Rockstar Games accused of union busting in the UK

Rockstar Games, developer of Grand Theft Auto VI, has been accused of deliberately laying off employees who were trying to unionize, Bloomberg reports. The Independent Workers Union of Great Britain (IWGB) claims over 30 employees who were eliminated at the developer’s offices in the UK and Canada were either already part of a union or attempting to organize.

“Rockstar has just carried out the most blatant and ruthless act of union busting in the history of the games industry,” IWGB President Alex Marshall said in a blog post about the layoffs. “This flagrant contempt for the law and for the lives of the workers who bring in their billions is an insult to their fans and the global industry.” 

Besides the disruption of having to find a new job, the union notes that several employees who were let go are particularly vulnerable. “Amongst the staff dismissed were those with visas sponsored by Rockstar and those with medical conditions who will lose access to essential workplace healthcare schemes,” the union says. It adds that “all of those dismissed at Rockstar UK were members of the IWGB Game Workers Union discord channel, and appear to have been targeted for this reason.” In response to the IWGB’s claims, Rockstar’s publisher and owner Take-Two Interactive told Bloomberg that the layoffs had nothing to do with union activity and instead were “for gross misconduct, and for no other reason.”

Rockstar and Take-Two have come into conflict with employees in the past over their return-to-office policy. Take-Two also laid off staff across multiple studios in 2024 and 2025, potentially motivated by the decision to push back the release of Grand Theft Auto VI to 2026. The game is expected to be a massive hit for the company and the wider industry, which is part of the reason why the IWGB believes the layoffs are motivated by something other than financials.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/gaming/rockstar-games-accused-of-union-busting-in-the-uk-221004334.html?src=rss 

Bluesky experiments with dislikes and ‘social proximity’ to improve conversations

Bluesky is adding a dislike button as a way to signal the kind of posts you don’t want to see in your Discover feed. The experiment is part of several new ideas Bluesky is exploring to a improve conversations on its platform.

The new experiments Bluesky is running are primarily built around the notion of “social proximity.” The company says it’s aiming to build a system that maps your place in a “social neighborhood” of “people you already interact with or would likely enjoy knowing.” By prioritizing replies and posts from the people in your general “neighborhood,” the company believes it can make conversations “feel more relevant, familiar, and less prone to misunderstandings.” Following that logic, the beta test of the dislike button (which sounds private, rather than public-facing) will “help the system understand what kinds of posts you’d prefer to see less of,” but could also affect reply rankings in your threads and in the threads of other people in your social neighborhood. 

The social platform already offers a way to limit replies to only people who follow you, as Bluesky CTO Paul Frazee noted in a recent post, but the company doesn’t “want to make that the only option.” Bluesky is also experimenting with adjusting how the Reply button works by making you see the whole thread first when you tap the button, rather than dumping straight into a new blank post. Combined with a new model for detecting bad replies, the company thinks it’ll improve the general social climate.

Charitably, these tweaks sound like another way Bluesky is trying to give users more control over what they see on the platform, in the same way it does with things like notifications. Less charitably, you could read the “social neighborhood” concept as a way to entrench users in their “filter bubble” rather than address larger moderation issues.

Recently, Bluesky has been criticized by users for failing to remove the accounts of people who allegedly violate the company’s community guidelines. Ensconced in a social neighborhood, those critics wouldn’t necessarily see offensive posts, nor would a poster see their critics. That might lead to less conflict overall, but it could also impact more productive forms of disagreement in the process.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/social-media/bluesky-experiments-with-dislikes-and-social-proximity-to-improve-conversations-205226194.html?src=rss 

How to cancel or pause your YouTube TV subscription

While YouTube TV is Engadget’s pick for the best live TV streaming service, it isn’t for everyone, especially right now. Google and Disney’s ongoing carriage dispute means subscribers don’t have access to channels like ABC and ESPN, and recent price hikes means paying for YouTube TV now costs a minimum of $83 a month. 

Whether you’ve switched to another service to hold on to your favorite channels or just want to save some money, there’s ample reasons to cancel or pause your subscription right now. Here’s what you should know about cancelling or pausing your YouTube TV subscription.

How to cancel your subscription on mobile and web

The process for canceling your YouTube TV subscription is the same whether you’re doing it inside the YouTube TV app or from a web or mobile browser, provided you’re paying Google directly for access.

Open the YouTube TV website or app.

Tap or click on your profile photo.

Select Settings (represented by the gear icon).

Then, select Membership.

Select Manage.

Then select Cancel membership, and then Cancel to confirm your cancellation.

Your subscription is now cancelled and you’ll be able to enjoy access to live TV until the end of your current payment period. Any shows or movies you’ve recorded will be saved in your account for 21 days, after which they’ll be deleted. In a support article, Google says it’ll also save your preferences in case you want to resubscribe and start recording content again. The company “may store limited info (such as your home zip code)” for fraud prevention purposes, as well.

If you got your YouTube TV subscription through your mobile carrier or internet provider, the process will vary, but in that case, you’ll have to cancel through them rather than Google.

How to pause your subscription on mobile and web

If you’d prefer to just take a break from paying for YouTube TV, you can also pause your subscription for anywhere from four weeks to six months.

Open the YouTube TV website or app.

Tap or click on your profile photo.

Select Settings (represented by the gear icon).

Then, select Membership.

Select Manage.

Use the on-screen slider to choose how long you want to pause payments for.

Select Pause.

Once you’ve paused your subscription, you’ll be able to access YouTube TV until the end of your current billing period, after which you’ll lose access and won’t be charged until the pause is over. Once your chosen amount of time has passed, your subscription will renew automatically. At any point during your pause you can resume using YouTube TV again, provided you’re willing to pay. While there’s no way to extend a pause, you do have the option to pause again once your billing restarts.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/entertainment/streaming/how-to-cancel-or-pause-your-youtube-tv-subscription-192023656.html?src=rss 

DJI’s Neo 2 selfie drone has LiDAR for obstacle avoidance

DJI just announced the Neo 2 selfie drone, a follow-up to last year’s original. This upgraded model includes a whole lot of new features. Just make sure to set DJI’s website to Hong Kong/China to see images and specs. 

Perhaps the biggest upgrade here is the inclusion of LiDAR sensors for obstacle avoidance. The LiDAR is paired with downward-looking infrared sensors so it should be much safer as the drone follows you during flight. It still has integrated guards to protect the propellers, but the new obstacle avoidance system adds some more peace of mind.

The drone also now allows for gesture controls, which is handy when filming quickly-moving selfie videos. Users can adjust position and distance by moving their hands around. It still supports motion controllers and DJI’s RC-N3 remote controller.

DJI

The max speed has been increased to nearly 27MPH, which is much faster than the original’s follow speed. DJI told The Verge that the drone is better at handling difficult weather conditions, as it can maintain a stable hover in winds up to around 24MPH.

The battery life is better, with a larger 1606mAh rechargeable battery that gets up to 19 minutes of use per charge. The original got around 14 to 17 minutes per charge. The camera now uses a dual-axis gimbal for improved stability, though has the same half-inch sensor of the original. However, the field of view has been widened and it can capture 4K footage at up to 60FPS. This goes up to 100FPS when the drone is being piloted manually.

The internal storage has been boosted all the way up to 49GB, from 22GB. All of these upgrades have made the drone slightly heavier than the original, at 151 grams compared to 135 grams. If the battery life and speed are better, then the added weight doesn’t really matter in my eyes.

The bad news? The Neo 2 is currently only available in China. We called the original “the best $200 drone ever made” so we hope DJI goes for a wider release as soon as possible. The good news? The price should remain relatively similar, as it costs 1,499 Chinese Yuan. This translates to $211 in US dollars. However, we have no idea how or if tariffs will impact this pricing.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/cameras/djis-neo-2-selfie-drone-has-lidar-for-obstacle-avoidance-174700215.html?src=rss 

Are you a YouTube TV subscriber looking for ESPN and ABC? Here are your options

SOPA Images via Getty Images

If you’re a YouTube TV subscriber, you may have noticed that ABC, ESPN and other Disney-owned channels have gone dark on the platform today. The Walt Disney Co. has pulled its channels from YouTube TV as of midnight on Oct. 30 after the two companies failed to reach new terms on their latest carriage agreement.

That means that until that negotiation is resolved, you won’t be able to watch any programming from those stations. That includes all upcoming college football and NFL games broadcast on ESPN’s suite of channels —including Monday Night Football — as well as all ABC programming like Abbott Elementary, Grey’s Anatomy and Dancing with the Stars.

YouTube TV has stated that if Disney’s channels remain off the platform for an extended period, customers will receive a $20 monthly credit. That’s all fine and good, but if you’re looking to watch one of those upcoming games, you’re likely looking for a solution as soon as Friday night. The good news is that there are plenty of ways to get those channels back. If you want a permanent switch from YouTube TV, there’s Hulu + Live TV, DirecTV, or Fubo, where you can watch all of those channels. If you’re looking for a workaround for this weekend (or for the long term) to watch ESPN, the Disney Channel, ABC and more, here’s are the best options so you won’t miss a moment of sports, news, or entertainment, all pulled from our list of best live TV streaming services to cut cable

Grab an ESPN bundle so you won’t miss a single game this weekend

Get Hulu + Live TV at a great price

Try Fubo free for a week and get $30 your first month

Try DirecTV free for 5 days, and get $30 off your first month

What about Sling “day passes”?

You may have heard that Sling offers day, weekend and week passes to its streaming programming for as little as $5 per day. That is an option if you’re looking for just some of the ESPN channels (the Sling Orange tier), but ABC isn’t included. You can get both with Sling’s Orange and Blue package ($30 a month to start, $61 thereafter), but you’ll need to add on the Sports Extra package for ESPNU, which requires an additional charge. 

Get your local Disney/ABC programming for free

Need your local ABC programming? Your station may have its own free local streaming news channel (many do), you can see if The Roku Channel carries your local station’s news, or download your local news station app if it’s a Nexstar channel. 

The other alternative — if you’re within the broadcast radius of a local ABC affiliate — is to get an over-the-air antenna. You can plug in your ZIP code at antennaweb.org to see what channels are in your area. This off-brand unit has worked very well in our initial testing — it’s under $30, and the channels are truly free. 

What games are on ESPN/ABC this weekend?

If you’re wondering what games you might miss as a result of the YouTubeTV/Disney blackout, here’s a list of NCAAF games that will be broadcast this weekend on ABC or on one of ESPN’s many channels, and don’t forget about Monday Night Football on ESPN/ABC, too.

Friday, Oct. 31

7PM ET | No. 25 Memphis at Rice | ESPN2
7PM ET | Brown at Penn | ESPNU
7:30PM ET | North Carolina at Syracuse | ESPN
10:30PM ET | Idaho at Northern Arizona | ESPN2

Saturday, Nov. 1

12PM ET | No. 9 Vanderbilt at No. 20 Texas | ABC
12PM ET | No. 10 Miami (Fla.) at SMU | ESPN
12PM ET | Duke at Clemson | ACC Network
12PM ET | UCF at Baylor | ESPNU
12PM ET | Navy at North Texas | ESPN2
3:30PM ET | No. 5 Georgia vs. Florida (in Jacksonville, Fla.) | ABC
3:30PM ET | No. 12 Notre Dame at Boston College | ESPN
3:30PM ET | Pitt at Stanford | ACC Network
3:45PM ET | No. 15 Virginia at Cal | ESPN2
4PM ET | Mississippi State at Arkansas | SEC Network
4PM ET | Central Michigan at Western Michigan | ESPNU
7PM ET | South Carolina at No. 7 Ole Miss | ESPN
7:30PM ET | No. 8 Georgia Tech at NC State | ESPN2
7:30PM ET | No. 18 Oklahoma at No. 14 Tennessee | ABC
7:30PM ET | Kentucky at Auburn | SEC Network
7:30PM ET | Wake Forest at Florida State | ACC Network
8PM ET | Arkansas State at Troy | ESPNU

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/entertainment/streaming/are-you-a-youtube-tv-subscriber-looking-for-espn-and-abc-here-are-your-options-173330155.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 

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 

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.

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.

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.

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 courtFor 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 

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 

Generated by Feedzy
Exit mobile version