fact, Mark Zuckerberg recently said that Meta plans to add a "huge corpus" of AI content to its systems. 

Meta declined to provide a comment for this story. The company maintains Bouzad has violated its policies, and has argued his court cases involving other Facebook users should be dismissed. 

Bouzad insists that he has never intentionally violated Facebook's rules, and has grown frustrated with the company's changing explanations for why his pages have been demonetized. In an email with Meta Verified support, a customer service rep told him a recent violation for one of his travel pages was due to "Limited Originality of Contents," but didn't point to a specific post. During mediation, though, Meta's legal team claimed the same page had been generating views via "inauthentic engagement," according to documents reviewed by Engadget. Bouzad pushed back. "This wasn’t manipulation — it was performance-based exposure … we’re being punished for the very behavior the system rewarded," he wrote in an email to Meta's legal team. 

Bouzad says that Facebook consistently rewarded his posts with higher reach before it accused him of manipulating views.
Bouzad says that Facebook consistently rewarded his posts with higher reach before it accused him of manipulating views.

In documents reviewed by Engadget, Meta doesn't explain its allegation of inauthentic engagement. But the company did tell Bouzad it would be willing to pay him $5,000 — a fraction of what he claims to be owed — to settle the cases even though it was standing by its decision to demonetize his pages. Bouzad declined. He believes that Meta is unfairly targeting him and other creators who run high-earning Facebook pages. 

Bouzad says he's heard countless stories from other creators who have also been hit with vague "monetization page violations" that have stalled their payments. Much like he experienced, these account flags don't describe the supposed infraction and don't give an opportunity for an appeal. This, he says, leaves creators with few options outside of the legal system.

An unusual legal maneuver 

After filing his second batch of small claims court cases in February, he began to reach out to his network and started filing more cases. Bouzad is not a lawyer and has no legal training; he's relied on ChatGPT and Gemini to guide his legal strategy. Much of that strategy relies on showing that other creators have allowed him to sue on their behalf through a process known as an assignment of claims. He filed 25 such cases in 2025. 

Becoming a legal assignee is at best an unusual move for small claims court. Multiple legal experts contacted by Engadget said they had never heard of anyone doing so. "Normally, I don't think you see assigned claims in small claims [court]," Richard Slottee, a retired Oregon-based attorney, who has previously advised clients on small claims court cases. He said he was unsure of the legality of the move. 

Marion County Circuit Court Judge Lindsay Partridge, who is presiding over Bouzad's small claims court case, seems similarly perplexed by the issue. In an October 23 hearing, he said that "there are some type of claims that under Oregon law, an anti-assignment clause would not be enforceable" but that he was unsure if the statute would apply in this particular case. "I tried to do a bunch of research on this," he said "I just can't find an answer to it."

Meta, on the other hand, has argued that its terms of service clearly prohibit users from transferring their rights to other parties without its consent. "Based on the No Transfer Clause, this Court should not permit Mr. Bouzad to continue recruiting Facebook users from all over the world and flooding its docket with cases where he claims standing based on an invalid assignment," a Meta project manager wrote in a letter to the judge. During the hearing, Judge Partridge said he was "concerned" that "what I have is essentially a very technical legal issue that's being presented by two non-attorneys." He said he would need "a little bit more time" to make a decision on whether Bouzad could move forward as an assignee.

The group Bouzad is helping consists mainly of colleagues, friends and friends-of-friends who had heard about his small claims cases. And though a few of the individuals are people he's partnered with in the past, he says he has no financial stake in the success of their pages. "It's power in numbers, we felt the more people, the more noise we could make, the better the chances of getting issues resolved," Bouzad says. "They gave me their cases to try and get that help [to] force Facebook to fix their pages." But there's also a potentially lucrative payday for him if he succeeds. As an assignee, he has the sole right to collect any judgment that ultimately comes out of the other creator's claims. 

This Court should not permit Mr. Bouzad to continue recruiting Facebook users from all over the world and flooding its docket with cases where he claims standing based on an invalid assignment.A Meta project manager who is representing the company in small claims court
For some of the creators involved, the amount at stake is far higher than what Bouzad has claimed in his flings. One UK-based creator who has assigned their claim to Bouzad runs a dog-themed Facebook page that generated more than $60,000 from in-stream video ads during a one-month period last year, according to documents seen by Engadget. Like Bouzad, their page was hit with an unexplained "MPV" violation that has affected their reach. "Due to its original content and niche audience, the Facebook algorithm regularly rewards it with high reach and frequent placement in the recommendation feed," Bouzad wrote in a small claims court filing that claimed $1,000 in damages. "This natural visibility has now been unfairly disabled by Meta." 

Another creator, who asked not to be identified out of fear of retaliation from Meta, asked him to look into three of his Facebook pages, which collectively have more than 1.5 million followers. All three had been demonetized by Meta and, like Bouzad, the creator received conflicting explanations about why. 

He was told two of the pages were flagged for "limited originality" even though he told Engadget he only posts videos that are scripted and filmed by him and his business partners. His pages are dedicated to scripted sketches filmed to look like real-life encounters. They often show people in seemingly mundane situations becoming inexplicably angry, with descriptions like "Teacher Karen Demands to Know Why I’m Picking Up My Kid," or "I Gave Candy to Kids and Apparently That’s 'Wrong' Now."

The third page was hit with a "monetization page violation" for residing in an "ineligible country," despite the fact that, according to the creator, it was managed from the United States and the EU, both of which are eligible to participate in Meta's programs. Engadget has also verified the page manager locations using Facebook's page transparency information.

Bouzad filed two small claims court cases related to these three pages. The two that had been flagged for limited originality eventually had their monetization restored and the case was dismissed. "I think Mel's helping immensely," he told Engadget. "The fact that he got us the two pages back helped us as a business a lot." 

The second case, related to the page with the "MPV" flag, is still pending. The creator, who has worked with Bouzad in the past, says he's grateful for the legal help, but increasingly frustrated with Meta. The demonetized page was his highest-earning page, making between $3,000 - $5,000 a month from video ads on Facebook, according to documents filed as part of the small claims lawsuit. He doesn't understand why Meta continues to penalize it when the page posts similar content as his other accounts. "We've always been following the rules, because this is our business, it's how we pay the bills," he says. But, he says that Facebook's continued errors has made it "extremely difficult" to maintain a business as a creator. 

What's next 

Of the 32 cases Bouzad has filed, eight were resolved after Meta addressed the underlying issue. Nine cases were dismissed by Bouzad as the creators chose to pursue legal action in other states. Fifteen cases, including six related to Bouzad's own pages, are still open. In July, a judge consolidated Bouzad's remaining cases into a single claim, despite a motion from Bouzad to keep the cases separate. "The cases affected by this order involve identical parties, raise substantially similar claims, and collectively seek damages that exceed the jurisdictional limits of the small claims court," a judge wrote. Bouzad is currently seeking more than $115,0000 in damages, $35,000 of which are from his own pages, over unpaid invoices, filing fees and other expenses related to his months-long battle over Facebook's monetization practices. 

According to Bouzad, the actual amount owed to him and the other creators is far higher. "Actual unpaid earnings exceed $220,000," he wrote in a filing, "but amounts have been capped in accordance with small claims jurisdictional limits." 

For now, Bouzad's claims can't move forward until the judge rules on whether Bouzad can proceed as an assignee. If the judge decides in his favor, he will be able to make his arguments to the circuit court judge overseeing the case. If the judge rules in Meta's favor, he will only be able to move forward with the claims pertaining to his own Facebook pages. 

Bouzad says he is prepared for the fight. He has painstakingly compiled more than 1,000 pages of court documents, screenshots and news clippings for his case. In his filing, he alleges Meta is in breach of contract over the missing payments. He says Meta has consistently flagged creators' accounts with vague "MPV" violations, made enforcement errors, delayed payments and ignored appeals. He acknowledges that his months-long legal battle, and his reduced earnings, have taken a toll on his personal life. "Taking on Facebook, it's not like you're suing a mom and pop shop," he says. "You're suing one of the largest businesses in the world, and it has caused a lot of stress."

His goal is still to get the monetization restrictions lifted from the Facebook pages and for Meta to resume its payments to him and the other creators. "I just want the pages fixed and the money paid that's owed," he said. He has hundreds of travel videos saved and ready to post on his Facebook pages if and when his monetization is restored.

Have a tip for Karissa? You can reach her by email, on X, Bluesky, Threads, or send a message to @karissabe.51 to chat confidentially on Signal.


This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/social-media/how-an-oregon-court-became-the-stage-for-a-115000-showdown-between-meta-and-facebook-creators-150000952.html?src=rss

Google brings free Gemini access to India’s largest carrier

Google’s AI ambitions are global in scale, so much so that it has just agreed to give Gemini away for free in India to people using the country's biggest mobile provider. Thanks to a deal with Reliance Intelligence, an AI-focused subsidiary of Reliance Industries, people signed up to Jio’s Unlimited 5G plan will be offered Google AI Pro at no extra cost for 18 months.

That means that qualifying users will have access to Gemini 2.5 Pro, Google’s most advanced AI model. They will also benefit from higher limits for the Nano Banana and Veo 3.1 AI image and video generators, plus expanded access to NotebookLM. The plan also includes 2TB of cloud storage across Google’s apps, for a total combined worth of around 35,100 rupees ($396) per user.

The offer will initially be exclusive to Jio customers between the age of 18 and 25, but will eventually extend to all people on an eligible plan via the MyJio app. Jio is India's largest mobile network operator, and a company in which Google purchased a 7.7 percent stake worth $4.5 million in 2020.

India is fast becoming a key battleground for AI expansion. Back in July, Perplexity AI partnered with Bharti Airtel, Jio’s rival carrier, to offer a year-long Perplexity Pro subscription worth $200 to all of Airtel’s 360 million customers. OpenAI is also adopting an aggressive strategy in the country, recently debuting its cheapest ChatGPT subscription to date, at 390 rupee ($4.60), in India first. ChatGPT Go offers users 10 times more message limits, image generation and file uploads than the free version.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/ai/google-brings-free-gemini-access-to-indias-largest-carrier-130627625.html?src=rss

Samsung is using NVIDIA chips to build its new AI chip factory

NVIDIA has teamed up with with South Korea's biggest companies and the country itself, as they build out their AI infrastructure. One of those companies is Samsung, which is building a new AI factory that will use 50,000 NVIDIA Blackwell server GPUs and other NVIDIA technologies to make its own chips. This "AI-driven semiconductor manufacturing," as the companies call it, will help Samsung improve its processes, better predict maintenance needs and improve the efficiency of its autonomous operations. NVIDIA will help Samsung adapt its chipmaking lithography platform to work with its GPUs, and it will apparently result in 20 times greater performance for Samsung. 

Korean carmaker Hyundai will also use 50,000 NVIDIA Blackwell GPUs to develop its AI models for manufacturing and autonomous driving. Meanwhile, the SK Group conglomerate, which includes SK Telecom and DRAM and flash memory chip supplier SK Hynix, will use 50,000 NVIDIA Blackwell server chips to launch an industrial AI cloud. The facility, NVIDIA says, will power the "next generation of memory, robotics, digital twins and intelligent AI agents." As Bloomberg reports, NVIDIA CEO Jensen Huang, who's in South Korea for the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation CEO Summit, was recently photographed with Samsung's Jay Y. Lee and Hyundai’s Chung Euisun in a local restaurant. 

Finally, NVIDIA is working with the South Korean government for its sovereign AI infrastructure, or AI it will have control over. The Korean government will deploy 50,000 NVIDIA GPUs to the National AI Computing Center it's establishing, as well to facilities owned by local companies that include Kakao and Naver.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/ai/samsung-is-using-nvidia-chips-to-build-its-new-ai-chip-factory-130057773.html?src=rss

The Bose QuietComfort headphones drop to $199 in Best Buy’s Black Friday sale

The Bose QuietComfort headphones (the non-Ultra variety) are on sale. Best Buy's early Black Friday sale has the comfy cans for 45 percent off, knocking their price down to $199. That matches their record low from Prime Day.

Bose's headphones have top-notch comfort and active noise cancellation (ANC). For the latter, you can choose between "Quiet" (full ANC) and "Aware" (hear your surroundings) modes. There's also a wind-blocking feature. The headphones' audio, while not quite on par with the $449 Ultra variant (and missing spatial tricks), far surpasses what you'll typically find for $199.

The company estimates 24 hours of battery life. It also supports quick charging: Plug in its USB-C cable and get up to 2.5 hours of charge in only 15 minutes.

This model doesn't include an option to turn off ANC altogether, which some people may have appreciated. (That would have led to even more battery life, desirable for frequent travelers.) But if you're like me and always listen in ANC or aware modes, this is as solid a pick as you'll find for the sale price.

Best Buy has a bunch of other headphones on sale for Black Friday. Of note are the Bose Ultra open-ear buds for $100 off, and the Beats Studio Pro for $150 off.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/audio/headphones/the-bose-quietcomfort-headphones-drop-to-199-in-best-buys-black-friday-sale-124501906.html?src=rss

The best free VPNs in 2025

A good VPN is worth paying for. Almost every service I'll recommend as one of the best VPNs is either subscription-only or supported by paid plans. Free VPNs do have their place, though, as not everybody can afford yet another subscription in the software-as-a-service hellscape we live in. Since everyone deserves privacy and flexibility online, I wanted to put together a definitive list of the best free VPNs.

Now, some will say that free VPNs are, by definition, security risks that are to be avoided by default. That reputation exists because free VPNs often really are a risk. As proliferating age verification laws have created a need for VPNs, some free services have stepped up to answer the call, while others have taken advantage of it to spread malware. Free VPNs are easy for scammers to set up and hard for app stores to catch. I never recommend using one without doing thorough research.

To that end, the three providers on this list are exceptions to the risk of free VPNs. While they all have tradeoffs, they're also upfront about what they do and don't do. Each one comes with reliable security, a clean record of handling user data and apps that never force you to upgrade just so they'll work properly. They aren't the only good free VPNs, but they're the top three by far.

Editor's note: This list represents our ranking as of October 2025. We intend to revisit the list every three months at a minimum, at which time our picks may be adjusted based on changes in features, testing results and other factors.

The first three no-cost VPNs mentioned here are worthy of recommendation in their own ways, but didn't quite make the cut for our top picks. I've left notes on them here in case one of them turns out to be perfect for you, and because they're on my list for induction into the free VPN pantheon if they improve.

None of the above applies to Hotspot Shield, which you should not use. It's on here as a warning. You can find more details in that section below.

PrivadoVPN is a strong enough contender that I seriously considered adding it to the list as my fourth official recommendation. It's technically unlimited, though once you use 10GB of data, it sharply handicaps your speed for the rest of the month. Free users can choose between 13 server locations on four continents. It even performs well on worldwide latency tests, though download speeds swing pretty heavily.

That uncertain speed stat kept Privado out of the winner's circle, as did one other concern: although it has a clear and extensive privacy policy, it's never gone through a third-party audit. Additionally, it's a newer service, having only launched in 2019 — so it's harder to make claims about its business practices.

Finally, while hide.me, Windscribe and Proton VPN all retain their excellence on the paid plan, PrivadoVPN isn't as worth paying for. Outside the free plan, it's a decent VPN with no reason to pick it over Proton or ExpressVPN. That said, if it passes an audit — or faces a real-world test of its no-logs policy, like a server seizure — look for Privado to join the big leagues soon.

TunnelBear does free VPN service well — it just doesn't do enough. Trust me, I don’t take pleasure in criticizing its adorable, hole-digging bear mascot, which goes a long way toward making the app welcoming to beginners. I like that its free plan offers access to the entire server network, the only VPN that does so.

But the hard fact is that 2GB of data per month is not enough to do much of anything. With such a low data limit, TunnelBear's free plan is an enticement to upgrade to its paid service, not a viable VPN solution in its own right. That really is a good bear, though.

EventVPN, developed by the ExpressVPN team, was launched a month ago and could one day become an outstanding free VPN. However, given its bizarre decision to run ads in the app, I can't endorse it right now.

Were EventVPN not associated with ExpressVPN or Kape Technologies, I might defend its decision to show ads by pointing out that all ad tracking data is anonymized — there isn't even a backend in which to store it. That might be a decent way to fund a full-featured free VPN. But EventVPN is openly part of a lucrative VPN portfolio, and has its own paid tier, so there's no excuse for the 30-second video ads.

Hotspot Shield was once the poster child for free VPNs; today, it's become one of the clearest illustrations of why they're dangerous. You get 500MB of browsing data per day, which is reasonable, on par with Windscribe's best offer. However, not only does the free version cap speeds at 2 Mbps, but it also restricts you to one location, the United States.

Worse, it shows you ads. Unlike EventVPN, which at least limits itself to ads from a single service, Hotspot Shield lists no fewer than eight ad coordinators in its privacy policy. One of them is Meta, which you should never, ever trust with any sensitive data. I can't name a better textbook example of "if the product is free, you're the product."

Selecting a VPN is hard enough with all the competition out there, but with a free VPN, the stakes are even higher. Free VPNs are all over the place, and app stores don't vet them effectively. You're left on your own to determine whether a free VPN is mediocre, exploitative or even a straight-up malware vector.

My top three recommendations — hide.me, Windscribe and Proton VPN — are clean. If you choose to use another one, here are the red flags to consider.

Security: First, make absolutely certain the free VPN isn't a threat to your security. Research it to see if any experts have warned against it, and check to make sure it uses known and approved encryption protocols (OpenVPN, WireGuard, IKEv2 or an equivalent). If you have an antivirus program, download the VPN in sandbox mode so you can scan it while it's quarantined.

Privacy: Read the free VPN's privacy policy in detail to see if it claims any liberties with your personal data. As a rule, never use an "ad-supported" free VPN, since almost all ad services track users for targeted campaigns. Other free services, like Hola VPN, make money by selling user IP addresses as residential proxies. Be alert for any indication that the VPN will profit off your personal data.

Usage requirements: If you've determined a free VPN is safe and secure, your next step is to make sure you'll be able to use it for the tasks you have in mind. Most reputable free VPNs are limited in some way. Match the restrictions to what you need; for example, if you want a free VPN for streaming, pick one without data caps that lets you choose your own server location.

Speed: Even if it meets the minimum requirements of safety and privacy, a free VPN still needs to meet the same criteria as any paid service. Mainly, it's got to be fast. With the free VPN active, run speed tests using Ookla in several locations. On average, it shouldn't reduce your unprotected download speed by more than 25 percent.

Customer service: Some otherwise full-featured free VPNs skimp on customer service, restricting live help to paid users. Even Proton VPN is guilty of this. If you're a beginner or think you're going to need extra help, make sure to pick a free VPN with a well-written knowledgebase and available tech support.

Let's finish up with some of the free VPN questions we get most often. Leave a comment if you'd like me to answer one I haven't gotten to yet.

A free VPN is a virtual private network that's available to individual users at no cost. They generally take the form of desktop and mobile apps downloaded through websites or app stores. You can use them to filter your internet connection through another server, changing your virtual location and hiding what you do online.

Most people use free VPNs to make it appear that they're getting online from somewhere else. This gets around restrictions on internet usage in certain jurisdictions, like China's "Great Firewall" or the UK's age verification laws. It can also be used to stream TV shows and events that aren't available in the user's home region.

While free VPNs aren't inherently dangerous, the use case and underlying business model makes them an easy vector for unscrupulous companies to take advantage of vulnerable users. It's easy for a malicious actor to set one up quickly and get it hosted on an app store. Likewise, the people who download free VPNs tend to need them urgently and may not look too closely at what they're putting on their phones or computers.

As a rule of thumb, you should approach a free VPN with extreme caution. If it's not on our recommended list above, we'd suggest avoiding it. In general, it's almost always safer to seek out VPNs that support their free versions with paid subscriptions, since they don't need to make money under the table. But any VPN – or other digital service – that's put forward as totally free puts us in mind of the old adage about gambling: If you can't spot the sucker at the table, it's probably you.

I've rated hide.me as the best free VPN. Its free service gives you a lot to work with — seven free locations and a data cap that doesn't really apply in practice. It's also just as secure and trustworthy as its paid version, without skimping on anything important.

Yes — in fact, there are more free VPNs on mobile app stores than almost anywhere else. All three of my top picks (hide.me, Windscribe and Proton VPN) have apps for both iOS and Android, and nearly every other free VPN works on at least one mobile platform.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/cybersecurity/vpn/best-free-vpn-120032818.html?src=rss