Connect with us

Business

Get paid or sue? How the news business is combating the threat of AI

Published

on

Get paid or sue? How the news business is combating the threat of AI

Journalist Javier Cabral wanted to test Google’s much-hyped, experimental artificial intelligence-powered search results. So he typed out a question about a topic he knew intimately: the Long Beach bakery Gusto Bread’s coffee.

In less than a second, Google’s AI summarized information about the bakery in a few sentences and bullet points. But according to Cabral, the summary wasn’t original — it appeared to be lifted from an article he wrote last year for the local food, community and culture publication L.A. Taco, where he serves as the editor in chief. For a previous story, he’d spent at least five days working on a feature about the bakery, arriving at 4 a.m. to report on the bread making process.

As Cabral saw it, the search giant’s AI was ripping him off.

“The average consumer that just wants to go check it out, they’re probably not going to read [the article] anymore” Cabral said in an interview. “When you break it down like that, it’s a little enraging for sure.”

The rise of AI is just the latest existential threat to news organizations such as Cabral’s, which are fighting to survive amid a rapidly changing media and information environment.

Advertisement

1

2 A neon L.A. Taco sign.

1. L.A. Taco editor Javier Cabral in the alleyway behind the Figueroa Theatre in Los Angeles in 2020. (Mariah Tauger / Los Angeles Times) 2. The L.A. Taco office in Los Angeles on June 26. (Zoe Cranfill / Los Angeles Times)

News outlets have struggled to attract subscribers and advertising dollars in the internet age. And social media platforms such as Facebook, which publishers depended on to get their content to a massive audience, have largely pivoted away from news. Now, with the growth of AI thanks to companies including Google, Microsoft and ChatGPT maker OpenAI, publishers fear catastrophic consequences will result from digital programs automatically scraping information from their archives and delivering it to audiences for free.

Advertisement

“There’s something that’s very fundamentally unfair about this,” said Danielle Coffey, president and chief executive of the News/Media Alliance, which represents publications including the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times. “What will happen is there won’t be a business model for us in a scenario where they use our own work to compete with us, and that’s something we’re very worried about.”

Tech companies leading the charge on AI say their tools are not engaged in copyright infringement and can drive traffic to publishers.

A News Crisis in California

Google said in a statement that it designed its AI Overviews — the summaries that appear when people enter search queries — to “provide a snapshot of relevant information from multiple web pages.” The companies also provide links with the summaries so people can learn more.

AI and machine learning could provide useful tools for publishers when doing research or creating reader recommendations. But for many journalistic outlets, the AI revolution represents yet another consequence of the tech behemoths becoming the middlemen between the content producers and their consumers, and then taking the spoils for themselves.

Advertisement

“For the past 20 years, big tech has dictated the business model for news by essentially mandating how news is distributed, either through search or social, and this has turned out to be pretty disastrous for most news organizations,” said Gabriel Kahn, a professor at USC’s Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism.

A group of people sitting around a table and using laptop computers.

L.A. Taco operates on a tight budget; its publisher doesn’t take a salary. The site makes most of its money through memberships, so if people are getting the information directly from Google instead of paying to read L.A. Taco’s articles, that’s a major problem. Above, a staff meeting at its Chinatown office.

(Zoe Cranfill / Los Angeles Times)

To respond to the problem, news organizations have taken dramatically different approaches. Some, including the Associated Press, the Financial Times and News Corp., the owner of the Wall Street Journal and Dow Jones, have signed licensing deals to allow San Francisco-based OpenAI to use their content in exchange for payment. Vox Media and the Atlantic have also struck deals with the firm.

Others have taken their fights to court.

Advertisement

The New York Times in December sued OpenAI and Microsoft, alleging that both companies used its articles to train their digital assistants and share text of paywalled stories to its users without compensation. The newspaper estimated that those actions resulted in billions of dollars in damages.

Separately, last month Forbes threatened legal action against AI startup Perplexity, accusing it of plagiarism. After receiving Forbes’ letter, Perplexity said it changed the way it presented sources and adjusted the prompting for its AI models.

The company said it has been developing a revenue sharing program with publishers.

The New York Times said in its lawsuit that its battle against AI isn’t just about getting paid for content now; it’s about protecting the future of the journalism profession.

“With less revenue, news organizations will have fewer journalists able to dedicate time and resources to important, in-depth stories, which creates a risk that those stories will go untold,” the newspaper said in its lawsuit. “Less journalism will be produced, and the cost to society will be enormous.”

Advertisement

OpenAI said that the New York Times’ lawsuit was without merit and that it has been unable to reproduce examples the newspaper has cited of ChatGPT regurgitating paywalled articles. The company said publishers have a way to opt out of their sites being used to train AI tools. Microsoft did not respond to a request for comment.

The OpenAI logo appears on a mobile phone.

The Associated Press, the Financial Times and News Corp., the owner of the Wall Street Journal and Dow Jones, have signed licensing deals to allow San Francisco-based OpenAI to use their content in exchange for payment.

(Michael Dwyer / Associated Press)

“Microsoft and OpenAI have the process entirely backwards,” Davida Brook, a partner at law firm Susman Godfrey, which is representing the New York Times, said in a statement. “Neither The New York Times nor other creators should have to opt out of having their works stolen.”

The legal war is spreading. In April, eight publications owned by private equity firm Alden Global Capital also accused OpenAI and Microsoft of using and providing information from its news stories without payment.

Advertisement

In some cases, OpenAI’s chat tool provided incorrect information attributed to the publications, Frank Pine, executive editor for MediaNews Group and Tribune Publishing, said in a statement. For example, according to Pine, OpenAI said that the Mercury News recommended injecting disinfectants to treat COVID-19 and the Denver Post published research suggesting that smoking cures asthma. Neither publication has made such claims.

“[W]hen they’re not delivering the actual verbatim reporting of our hard-working journalists, they misattribute bogus information to our news publications, damaging our credibility,” Pine said.

OpenAI said that it was “not previously aware” of Alden’s concerns and that it is “actively engaged in constructive partnerships and conversations with many news organizations around the world to explore opportunities, discuss any concerns, and provide solutions.”

One such partnership is OpenAI’s recent deal with News Corp., which allows the tech company’s tools to display content from news outlets in response to user questions and access content from the Wall Street Journal, New York Post and publications in the United Kingdom and Australia to train its AI models. The deal was valued at more than $250 million over five years, according to the Wall Street Journal, which cited unnamed sources. News Corp and OpenAI declined to comment on the financial terms.

“This landmark accord is not an end, but the beginning of a beautiful friendship in which we are jointly committed to creating and delivering insight and integrity instantaneously,” Robert Thomson, chief executive of News Corp. said in a statement.

Advertisement

“We are committed to a thriving ecosystem of publishers and creators by making it easier for people to find their content through our tools,” OpenAI said in a statement.

Although OpenAI has cut deals with some publishers, the tech industry has argued that it should be able to train its AI models on content available online and bring up relevant information under the “fair use” doctrine, which allows for the limited reproduction of content without permission from the copyright holder.

“As long as these companies aren’t reproducing verbatim what these news sites are putting out, we believe they are well within their legal rights to offer this content to users,” said Chris MacKenzie, spokesman for Chamber of Progress, an industry group that represents companies including Google and Meta. “At the end of the day, it’s important to remember that nobody has a copyright on facts.”

But outlets including the New York Times reject such fair-use claims, arguing that in some cases the chatbots do reproduce their content, unfairly profiting from their thoroughly researched and fact-checked work. The situation is even more difficult for smaller outlets such as L.A. Taco, which can’t afford to sue OpenAI or develop their own AI platforms.

Located in L.A.’s Chinatown with four full-time workers and two part-timers, L.A. Taco operates on a tight budget; its publisher doesn’t take a salary. The site makes most of its money through memberships, so if people are getting the information directly from Google instead of paying to read L.A. Taco’s articles, that’s a major problem.

Advertisement

Legislation is another potential way to deal with big tech’s disruption of the journalism industry. The California News Publishers Assn., of which the Los Angeles Times is a member, is sponsoring a state bill known as the California Journalism Preservation Act, which would require digital advertising giants to pay news outlets for accessing their articles, either through a predetermined fee or through an amount set by arbitration. Most publishers would have to spend 70% of the funds received on journalists’ salaries. Another bill lawmakers are considering would tax large tech platforms for the data they collect from users and pump the money into news organizations by giving them a tax credit for employing full-time journalists.

“The way out of this is some type of regulation,” USC’s Kahn said. “Congress can’t get anything done so that basically gives these platforms free rein to do what they want with very little consequence.”

Times editorial library director Cary Schneider contributed to this report.

Advertisement

Business

With a big $46-million opening for ‘Hoppers,’ Disney and Pixar see a return to form

Published

on

With a big -million opening for ‘Hoppers,’ Disney and Pixar see a return to form

Walt Disney Co. and Pixar’s “Hoppers” took the box office crown this weekend in an encouraging sign for the company’s original animated films.

The film generated $46 million in ticket sales in the U.S. and Canada, marking the highest domestic opening for an original animated movie since 2017’s “Coco,” according to studio estimates. The global box office total for “Hoppers” was $88 million.

The zany movie features a young environmental advocate who “hops” her consciousness into a robotic beaver and bands together with other woodland creatures to stop a planned freeway expansion through a glade.

The film is directed by Daniel Chong, who created the Cartoon Network animated series “We Bare Bears.”

The muscular debut for “Hoppers,” as well as the strong performance from Sony Pictures Animation’s “Goat” last month, has been a positive sign for audience interest in original animated films.

Advertisement

Since the pandemic, theatrical returns for animated sequels have far surpassed that of original films. Disney’s “Zootopia 2,” for instance, has grossed more than $1.8 billion in global box office revenue, with more than $426 million domestically. Disney and Pixar’s 2024 hit “Inside Out 2” also crossed more than $1.6 billion globally.

By contrast, Disney and Pixar’s 2025 original film “Elio” brought in about $154 million in worldwide box office revenue.

Original films are vital to Pixar’s future, as the Emeryville, Calif.-based studio built its reputation on its string of nearly uninterrupted original blockbuster hits, including 1995’s “Toy Story” and 2004’s “The Incredibles.”

Paramount Pictures and Spyglass Media Group’s “Scream 7” came in second at the box office with $17.3 million in its second weekend in theaters. Warner Bros. Pictures’ “The Bride!,” Sony’s “Goat” and Warner Bros.’ “Wuthering Heights” rounded out the top five at the box office, according to data from Comscore.

With several strong releases, as well as popular holdover films from 2025 that continue to bring in revenue, the first few months at the box office have been a notable improvement over last year’s dismal first quarter.

Advertisement

Domestic box office revenue so far is up more than 12% compared with the same time period in 2025, according to Comscore.

Continue Reading

Business

Hundreds of applications, no jobs and AI competition: California’s brutal tech work landscape

Published

on

Hundreds of applications, no jobs and AI competition: California’s brutal tech work landscape

Laid-off tech worker Joseph Tinner has spent almost a year hunting for a job. It has been a depressing crash course on the sea change in Silicon Valley.

The former product instructor from the San Francisco Bay Area has ridden the tech wave throughout his career, easily jumping from Verizon to Fitbit to Workday. Since losing his job early last year, the 59-year-old has hit a wall.

He applied for hundreds of roles — sometimes going through multiple rounds of consideration — only to get rejected again and again.

“It’s been a roller coaster,” he said. “It just takes a lot of resilience, honestly, to be in this job market.”

He isn’t alone.

Advertisement

Tech companies that aggressively hired during the COVID-19 pandemic have been slashing tens of thousands of jobs. For workers like Tinner, it has been a rough realization that the Silicon Valley shakeout is stretching into another year.

Just last week, Block — the financial tech company that owns payment services Square, Cash App and Afterpay — said it is laying off 4,000 people, or half of its workforce.

Many other tech companies outside the hot artificial intelligence sector are slashing staff. Block blamed AI, saying the powerful technology means it no longer needs as many people.

“The intelligence tools we’re creating and using, paired with smaller and flatter teams, are enabling a new way of working which fundamentally changes what it means to build and run a company,” Jack Dorsey, the co-founder of Block and a founder of Twitter, said in a post on X.

U.S.-based tech employers announced more than 33,000 job cuts from January to February, up 51% compared with the same period last year, the outplacement firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas said Thursday.

Advertisement

Andy Challenger, workplace expert and chief revenue officer for the firm, said he used to be skeptical that companies could replace workers with AI, but he’s starting to become convinced.

“Artificial intelligence has overtaken the attention of these companies in such a dramatic way,” he said.

Mass layoffs in the tech industry started in 2022, after a hiring surge during the pandemic, when demand for online services increased as people were stuck at home.

But many of the world’s most powerful tech companies have continued cutting, even as their profits have grown. They’ve cited various reasons for layoffs, from strategic shifts and restructuring to pivoting to smaller teams and fewer managers.

An advertisement promoting an AI-powered company is seen downtown on Thursday, Oct. 16, 2025 in San Francisco, CA.

Advertisement

(Manuel Orbegozo/For The Times)

Tech companies such as EBay, Meta, Google, Autodesk, Pinterest, Salesforce and others have been shrinking their workforces. Layoffs have also hit the media and entertainment companies, including Los Angeles video game developer Riot Games.

On LinkedIn, laid-off workers who have been out of work — some for more than two years — have been asking for help finding a job. They’ve been sharing stories about their financial and emotional struggles, including losing their confidence, homes and savings as they search for work.

Tech workers who have seen their employers grow over the last decade have noticed a shift in corporate culture. Workers who have been laid off before said it has been tougher and taken longer to land a new job than in previous years.

Advertisement

A longtime Salesforce employee, who was recently laid off and asked to remain anonymous, concerned that speaking to the media could affect their severance, said the sales software company used to be more focused on helping its employees. Salesforce broadcast this value by highlighting its “ohana,” culture, using the Hawaiian word for family.

“I was just incredibly grateful every day to be able to wake up and make a positive change in the world,” the worker said. “I thought that the company was devoted to the same thing.”

But the tone at Salesforce shifted in 2023 as the company faced pressure to cut costs and increase profits. New leaders came in, and the focus changed.

“The company is trying to erase any semblance of the way that it used to be,” the worker said.

Salesforce has said AI is helping it squeeze more profit from fewer people.

Advertisement

“AI is doing 30% to 50% of the work at Salesforce now,” the company’s co-founder and Chief Executive Marc Benioff told Bloomberg.

Salesforce didn’t respond to a request for comment.

Marc Benioff, CEO of Salesforce Inc., during a Bloomberg Television interview at the World Economic Forum in Davos,

Marc Benioff, CEO of Salesforce Inc., during a Bloomberg Television interview at the World Economic Forum in Davos,

(Bloomberg/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

Although technology is changing the way people work, experts and even some AI executives think companies sometime use AI as an excuse to cut workers in what’s referred to as “AI washing.”

Advertisement

Enrico Moretti, a professor of economics at UC Berkeley, said other factors besides AI are fueling layoffs. As a company grows larger and matures, it doesn’t hire as much as before.

“It’s a shift in their position and the maturing of their product, and therefore the technologies and their employment needs,” he said.

Roger Lee, an entrepreneur who created a website to track layoffs, Layoffs.fyi, in 2020, said in an email that tech companies are pouring billions of dollars into AI investments, and cutting headcount helps offset those costs.

When he started tracking layoffs six years ago, Lee wanted to create awareness around tech layoffs and help laid-off workers find their next job. He never anticipated the layoffs would continue today.

“I do think 6 years of persistent layoffs have led many tech workers to re-evaluate the perceived ‘safety’ of tech jobs and their relationship with the industry overall,” he said in an email.

Advertisement

According to Layoffs.fyi’s latest count, there have been more than 35,000 layoffs in the tech sector worldwide so far this year.

Close to half of that total is from Amazon alone.

Unemployed tech worker Tinner was laid off from Workday, a Pleasanton company that provides a platform to businesses, universities and organizations to manage payroll, benefits, finances and other tasks.

In 2025, Workday slashed roughly 1,750 jobs, or 8.5% of its global workforce, citing a prioritization of investments in artificial intelligence and platform development. Then in February, the company said it plans to cut 2% of its workforce, or roughly 400 employees.

As job cuts pile up, Tinner is up against intense competition in a job market flooded with talent from the top companies in tech.

Advertisement

As he ponders his next career steps, he’s also redefining his identity and relationship with work.

He’s even tried pouring beer for fun or thought about doing more artwork.

“Maybe what I need to do is just celebrate all I’ve done instead of getting back into this rat race, on this treadmill, and look for something totally different,” he said.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Business

State Farm reaches deal to keep 17% hike in home insurance rates

Published

on

State Farm reaches deal to keep 17% hike in home insurance rates

A brokered deal with regulators and consumer advocates will allow State Farm General to keep controversial increases in home insurance rates that took effect last year in the wake of the devastating Los Angeles wildfires.

The agreement sent to a judge late Friday cements a $530-million emergency hike in home insurance rates Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara negotiated with the insurer last summer.

“The agreement will provide financial relief to many policyholders while ensuring continued coverage for State Farm policyholders while California’s insurance market stabilizes,” the insurance department said in a news release.

State Farm argued the emergency hike was necessary because catastrophic fire losses jeopardized its financial ratings.

Advertisement

The company has reported that it paid out $6.2 billion in claims last year, largely from the wildfires, with most of the costs covered through reinsurance payments. The company has told regulators it anticipates to pay an additional $1 billion in claims.

The deal allows the insurer to keep an average 17% increase in homeowner rates. Local rates for many of the company’s 1 million home customers were much higher.

However, consumer advocates argued the agreement held the line on even higher increases and halted further policy cancellations that have deepened a crisis in the state’s insurance industry.

State Farm, California’s largest home insurer, froze new business in 2023, announced 72,000 mass non-renewals, and sought a series of rate hikes. Its average homeowners premium in California doubled from 2020 to 2024.

Under Friday’s agreement, State Farm agrees to forgo mass non-renewals in 2026 and undergo further review of its rates by 2027.

Advertisement

Additionally, State Farm will be required to return nearly two-thirds of its 15% increase to condominium owners, deliver a small refund to rental property owners and be able to raise premiums for renters a half a percent.

“This rate enables State Farm General to continue serving existing California customers,” the company said in a statement. “We will continue to monitor our capacity to support the risks we insure and maintain the financial strength needed to pay claims and support customers and communities when it matters most.”

If approved by an administrative law judge, the settlement will be forwarded to Lara, who is expected to back it.

The arrangement sidesteps efforts to tie State Farm’s rates to its handling of disaster claims.

Under pressure from community advocates and lawmakers, Lara in May had said he wanted the two issues evaluated together.

Advertisement

In June, Lara announced his department would conduct an “expedited” examination into State Farm’s market conduct. In rate hearing proceedings, agency staff sought to block discussion of State Farm’s claims handling in relation to its quest for premium hikes.

The pact does not directly address complaints of unhappy policyholders who say Lara’s administration has failed to hold State Farm accountable, which the insurance department has disputed.

A department spokesman said Lara would not comment on the matter while the rate settlement is before an administrative judge.

The Jan. 7, 2025, firestorm destroyed at least 16,000 homes, triggering more than 42,000 insurance claims. State Farm has said it has 13,500 fire and auto claims related to the fires.

The insurer has come under heavy criticism from fire victims over its handling of claims, including complaints of low payout offers, denials for toxin testing and delays in payments for living expenses. The company has declined to comment on the complaints.

Advertisement

Some 51,000 State Farm homeowners live in disaster areas struggling to recover from the L.A. firestorm. Regulatory filings show those areas among the hardest hit by the current hikes.

Malibu resident Chad Peters said his bill from State Farm increased 140% in the last year, from $3,500 to $8,400.

Peters said he has battled State Farm for 14 months over smoke and fire damage to his home from the Palisades fire, and that the insurer at one point attempted to cancel his coverage because the house remained unrepaired.

He called rate increases in such circumstances “ludicrous, while they’re giving everyone such a hard time with their insurance … I mean, mine has been a steep uphill battle all year long.”

Sen. Sasha Renée Pérez (D-Alhambra) had urged Lara to delay hikes until after the investigation into State Farm’s conduct.

Advertisement

“The fact that I have so many individuals who have not received any of their claims, that are still navigating denials and delays, who are actively running out of [living expense payments] and … facing housing insecurity — it makes me deeply concerned,” Pérez said.

Pérez, along with Sens. Ben Allen (D-Pacific Palisades) and Sade Elhawary (D-Los Angeles), in April pressed Lara to defer rate hikes until State Farm General’s claims practices could be investigated. “This was a big priority for us.”

Pérez said she would seek answers to the market conduct exam as part of a Senate inquiry into the insurance department’s handling of those complaints, along with scrutiny of the department’s discipline of a compliance officer who criticized State Farm’s handling of claims.

State Farm General, an offshoot of national insurance giant State Farm Mutual, contends it has been financially sinking as seasonal wildfires morph into catastrophic urban conflagrations that destroy towns.

In mid-2024, the company asked to raise home premiums by nearly $1 billion. Lara secured an agreement that State Farm Mutual lend its California affiliate $400 million, but the insurer would not agree to cancel plans for dropping 11,000 more policyholders.

Advertisement

The settlement allows State Farm to avoid a public hearing that would have forced the disclosure of solvency records, mass non-renewals and other information it said would help competitors.

Continue Reading

Trending