Six years ago, when San José author Katie Keridan joined Disney+, the cost was $6.99 a month, giving her family access to hundreds of movies like “The Lion King” and thousands of TV episodes, including Star Wars series “The Mandalorian,” with no commercials.

But since then, the price of an ad-free streaming plan has ballooned to $18.99 a month. That was the last straw for 42-year-old Keridan, whose husband canceled Disney+ last month.

“It was getting to where every year, it was going up, and in this economy, every dollar matters, and so we really had to sit down and take a hard look at how many streaming services are we paying for,” Keridan said. “What’s the return on enjoyment that we’re getting as a family from the streaming services? And how do we factor that into a budget to make sure that all of our bills are paid at the end of a month?”

It’s a conversation more people who subscribe to streaming services are having amid an uncertain economy.

Once sold at discounted rates, many platforms have raised prices at a clip consumers say frustrates them. The entertainment companies, under pressure from investors to bolster profits, have justified upping the cost of their plans to help pay for the premium content they provide. But some viewers aren’t buying it.

Customers are paying $22 more for subscription video streaming services than they were a year ago, according to consulting firm Deloitte. As of October, U.S. households on average shelled out $70 a month, compared with $48 a year ago, Deloitte said.

About 70% of consumers surveyed last month said they were frustrated the entertainment services that they subscribe to are raising prices and about a third said they have cut back on subscriptions in the last three months due to financial concerns, according to Deloitte.

“There’s a frustration, just in terms of both apathy, but also from a perspective that they just don’t think it’s worth the monthly subscription cost because of just fatigue,” said Rohith Nandagiri, managing director at Deloitte Consulting LLP.

Disney+ has raised prices on its streaming service nearly every year since it launched in 2019 at $6.99 a month. The company bumped prices on ad-free plans by $1 in 2021, followed by $3 increases in 2022 and 2023, a $2 price raise in 2024 and, most recently, a $3 increase this year to $18.99 a month.

Disney isn’t the only streamer to raise prices. Other companies, including Netflix, HBO Max and Apple TV also hiked prices on many of their subscription plans this year.

Some analysts say streamers are charging more because many services are adding live sports, the rights to which can cost millions of dollars. Streaming services for years have also given consumers access to big budget TV shows and original movies, and as production costs rise, they expect viewers to pay more, too.

But some consumers like Keridan have a different perspective. As much as some streaming platforms are adding new content like live sports, they are also choosing not to renew some big budget shows like “Star Wars: The Acolyte.” Keridan, a Marvel and Star Wars fan, said she mainly watched Disney+ for movies such as “Captain America: The Winter Soldier” and shows like “The Mandalorian.” Now she’s going back to watching some programs ad-free on Blu-Ray discs.

While Keridan cut Disney+, her family still subscribes to YouTube Premium and Paramount+. She said she uses YouTube Premium for workout videos instead of paying for a gym membership. Her family enjoys watching Star Trek programs on Paramount+, like the third season of “Star Trek: Strange New Worlds,” Keridan said.

Other consumers are choosing to keep their streaming subscriptions but look for cost savings through cheaper plans with ads, or by bundling services.

“Consumers are more willing today than ever to withstand advertising and for the sake of being able to get content for a lower subscription rate,” said Brent Magid, CEO and president of Minneapolis-based media consulting firm Magid. “We’ve seen that number increase just as people’s budgets have gotten tighter.”

Keridan said she’s already cutting other types of spending in her household in addition to quitting Disney+. The amount of money her family spends on groceries has gone up, and in order to save cash, they’ve cut back on traveling for the year. Typically, Keridan says, they would go on two or three vacations annually, but this year, they will only go to Disneyland in Anaheim.

But even the Happiest Place on Earth hasn’t escaped price hikes.

“Just as the streaming fees have risen, park fees have risen,” Keridan said. “And so it just seems every price of anything is rising these days, and they’re now directly in competition with each other. We can’t keep them all, so we have to make hard cuts.”

When Columbia University law and MBA student Michelle Ritter met former Google chief executive Eric Schmidt in 2020, she said she wanted to pitch a potential investment in a sports tech startup she had been developing.

That dinner blossomed into far more, a romance and business partnership in which she says the 70-year-old billionaire invested in excess of $100 million into a jointly owned tech incubator — before it all fell apart.

Now, Ritter is accusing Schmidt of stealing business out from under her, sexually assaulting her twice during their relationship, and tapping his Google background to hack into her email and online computer files, according to a lawsuit filed Wednesday in Los Angeles County Superior Court.

“During their relationship, Schmidt confided that when he worked at Google, he built an insider “backdoor” to Google servers with a team of Google engineers in order to spy on Google employees. Accordingly, the backdoor enabled him to access anyone’s Google account and private information,” the lawsuit says.

Google is also named as a defendant in the lawsuit and is alleged to “knowingly acquiescing in, failing to remedy, and materially assisting the unauthorized access” into Ritter’s accounts despite being provided notice. Schmidt and the company are accused of violating the California Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act, and a section of the state penal code that prohibits wiretapping.

Patricia Glaser, an attorney representing Schmidt, called the lawsuit “yet another desperate and destructive effort to publish false and defamatory statements to escape accountability from an existing arbitration over a business dispute.”

Glaser added: “The claims made here are directly contradicted by her own words … and are just a final Hail Mary to save her from the consequences of her own actions. We are confident that we will prevail on both the specific legal issue enforcing the arbitration and disproving these fabricated pathetic allegations.”

Google did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The complaint is the latest filing in a legal dispute that stretches back to at least December 2024, when Ritter sought a domestic violence restraining order against Schmidt. She later withdrew it after reaching a financial settlement with Schmidt with whom she had started the high-tech New York incubator with offices in Los Angeles, according to court records.

In her new lawsuit, Ritter alleges that Schmidt has not honored the settlement due to false accusations she was behind a media leak. She is seeking to have the settlement, which requires arbitration of disputes, thrown out.

Schmidt’s attorneys have called her legal filings a “blatant abuse of the judicial system” and a “transparent hit piece intended to smear and defame” Schmidt, according to court records. He is seeking to have the dispute settled in arbitration.

Several records in the case are under seal and many filings are heavily redacted. The lawsuit seeks at least $100 million in damages, with the next hearing set for Dec. 4. She is being represented by the law firm of prominent Los Angeles attorney Skip Miller.

Schmidt served as Google chief executive from 2001 to 2011 and later as the chairman of the Silicon Valley company and its parent, Alphabet Inc., until 2017. He retains shares in parent Alphabet worth about $14 billion giving him a net worth of about $34 billion, according to Forbes. He owns multiple homes in greater Los Angeles.

In the application for the December 2024 restraining order, Ritter alleged she lived in an “absolute digital surveillance system” and that Schmidt had directed affiliates to steal her corporate website, take control of her digital business records and have personal investigators follow her parents, according to a court filing.

The restraining order request also asked the judge to order Schmidt to not assault her “sexually or otherwise.”

The lawsuit filed on Wednesday provides more details about their business ventures and alleges a personal relationship that developed to the point that Schmidt made promises to marry her and have children, despite their 39-year age gap.

The lawsuit states their Steel Perlot venture was a success, with Schmidt investing more than $100 million into the accelerator and its startups in AI, crypto and other industries — prompting Schmidt to wrest control of the venture and its businesses from her.

Media reports suggest otherwise. Forbes has written the venture ran out of money in 2003 and needed millions from Schmidt to meet payroll and other expenses.

The lawsuit alleges that Schmidt became abusive as the relationship progressed and he “forcibly raped” her while on a yacht off the coast of Mexico in November 2021 and had sex with her without her consent during the Burning Man festival in Nevada in August 2023.

Schmidt, who has been married more than 40 years, has been linked romantically in the media with a series of much younger women.

The bitter dispute with Ritter echoes another business disagreement he had with public relations executive Marcy Simon, with whom he had a two-decade relationship that ended in 2014. It also involved a troubled joint business venture, according to a New York Times report. The report did not involve sexual assault claims.

Schmidt has achieved a certain gravitas in Silicon Valley, serving as tech advisor to the Obama administration and the military, testifying about artificial intelligence on Capitol Hill and giving away more than $1 billion in charity.

He’s also a part owner of the Washington Commanders football team and has amassed a real estate portfolio estimated to be worth several hundred million dollars.

Schmidt is reported to have spent $110 million this year on the 56,000-square-foot mansion in Holmby Hills built by the late producer Aaron Spelling. In 2021, he acquired a 15,000-square-foot Bel Air estate previously owned by the Hilton family, where court records indicate Ritter lived at the time she filed the restraining order.

Schmidt earlier this year took a controlling interest in Relativity Space, a Long Beach startup founded in 2015 with the intent to bring 3-D manufacturing to rocketry.

However, it has since shifted its focus and Schmidt indicated in a social media post that his interest may have to do with launching AI data centers into space due to their huge power needs.

Warner Music Group on Wednesday said it reached an agreement with artificial intelligence startup Udio, ending a legal battle over concerns that copyrighted music was being used to train AI models.

Under an agreement, Udio will release a platform next year using AI models trained on licensed and authorized music, the New York-based companies said. The music could include content from WMG’s publishing businesses, providing new revenue for artists and songwriters who choose to opt in, the companies added.

Udio declined to say which artists would be involved in its new platform, and WMG did not return a request for comment. WMG’s artist roster includes Ed Sheeran, Fleetwood Mac and Madonna.

The startup’s current platform allows users to write text prompts and create songs using AI. The new version, which is expected to launch next year, will let users create remixes, covers and new songs with the voices of artists and the compositions of songwriters who choose participate and those artists and writers will be credited and paid, the companies said.

“This collaboration aligns with our broader efforts to responsibly unlock AI’s potential — fueling new creative and commercial possibilities while continuing to deliver innovative experiences for fans,” said Robert Kyncl, WMG CEO, in a statement.

WMG, Universal Music Group (UMG), Sony Music Entertainment and other music businesses sued Udio last year. In the lawsuit, Udio was accused of using hits like the Temptations’ “My Girl” to create a similar melody called “Sunshine Melody.” UMG owns the copyright to “My Girl.”

Udio said millions of people have used Udio since it launched in 2024, but did not break out specifically how many downloads or website users it has.

UMG settled with Udio last month. Udio declined to disclose the terms of the UMG settlement. The tech company also did not offer financial details about its platform collaboration with WMG, or which artists would be involved.

“Collaborating with WMG marks a significant milestone in our mission to redefine how AI and the music industry evolve together,” said Andrew Sanchez, co-founder and CEO of Udio, in a statement. “This partnership is a crucial step towards realizing a future in which technology amplifies creativity and unlocks new opportunities for artists and songwriters.”

The advancement of artificial intelligence in the arts has caused a range of emotions in the entertainment industry — from fear of job replacement to excitement over new ways to test bold ideas in music videos and music experimentation on slimmer budgets.

After the UMG-Udio deal was announced, Jordan Bromley, a board member at the nonprofit Music Artists Coalition and Manatt Entertainment Leader, said he was “cautiously optimistic but insistent on details.”

Music Artists Coalition executive director Ron Gubitz said the announcements on the agreements “lack critical details songwriters and performers deserve.”

“The question still remains whether these deals will deliver the most important things artists deserve: consent, clarity, and compensation,” Gubitz said in a statement.