Connect with us

Business

Netflix co-founder Reed Hastings to leave the company, marking the end of an era

Published

on

Netflix co-founder Reed Hastings to leave the company, marking the end of an era

Reed Hastings, who helped launched Netflix from a fledgling DVD mail-order business into a global streaming juggernaut, plans to exit the company after nearly three decades.

Hastings will leave the company he co-founded to focus on philanthropy and other efforts, the streaming company announced said Thursday.

Hastings, who serves as chairman of the Los Gatos company’s board, told Netflix he will not stand for reelection when his term expires in June, Netflix said in a letter to shareholders timed to its fiscal first-quarter earnings.

He said the commitment of Netflix Co-Chief Executives Ted Sarandos and Greg Peters was “so strong that I can now focus on new things.”

Peters described Hastings, 65, as the company’s “biggest champion,” and that he “is a part of our DNA.”

Advertisement

Sarandos called Hastings a “true history maker,” saying in a statement that Hastings’ “selfless, disciplined leadership style” will continue to shape Netflix’s path ahead.

Hastings’ exit was not unexpected as his role in the company diminished after he stepped aside as co-chief executive of Netflix in 2023.

During his tenure, Hastings oversaw the substantial growth of the streaming colossus. Today, Netflix has a market cap of about $455 billion, more than double that of the Walt Disney Co.

“My real contribution at Netflix wasn’t a single decision; it was a focus on member joy, building a culture that others could inherit and improve, and building a company that could be both beloved by members and wildly successful for generations to come,” Hastings said in a statement.

For the first quarter of 2026, Netflix reported nearly $12.3 billion of revenue, up 16% compared to the same time period a year ago. Operating income grew 18% to $3.9 billion for the three-month period ending March 31.

Advertisement

Both figures were ahead of the company’s guidance, a feat the streamer attributed to slightly higher than expected subscription revenue.

The company reported net income of $5.3 billion, up more than 80% compared to the $2.9 billion it recorded during the same period last year. Earnings per share was $1.23, up from 66 cents last year.

Netflix said it continues to expect 2026 revenue ranging from $50.7 billion to $51.7 billion, with an operating margin of 31.5%.

The earnings release and the Hastings announcement came after markets closed.

Netflix shares closed at $107.79, virtually unchanged. After hours, the shares dropped more than 8% to $98.26. They have climbed about 18% this year.

Advertisement

The Los Gatos-based company had previously secured an $82.7-billion deal to buy Warner Bros. studios and streaming services in December but it withdrew from the bidding war in late February after Paramount Skydance offered $31 a share. As part of the switch, Netflix was paid a $2.8-billion termination fee.

“Warner Bros. would have been a nice accelerant for our strategy, but only at the right price,” Netflix said in its investor letter. “We have multiple ways to achieve our goals (including producing, licensing, and partnering) and we’re constantly seeking to allocate our resources to the most attractive opportunities to maximize the value we are delivering to our members.”

Before Reed Hastings revolutionized the global entertainment business, he sold Rainbow vacuum cleaners door-to-door during his gap year between high school and Bowdoin College, where he earned his bachelor’s degree in mathematics.

During his sales pitch, Reed would first clean a homeowner’s carpet with their vacuum and then demonstrate how to clean using a Rainbow. The job helped hone his ability to understand customers, a core foundation of Netflix’s user-driven, candor-obsessed culture.

After Bowdoin and before he earned his master’s degree in computer science at Stanford, Hastings served in the Peace Corps (he also did a stint in the Marines) teaching high school math in Swaziland (now Eswatini).

Advertisement

“Once you have hitchhiked across Africa with ten bucks in your pocket, starting a business doesn’t seem too intimidating,” he told Time magazine.

While those experiences helped shape Hasting’s business sense, it was a late fee for a video that became the catalyst for launching Netflix, upending the way viewers consumed content and disrupting how Hollywood does business.

As the story goes, Hastings had misplaced a VHS tape of “Apollo 13” racking up a hefty $40 charge.

It was 1997 and his company Pure Software had just been acquired. It dawned on him that a gym membership offered a better business model, than the average video store — where you paid a set fee for the month and you could work out as much or as little as you liked. He thought, why not apply that to the movie rental business?

Netflix, began in Scotts Valley, Calif., as a mail-order business. Customers paid a tiered monthly fee to rent DVDs online which were delivered by mail.

Advertisement

The business exploded racking up millions of customers as it jettisoned the post office to an internet-based business. As the business accelerated across the world it also expanded, creating original content such as award-winning blockbusters such as “Stranger Things” and “House of Cards.”

The company’s innovation extended internally too. Hastings became known for implementing a unique and controversial culture of radical transparency, where employee evaluations are brutally candid and average performances can be grounds for termination.

The concept was a central theme of his 2020 book “No Rules Rules: Netflix and the Culture of Reinvention,” written with business professor Erin Meyer.

Times staff writers Meg James and Wendy Lee contributed to this report.

Advertisement

Business

Volvo to pay $197 million after hidden pollution device found in California truck engines

Published

on

Volvo to pay 7 million after hidden pollution device found in California truck engines

Volvo Group North America has agreed to pay nearly $197 million to resolve allegations from California regulators that company’s heavy-duty truck engines violated California emissions standards and certification requirements.

About 10,000 diesel truck engines manufactured by Volvo were equipped with an undisclosed device, causing them to release excessive levels of smog-forming pollution across California, according to the California Air Resources Board, the state agency that regulates air pollution and greenhouse gases.

Volvo is developing a software fix to repair many of these vehicles and extend their warranties at no cost to the owners. Eligible truck owners are expected to be notified of a non-mandatory recall on these trucks next year.

CARB found inconsistencies in the Swedish automaker’s data while testing trucks with Volvo engines from model year 2010 to 2016, which resulted in the investigation and ensuing settlement.

“This case underscores why CARB’s compliance testing and strong enforcement are essential to protecting the state’s air quality and public health,” said Lauren Sanchez, chair of the state Air Resources Board. “Our responsibility goes beyond adopting regulations — we are committed to upholding them by identifying violations and holding companies accountable for meeting emissions standards.”

Advertisement

Under the settlement, Volvo will pay $17.5 million in civil penalties to reimburse the state for the cost of the investigation and support its vehicle-testing operations. Another $179 million will go toward investing in clean-air initiatives, such as electric vehicle incentive programs, to offset air pollution that resulted from the alleged violations.

Continue Reading

Business

Commentary: A surge in Nevada data center construction threatens the electricity supply for 49,000 Californians

Published

on

Commentary: A surge in Nevada data center construction threatens the electricity supply for 49,000 Californians

Local opposition has blocked or delayed more than a dozen huge data center projects around the country. But these Californians don’t get a vote on Nevada projects that could affect their electricity supply.

Those big data centers being built for artificial intelligence firms are in bad odor nationwide.

Seven in 10 Americans oppose projects in their local communities, according to a recent Gallup poll. More than a dozen, valued at some $64 billion, have been blocked or delayed by local opposition in recent years.

But what happens when the people directly affected by these project plans don’t get a vote?

Data centers did not influence this decision.

— NV Energy, explaining its move to end service to 49,000 California customers. But is it telling the truth?

Advertisement

That’s the quandary faced by 49,000 residents living on the California side of Lake Tahoe, mostly in the city of South Lake Tahoe. The surge in construction of data centers in Nevada is prompting the Nevada utility that supplies 75% of the Californians’ electricity to cut them off next year.

The California-regulated utility that carries the electricity over the state line to their homes and businesses has assured them that it will find alternative sources to protect them from losing service — but hasn’t promised that their rates won’t increase because of the transition.

“It’s like we don’t exist,” Danielle Hughes, the head of a local energy nonprofit and an advocate for the customers, told me. The crisis facing those residents is just the latest in a long line of indignities they have suffered thanks to several unique characteristics of their energy market, Hughes says.

Advertisement

For one thing, they are permanent residents of the community — teachers, firefighters, police, and service workers at the hotels, restaurants and resorts that bring in a tidal wave of visitors every winter. The latter, as well as vacation-home owners and renters, generate seasonal electricity demands that drive up power costs year-round.

That means that the permanent residents are in effect subsizing the visitors, even though they’re lower-income ratepayers than the generally well-heeled vacationers.

Before delving deeper into the issues for the permanent residents, let’s examine the effect of the large-scale data centers being built and proposed in Nevada, and more generally coast to coast.

Nevada has emerged as a prime location for data centers, in part due to the wide open, undeveloped acreage available for construction. More than 60 data centers have sprung up around Reno and Las Vegas, with many more slated to rise in the northern part of the state, according to a survey by the Desert Research Institute, a Nevada nonprofit.

“We’re right at the epicenter for global expansion” of data centers, observed Sean McKenna, a co-author of the report.

Advertisement

The existing data centers consumed 22% of Nevada’s electric generating capacity in 2024, DRI calculated. If all those under construction and on the drawing board are completed, that figure would rise to 35% by 2030. NV Energy, the Nevada utility that provides the electricity for the California side of Lake Tahoe, estimates that the electricity demand for just the 12 projects being planned would come to 5,900 megawatts — nearly three times the generating capacity of Hoover Dam.

That construction frenzy is likely to bring some of the same drawbacks that have provoked local communities to militate against data centers — not only pressure on existing electricity capacity, but also a voracious appetite for water due to the cooling needs of the computerized equipment managing the data for AI applications. Residents in the neighborhoods of data centers have also complained of incessant noise coming from their 24/7 operations.

With global warming driving up temperatures in Nevada’s semiarid and desert zones, they add, residents will find themselves in a contest with data center owners for an already inadequate supply of power in the state. DRI warns: “Local utilities and ratepayers in data center cluster regions like Northern Nevada also risk bearing the costs of subsidizing AI and computing services as power grids expand their infrastructure.”

In many communities, the result has been a vigorous and vocal backlash, including in California. They’ve packed town halls, prompted state and local political leaders to legislate limits on their growth or even to ban them.

That brings us back to the situation around Lake Tahoe.

Advertisement

In terms of its electric utility service, the region has long been an outlier. About 25% of its power comes from two solar farms operated by Liberty Utilities, but the rest comes from NV Energy; the reason is that it’s unconnected with the California transmission grid but accessible via a line from Nevada.

As a result, it falls into the cracks among energy regulators. Because it’s not part of the California grid, the California Public Utilities Commission has only limited jurisdiction over its service, although it has the authority to approve its electricity rates. The Nevada Public Utilities Commission doesn’t oversee the customers’ service at all, because they’re not Nevada residents.

The region is also unusual because its peak energy demand comes in the winter; most of the rest of California peaks in the summer, when air conditioners are on full blast.

Hughes and other residents have maintained that because the CPUC hasn’t modeled electricity demand for their small region, they have been paying for infrastructure that doesn’t serve them.

“We’ve been paying for assets in Nevada,” Hughes says, “without it being tracked by the state of California.”

Advertisement

Liberty does charge permanent residents in the Tahoe area about 2% less than the rate for part-time residents, but the discount should be much larger, Hughes says. Liberty didn’t respond to my request for comment.

Earlier this year, NV Energy informed Liberty that it would no longer serve as its wholesale energy provider after mid-May next year, and urged Liberty to make haste to secure an alternate supplier.

Liberty promised its customers in a recent statement that they “will not be left without service” as a result of the change. “This does not mean the power is shutting off,” Eric Schwarzrock, president of Liberty Utilities, said at a South Lake Tahoe City Council meeting last month, according to the news site SFGate. “Energy companies, utilities, large customers change energy supply frequently.”

Liberty and NV Energy both attributed the change to a preexisting agreement that anticipated that NV Energy would eventually cease providing power to Liberty’s customers, although their interpretations of the deal and the impetus for the change appear to be at odds.

The “long-standing agreements and planning assumptions … date back more than a decade,” NV Energy said in a May 14 statement. That was “well before data center growth became a factor,” the utility said. “Data centers did not influence this decision.”

Advertisement

That is, to be charitable, dubious. How do we know? Liberty said so in a March 6 letter to the California Public Utilities Commission, requesting permission to take “immediate action” to find alternative providers.

The letter stated that Liberty had expected its arrangement with NV Energy to “continue indefinitely.” During their last negotiations for an extension of the deal, however, NV Energy informed Liberty that it would cease serving Liberty on May 31, 2027, with a possible extension to Dec. 31.

“This change of stance by NV Energy was a surprise to Liberty,” the letter said. Liberty ascribed NV Energy’s decision to new “market circumstances” in the latter’s home service region. Among them: “A number of entities are seeking to add large loads such as data centers into the area.”

NV Energy says it will continue serving Liberty’s customers until Liberty secures a new supplier, even if it misses the May 2027 deadline; the ultimate deadline is Dec. 31, 2027, when NV Energy expects to complete its 350-mile Greenlink West transmission line between Las Vegas and the Reno area, part of a $4.2-billion infrastructure upgrade.

Yet that still leaves an open question that should make those customers nervous: How much will they be paying for power?

Advertisement

In its recent statement to customers, Liberty made only the vaguest of promises. “While no utiulity can predict the exact future cost of energy,” it said, “affordability is a primary goal” in its search for new suppliers. “With a competitive bidding process, we aim to find a cost-effective solution for your monthly bill.”

But any new supplier would have to come from outside California, because of the region’s lack of any connection with the state’s grid. And generators in nearby states face their own rising demands from data centers, drought and global warming.

The drawbacks of these massive industrial installations are beginning to be felt by their neighbors, including higher electricity prices and dwindling water supplies. They’re only going to get worse.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Business

Video: Jury Rejects Elon Musk’s Lawsuit Against OpenAI and Microsoft

Published

on

Video: Jury Rejects Elon Musk’s Lawsuit Against OpenAI and Microsoft

new video loaded: Jury Rejects Elon Musk’s Lawsuit Against OpenAI and Microsoft

transcript

transcript

Jury Rejects Elon Musk’s Lawsuit Against OpenAI and Microsoft

Elon Musk had accused OpenAI of “stealing a charity” by attaching a commercial company to Open AI, which was founded as a nonprofit. But a jury ruled that the statute of limitations had expired.

“The evidence that Mr. Musk’s lawsuit was an after-the-fact contrivance by a competitor was overwhelming.” “This reminds me of key moments in this country’s history. The siege of Charleston, the Battle of Bunker Hill, these were major losses for Americans. But who won the war? And this one is not over. And to sum it up, I can sum it up in one word: appeal.”

Advertisement
Elon Musk had accused OpenAI of “stealing a charity” by attaching a commercial company to Open AI, which was founded as a nonprofit. But a jury ruled that the statute of limitations had expired.

By Meg Felling

May 18, 2026

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending