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

YouTube TV loses ESPN, ABC and other Disney channels

Disney's channels have gone dark on YouTube TV after the companies failed to reach an agreement by their October 30 deadline. The affected channels include ESPN, local ABC stations, ABC News, FX, NatGeo, Disney Channel and Freeform. "Last week Disney used the threat of a blackout on YouTube TV as a negotiating tactic to force deal terms that would raise prices on our customers," YouTube said in an announcement on its blog. "They’re now following through on that threat, suspending their content on YouTube TV." YouTube added that Disney's decision harms its subscribers while benefiting its own live TV products, such as Hulu+Live TV and Fubo.

In a statement sent to the Los Angeles Times, however, Disney accused Google's YouTube TV of choosing to deny "subscribers the content they value most by refusing to pay fair rates for [its] channels, including ESPN and ABC." Disney also accused Google of using its market dominance to "eliminate competition and undercut the industry-standard terms" that other pay-TV distributors have agreed to pay for its content. YouTube TV lost access to Disney channels back in 2021, but they were immediately able to strike a deal that restored the channels the very next day. The companies are most likely still trying to negotiate at the moment, but Google says it will offer subscribers a $20 credit if Disney channels remain offline for an extended period of time. 

Google has had to make several similar announcements over the past year. In February, YouTube TV almost lost Paramount content, including CBS, CBS Sports and Nickelodeon, before reaching a last-minute deal. The same thing happened in August with Fox. More recently, Google and NBCUniversal also came to an agreement at the eleventh hour, though YouTube TV lost access to Univision, the largest Spanish-language broadcaster in the US.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/entertainment/youtube/youtube-tv-loses-espn-abc-and-other-disney-channels-113026329.html?src=rss

Engadget Podcast: Would you trust a terrifying home robot?

Home robots are moving way beyond Roombas. 1X unveiled its NEO helper bot this week, a terrifying $20,000 machine that can perform basic tasks after you've trained it, and more complex tasks via teleoperation. In this episode, Devindra and Engadget's Igor Bonafacic try to figure out why 1X made the Neo look like a murderbot, as well as the future they see for home robots. Also, we discuss last week's AWS outage and our over-reliance on a single cloud provider, as well as Apple's rumored push for OLED devices in 2026.   

Devindra also what’s with John Gearty, a former Apple Vision Pro engineer, about the state of Apple’s headset and the world of XR.

Subscribe!

Topics

  • Interview with John Gearty, former Apple Vision Pro engineer and founder of PulseJet Studios – 1:30

  • Robotics company 1X announces Neo, a $20k home assistant that might become autonomous…someday – 33:05

  • Amazon says automation bug caused AWS outage – 45:11

  • NVIDIA is the first company in history to hit a $5T market cap – 50:55

  • OpenAI finishes reorganization that paves path for future IPO – 55:21

  • U.S. Customs and Border Protection announces plan to photograph non-citizens entering the country for facial recognition – 1:08:45

  • Around Engadget: Billy Steele’s Echo Studio 2025 review – 1:17:25

  • Working on – 1:19:39

  • Pop culture picks – 1:22:07

Credits

Host: Devindra Hardawar
Guest: John Gearty
Producer: Ben Ellman
Music: Dale North and Terrence O'Brien

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/mobile/smartphones/engadget-podcast-would-you-trust-a-terrifying-home-robot-113000179.html?src=rss

The Morning After: Xbox console revenue fell off a cliff this year

Microsoft’s latest earnings report for the quarter ending on September 30 revealed that revenue from the Xbox hardware fell 30 percent year over year.

Worse, in a way, this revenue decline doesn’t reflect any dip in sales caused by the console’s $20 to $70 price hike, since that took effect on October 3 — after this earnings report. (Oh, and Microsoft raised the price for its Game Pass Ultimate subscription from $20 to $30 in October.)

Fortunately, revenue from Xbox content and services, specifically, remained relatively unchanged from the same period last year. That’s the Game Pass component of Microsoft’s gaming business.

When Microsoft started cutting down its global workforce earlier this year, Xbox was hit hard, with the company canceling games, like a modern reimagining of Perfect Dark, and even shutting the Xbox studio working on it.

More broadly, Microsoft’s revenue is up, with CEO Satya Nadella posting a few highlights about the company’s earnings call on X, which mostly focused on AI. He said the company will increase its AI capacity by 80 percent this year.

— Mat Smith

Get Engadget's newsletter delivered direct to your inbox. Subscribe right here!


TMA
1X

Just in time for your Halloween nightmares, here comes Neo. From California-based AI and robotics company 1X, it’s designed to deal with everyday chores and tasks.

But not out of the box. At launch, it’ll be able to open doors, fetch items and turn lights on and off. More complicated tasks will require a human teleoperator to control the robot remotely, training the Neo to repeat the task. Horror movie premise? Tick.

1X CEO Bernt Børnich explained that the AI neural network inside the Neo has to learn from more real-world experiences. To do so, buyers will have to agree to a human operator seeing their houses through the robot’s camera, judging their cleanliness levels and interior decor decisions. (Probably.)

Continue reading.


TMA
Netflix

Three and a half years since season four of Stranger Things premiered, we get a true trailer for the fifth and final season. As Lawrence Bonk notes, it appears that the conclusion of the series will be an action-packed affair, heavy on emotion and light on the type of ’80s humor the show became known for. Poor Will, he’s getting some of the worst of it, again.

Watch here. 


Halloween is almost over, so it’s time to assess the entire year, buy holiday presents and generally pretend there aren’t two whole months before the end of 2025. So we have compiled a list of the best gear we reviewed this year based on the highest review scores in each category. From Pixel to iPad and Switch 2 to Sony WH-1000XM6, our reviews team has spent thousands of hours testing new products this year to discover the best of the best. These are those! I ended up buying five of them — is that enough to keep my job?

Continue reading.


If you’re a former Mint user (RIP), Monarch Money is a great alternative. Monarch has a steeper learning curve than some other budget trackers, but it offers a great deal of customization and granularity, which outweighs the complexity. If you use the code MONARCHVIP at checkout, you can get an annual plan for 50 percent off. Some caveats, though: The discount is only for new users, and you can’t combine it with other offers. The code only works when you sign up through the web.

Continue reading.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/general/the-morning-after-xbox-revenue-fell-2025-111525578.html?src=rss

Dodgers vs. Blue Jays, Game 7 tonight: How to watch the 2025 MLB World Series without cable

The World Series is headed to a Game 7 after the Los Angeles Dodgers tied up the series against the Toronto Blue Jays last night, 3-3. The Fall Classic remains on Toronto's home turf for Game 7 tonight — Saturday, Nov. 1 — at 8PM ET/5PM PT. The World Series odds still favor the Dodgers. The final 2025 MLB World Series game will air on Fox and Fox Deportes. 

Of course, Fox is a "free" over-the-air channel, so any affordable digital antenna will pull in the game if you live close enough to a local affiliate. But if that's not an option, here's a full rundown of how to watch the Dodgers vs. Blue Jays World Series, even without cable.

You can stream Fox on any live TV streaming service that airs Fox local stations, including DirecTV, Fubo and Hulu + Live TV. MLB World Series games will also be available on Fox's new streaming platform, Fox One.

Game 7 of the Dodgers vs. Blue Jays World Series is tonight, Nov. 1 at 8PM ET/5PM PT. 

The 2025 World Series between the Los Angeles Dodgers and the Toronto Blue Jays, will air on Fox and Fox Deportes.

Game 7 of the World Series between the Dodgers and Blue Jays is scheduled for Nov. 1, 2025.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/entertainment/streaming/dodgers-vs-blue-jays-game-7-tonight-how-to-watch-the-2025-mlb-world-series-without-cable-102530975.html?src=rss

The best projector for a home theater in 2026

To see a film the way the creators intended, you really need a projector. A good one can show a bright, sharp image up to 250 inches in size for an immersive experience that no TV can match — and usually at a much lower price. Plus, they’re great for immersive gaming with consoles and PCs.

Thanks to companies like Anker and Valerion, projectors are starting to be seen as a must-have item for cinephiles and outdoor party screenings alike. That means there are a wide variety of choices, ranging from classic ceiling-mounted models to battery-powered projectors you can take on a camping trick. You can also choose from dozens of ultra short throw (UST) models for a more TV-like installation.

But compared to TVs, projectors remain a bit more confusing for a majority of buyers. This guide will fill you in on important details to consider like brightness, type (classic, portable and ultra short throw) and other factors to help you choose the best model for your setup.

Some projectors are for serious cinephiles, projecting sharp 4K video with HDR brightness and hyper realistic colors to a large screen. Others are bright enough to replace your TV for sports or gaming, and some low-cost portable models can be set up for camping or outdoor fun. That’s why we’ve divided this guide into several categories to help you find the right one.

For a deep dive on projector technology check my previous explainer, but there are few key things to keep in mind. What will the projector mainly be used for? What type of room will it be used in? And how big of an image do you want? You’ll also see a variety of specifications that may be confusing, so here are a few to consider and what they mean.

Brightness is measured in ANSI lumens; the brighter the projector, typically the more expensive it will be. 1,500-2,500 lumens is good for darkened rooms, 3,000-4,000 lumens allows you to see with some ambient light and 4,000+ lumens is bright enough to use in direct sunlight. High contrast is important for detail, because projectors are more sensitive to things like ambient light and reflections.

Laser projectors offer the most brightness and they are entering the mainstream with models costing well under $2,000. Below that, you’re looking at projectors with bulbs. Aside from brightness, laser projectors have an advantage in that the light source lasts 10,000 hours or more, compared to 2,000 hours maximum for bulb projectors.

Digital light processing units (DLPs) used by Optoma, BenQ, LG and others allow bright 4K images. The negative is that they can produce a “rainbow” effect, or red/blue/green artifacts that affect some viewers more than others. LCDs are used mainly by Epson, but also Sony and Sanyo. Those are often brighter, more color accurate and don’t produce rainbow effects, but are also more expensive and susceptible to image degradation over time.

If you want a true 4K projector, beware: only expensive models have native 4K resolution (many movie theaters still use 2K projectors for various reasons). However, most DLP projectors and some LCD models can use pixel-shifting to attain 4K resolution.

Projectors can’t produce anywhere close to the amount of light required to qualify as true HDR. Rather, they use a technique called tone mapping to fit the entire HDR gamut into a lower brightness range. That said, many projectors can display millions of colors, with some models surpassing the color accuracy of TVs and monitors.

Classic projectors and screens can be mounted on the ceiling so they’re great if you have no floor space. They can also project a larger video for a truly cinematic experience. UST projectors mount on the floor right next to the screen so they can take the place of a TV. They don’t beam as big an image but are generally brighter, sharper and more expensive. For best results, they require special screens.

Elite Starling motorized screen
Elite Starling

Ceiling mounting requires some work and don’t forget to budget for a bracket and any necessary long cables, including extra power for a Google Chromecast or other streaming device. UST projectors require less labor, but getting the image perfectly square can still be surprisingly time-consuming. As for fan noise, some projectors (usually cheaper DLP models) generate more than others.

For more flexibility with location and image size, ceiling mounted projectors need a good zoom range. Lens shift, meanwhile, is used if the projector is mounted higher or lower relative to the screen than recommended by the manufacturer. Otherwise, you might have to use a "keystone correction" to digitally stretch part of the image, resulting in distortion or artifacts. Also, keystore correction may not work in gaming modes for some models.

If you’re interested in a projector for gaming, look up the refresh rate and input lag figures. Some projectors offer good numbers in that regard (240Hz and <20 ms, respectively), but others designed for home entertainment have very poor input lag and refresh rates at just 60 Hz. If it’s streaming you want, be sure to pick a model either with built-in Google TV or a bundled streaming dongle.

Should you project onto a wall, roll-down screen, fixed screen or ambient light rejecting (ALR) screen? The choice depends largely on the room and what kind of projector you have. Roll down screens take up no space as they’re ceiling mounted, fixed screens can be moved easily and ALR models are perfect in rooms with a lot of ambient light.

Yes, because higher resolution is more noticeable on larger screens, so 4K is particularly useful with projectors since they beam images up to 200 inches in size. That being said, brightness and contrast are more important.

Projectors can provide a more immersive experience thanks to the large screen, but they’re not necessarily “better.” Since you usually have to dim the lights with a projector, TVs are superior for everyday use.

Yes, 2000 lumens is easily bright enough, even with some ambient light in the room. However, the image will still be hard to see with the windows open on a bright day.

That depends on your budget and needs. If your budget is below $1,000, look for a 1080p projector with the best brightness and contrast. Between $1,000-$2,000, you’ll need to weigh whether brightness or 4K resolution is most important. Above that, choose the brightest 4K projector you can afford.

The best projectors in daylight are ultra short throw (UST) models, as they have the brightest and sharpest image. However, they generally cost more than $2,000.

Technically, you don’t need a screen to use a projector — any light-colored, smooth wall can work in a pinch. But if you want to get the most out of your projector, a screen can make a difference. Projector screens are designed to reflect light evenly and enhance contrast, so colors look more vibrant and the picture appears sharper. With a screen, you’ll notice darker blacks and brighter colors, which can give a real boost to your movie nights or gaming sessions. So while you can absolutely enjoy a projector without one, a screen can make the experience feel a bit more like your own personal theater.

It depends on how and where you plan to use it. If you want a projector you can easily move around, bring to friends’ houses or set up indoors or outdoors easily, a portable projector is a great choice. They’re usually smaller, lightweight and often have built-in speakers and batteries, making them convenient for on-the-go use.

On the other hand, if you’re looking for a more permanent setup for a home theater or living room, a home projector might be the way to go. Home projectors tend to be more powerful, with higher resolution and brightness, which gives you that crisp, cinema-quality experience. They’re ideal if you have a dedicated space and don’t mind leaving it set up in one spot.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/home/home-theater/best-projectors-123004354.html?src=rss