Connect with us

Business

Regulators may seek to suspend State Farm’s license, citing widespread mishandling of L.A. wildfire claims

Published

on

Regulators may seek to suspend State Farm’s license, citing widespread mishandling of L.A. wildfire claims

California regulators may seek to suspend State Farm’s license for up to a year and levy millions in penalties against the insurer, alleging it mishandled January 2025 wildfire claims in Los Angeles County.

In an extraordinary step, the Department of Insurance announced Monday that it filed an administrative action against the state’s largest home insurer after an investigation into 220 sample claims found 398 violations of state law in about half of them.

“Our investigation found that State Farm delayed, underpaid, and buried policyholders in red tape at the worst moment of their lives,” Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara said in a statement. “That is unacceptable, and we are taking decisive action to hold them accountable.”

The department is seeking a cease-and-desist order to stop the insurer from engaging in unfair or deceptive practices — and to possibly suspend State Farm’s “certificate of authority” for up to a year, meaning it could not write policies during that period, department spokesperson Michael Soller said.

Advertisement

While the terms of the proposed suspension aren’t clear, the move could prevent the insurer — which covers more than 1 million homes — from issuing new policies at a time when the state is facing an insurance crisis.

The case will be heard by a state administrative law judge, who will provide a recommendation to Lara on a possible monetary penalty and whether to carry out the license suspension. State regulators declined to comment on the action or how it might affect policyholders.

State Farm on Monday rejected the department’s claims that it engaged in a “general practice of mishandling or intentionally underpaying wildfire claims” and said it will further respond through the legal process.

“California’s homeowners insurance market is the most dysfunctional in the country,” State Farm said in a statement. “The California Department of Insurance should take responsibility for regulatory delays and uncertainty that have contributed to fewer choices and higher costs for consumers.”

State Farm said it has paid more than $5.7 billion and handled more than 11,700 residential and auto claims. That is nearly one-third of those filed after the Jan. 7, 2025, fires that damaged or destroyed more than 18,000 structures and killed 31 people.

Advertisement

The department in June 2025 launched a “market conduct exam” into State Farm General — the subsidiary of the giant Bloomington, Ill., insurer that handles California home insurance — after complaints by victims of the fires in Pacific Palisades, Altadena and nearby communities.

The Times reported that within two months of the fires homeowners were getting frustrated with the insurer over its handling of smoke damage claims. They contended that State Farm was resisting hygienic testing for toxic chemicals and was trying to minimize cleanup costs, which the company denied.

Later, anger was directed at Lara, with fire victims saying he wasn’t cracking down on State Farm. More than a dozen homeowners told The Times this year that the department did little to resolve a wide range of complaints they filed against State Farm.

Los Angeles County also has an ongoing investigation into the insurer.

Nevertheless, the threat to suspend State Farm’s license because of the alleged violations was met with skepticism. The company has a roughly 20% market share. It’s unclear where its policyholders could find coverage.

Advertisement

State Farm’s decision to not renew some 72,000 residential policies in March 2024 because of its losses after a series of wildfires sparked fears that California’s home insurance market could be on the brink of collapse.

“Given how the department has bent over backward to prevent State Farm from carrying out its threats to leave the state due to its alleged financial problems, it’s hard to believe,” said Carmen Balber, executive director of Los Angeles advocacy group Consumer Watchdog.

Soller said the terms of a possible suspension — including whether it would apply only to new policies or existing policyholders — would be set after the hearing.

“Any order must define the terms of a suspension based on the evidence at a hearing. We cannot predict what an order after a hearing on the evidence will be,” he said.

The results of the market conduct exam were released Monday in support of the legal action.

Advertisement

It found that the company failed in numerous cases to pursue a “thorough, fair and objective investigation” into claims, failed to come to “prompt, fair, and equitable settlements” and made settlement offers that were “unreasonably low.”

Other alleged violations included a failure to give timely responses to claims, provide a factual or legal basis for claim denials and give victims a primary point of contact after assigning three or more adjusters in a six-month period.

The legal filing also faults the company’s handling of smoke damage claims, including denials of payments for hygienic testing.

The company denied it was at fault in some cases and admitted it was at fault in others, often saying that the problem was due to issues with specific adjusters, and that it held meetings with adjusters after hearing about the alleged violations.

State Farm said Monday that the “additional payments tied to the issues identified in the Market Conduct Examination were about $40,000 in the context of more than $5.7 billion paid.”

Advertisement

The alleged violations each carry a fine of up to $5,000 in general and up to $10,000 if they are found to be willful.

The department said the alleged violations could bring penalties of $2 million or more. Soller said regulators also want State Farm to make policyholders whole, but does not have authority to order restitution

Soller noted that is why the department is sponsoring a bill by state Senate Insurance Committee Chair Steve Padilla (D-Chula Vista) that would require insurers to pay restitution directly to policyholders.

State Farm released a statement April 22 that outlined five “commitments” to policyholders.

They included providing single points of contact and improved communication so there are “fewer handoffs, fewer repeated explanations, and seamless support.”

Advertisement

Fire victims have long called for a crackdown on the insurer and to bar a rate increase State Farm was seeking until it resolved their complaints. They also called for Lara’s resignation, claiming he was not enforcing the law, while he contended the market conduct exam needed to take its course.

The company was ultimately granted a 17% rate hike in March after a three-way agreement that also involved Consumer Watchdog, which had intervened in the matter as allowed under state law.

Joy Chen, executive director of Every Fire Survivor’s Network, a community group that led the calls to stop the rate hike and for Lara’s resignation, said the insurer must make harmed policyholders whole.

“We call on the department to act on every outstanding complaint, and report transparently on outcomes. State Farm’s parent sits on $240 billion in assets. They have the money to fulfill their obligations to L.A. fire survivors,” Chen said.

Possible sanctions against State Farm are a “positive development” but mean little in practice for Pacific Palisades property owner John Hurley, who continues to fight the insurer to mediate asbestos and heavy metal contamination from the fire nearly 16 months ago.

Advertisement

He said State Farm stopped reimbursing him for lost rent on the unrepaired house. Hurley has filed at least half a dozen complaints with the state insurance department, to little avail.

“I unfortunately feel the insurance companies and the state are somewhat allies,” Hurley said. Even if the state agency were to prevail in sanctions against State Farm, “who gets the money? The state … or the insured?”

Times staff writer Paige St. John contributed to this report.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Business

China-backed AI tool behind fake Brad Pitt fight making Hollywood inroads

Published

on

China-backed AI tool behind fake Brad Pitt fight making Hollywood inroads

Earlier this year, a widely circulated 15-second AI-generated video of Brad Pitt fighting Tom Cruise on a rooftop sparked outrage across Hollywood. One screenwriter called the cinematic clip “terrifying.” The Motion Picture Assn. demanded the company behind the artificial intelligence tool — Chinese tech giant ByteDance — halt its “infringing activity.”

Despite the uproar, the former majority owner of TikTok has quietly continued to court filmmakers, independent artists and executives who are eager to adopt the AI video generation model called Seedance.

Seedance was launched in the U.S. this spring at a Santa Monica event hosted by a group linked to the Chinese government.

ByteDance began hiring for 100 open roles, signed multiple independent filmmakers and artists and held private conversations about financing AI films. The company threw a lavish caviar party at Cannes and in May hosted panels promoting its cinematic tool at Amazon’s AI on the Lot event in Culver City.

“Like any new technology, Hollywood ultimately has no choice but to react to market realities. And that reality is that the new crop of AI-empowered Hollywood creatives see Seedance as having the most powerful video generator in the market right now,” said Peter Csathy of Creative Media, an entertainment and AI business advisory firm.

Advertisement

Joel Kuwahara, the animation producer on early seasons of “The Simpsons,” echoed Hollywood’s quiet embrace.

“Within the industry, I know that a lot of studios haven’t approved Seedance, but yet with a wink and a nod, they’re allowing Seedance to be used. … It’s kind of like a ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ kind of a thing,’” Kuwahara told The Times.

ByteDance declined to comment on its U.S. expansion.

The race to build the dominant AI video model has created a fierce rivalry, pitting U.S. companies against the fast-closing Chinese competitors. On the American side, there are Google Veo and startups such as Runway and Luma. OpenAI’s Sora has discontinued its video tool.

The Chinese challengers Seedance, Kling and Alibaba’s HappyHorse have rapidly closed the gap on cinematic realism and have upstaged their American rivals by undercutting them on cost.

Advertisement

According to Artificial Analysis, a company that tracks cost and performances of different AI models, China’s Seedance is currently the most cost-effective and high-quality option compared with U.S. competitors. Seedance costs $9 per minute for video with audio generation, significantly lower than the $24 per minute required by Google’s Veo model.

That makes it an attractive tool for independent filmmakers like Rupert Wainwright, who recently met with Seedance executives at AI on the Lot.

He wants to use the the tool to help make his feature-length film called “Sebastian,” about a Christian saint set in 3rd century Rome. The hybrid AI film will be shot partly on location in Europe and partly generated with artificial intelligence.

“It’s the equivalent to when streaming a movie over the internet onto your TV finally became possible,” Wainwright said.

Kavan Cardoza.

Advertisement

(Kayla Bartkowski/Los Angeles Times)

A bandaged head on a computer screen.

A scene from “The Chronicles of Bone.”

(Kayla Bartkowski/Los Angeles Times)

In May, Steven Schneider, the producer of “Paranormal Activity,” famous for its handheld grainy footage-style filmmaking, announced “Terrarium,” his first hybrid AI horror production. The film’s director, Jason Zada, said it will be entirely generated using Seedance’s model.

Advertisement

Zada’s filmmaking workflow involves writing, casting, prompting and editing all simultaneously, allowing him to rewrite scripts based on “dailies” generated by AI that day.

He estimates that generating 15 seconds of high-definition video costs only $5.

“We could go from a very detailed outline, very detailed characters and have it be a bit more fluid, because we could regen[erate] as much as we want,” Zada said.

Zada plans to shoot the movie first on a soundstage with real actors and will decide later which parts work better traditionally and what should be done synthetically. He’s a member of the Directors Guild of America and said he will be employing union actors for his hybrid AI film.

Seedance also has continued building ties by offering indie creators, AI-native studios and filmmakers free monthly credits and access to unreleased features. These “tastemakers” beta test its models, offer feedback on what works, and use it for their personal filmmaking projects — which creates corporate brand awareness.

Advertisement

Kavan Cardoza is one such breakout filmmaker. His AI fantasy series, “The Chronicle of Bones,” which uses Seedance, features half a dozen distinct storylines and an ensemble of characters. New episodes, each not more than 30 minutes, are released on YouTube once a month. The solo filmmaker averages 3 million views per episode and has cultivated a YouTube audience of 500,000.

Most filmmakers are tool agnostic, but lately Cardoza has become completely dependent on Seedance, he said, because it solves a persistent problem: maintaining character consistency between shots.

A man holds a three-faced mask.

Kavan Cardoza unmasked.

(Kayla Bartkowski/Los Angeles Times)

To create one of his characters, “the last lost boy,” Cardoza took self-portraits wearing a three-faced mask and a tattered brown jacket. He used those reference images for the AI character and transforms them into a stylized person, with a personality, backstory and visual details. He fed those images back to Seedance to get consistent characters — repeating the process for each member of the cast.

Advertisement

“I can’t go get Brad Pitt because he costs like $5, 10, 20 million to be in my film,” Cardoza said. “I can probably get a synthetic actor that will act just as good as Brad Pitt in the future. That’s crazy to me.”

Cardoza has copyrighted his script and characters, and aims to eventually attract major studio interest to turn his intellectual property into a film which comes with a built-in fan base.

Such plans are likely to face resistance from the performers union SAG-AFTRA, which has decried the use of synthetic actors such as Tilly Norwood.

“The rise of Seedance comes down to [its] focus on pleasing filmmakers and making things that look filmic,” said Stephan Vladimir Bugaj, senior vice president of JioStar, a joint venture between Disney and India’s Reliance Industries.

ByteDance introduced timeline-based prompting so filmmakers can actually pick specific moments and tweak them, and improved the understanding of camera direction, physics, lighting and fluidity of action. All of this, Bugaj said, “unlocked a kind of spectacle filmmaking that the other models are not delivering quite as well.”

Advertisement

The company’s tool has been in such high demand, Zada said, that Seedance has been quoting some major Hollywood studios $2 million for unrestricted special access.

While acknowledging Seedance’s popularity and its U.S. expansion, Amit Jain, chief executive of Luma, said its ceiling in Hollywood is severely limited. Traditional studios might adopt Chinese models for some preproduction tasks such as concepting, but the geopolitical and intellectual property risks for commercial generations are too prohibitive.

“Can you imagine Disney using the ByteDance model for the next ‘Snow White’? No way,” Jain said. “This is not even a technical argument, really. That’s the reality.”

Luma has been making inroads into Hollywood selling its software but has separately funded a production service company to teach filmmakers to make hybrid AI films using its tools.

Despite conservative production budgets, AI spending by media companies is projected to grow from $2.6 billion to $12.5 billion from 2024 to 2029, according to a State of Generative AI Media report.

Advertisement
A hand presses open a book between photos of a burning head.

Kavan Cardoza flips through pages of his fine-art photography book.

(Kayla Bartkowski/Los Angeles Times)

Bugaj warned that the quality and competitive price of Chinese models should be a “wake-up call” for American players fighting for market share.

“We’re not loyal,” said Zada, the filmmaker. “Whatever is the best, we’re going to use it.”

Advertisement

Continue Reading

Business

California is bringing back EV rebates. This is how to get one

Published

on

California is bringing back EV rebates. This is how to get one

Nearly a year after the expiration of a $7,500 federal tax incentive for new electric vehicles, California is stepping in to try to motivate buyers to go electric.

Gov. Gavin Newsom allocated $135 million in his new state budget to provide incentives for new and used EVs. Participating automakers will match the funds.

California leads the nation in EV adoption, though the market has taken a hit under the Trump administration.

The state budget — a more than $350-billion spending plan — went into effect Wednesday. The EV incentives will take effect in the coming weeks as the California Air Resources Board irons out agreements with dealerships.

Here’s what you need to know.

Advertisement

What are the incentives worth?

Senate Bill 168 tasked the California Air Resources Board with setting incentive amounts for new and used electric vehicles sold in California.

Eligible buyers will receive $3,500 off for new EVs and $1,750 off for used ones. Unlike the federal tax credits that expired in September, these incentives offer an instant discount and don’t require buyers to apply for credit later.

State funds will cover half of the incentive amount, and auto manufacturers will cover the other half.

The rebates will mean that most eligible buyers will effectively get between 4% and 7% of their money back.

For used EVs, “this incentive helps what’s already a good deal become an even better deal,” said auto analyst Brian Moody. “I think that’s the perfect use of these kinds of dollars.”

Advertisement

What are the rules and exceptions?

The new incentives can’t be used on all electric vehicles — they apply only to new EVs with a manufacturer’s suggested retail price of $50,000 or less, and used EVs with a sale price of $25,000 or less.

The $50,000 maximum rules out many options on the market, but legislation outlining the incentive program makes a special exception for California-based companies. Buyers purchasing a new or used EV from a company with headquarters in California can claim the discount regardless of the vehicle price.

That’s good news for Lucid, with headquarters in Newark, Calif., and for Irvine-based Rivian. Neither company currently offers new vehicles for less than $50,000. Rivian said it plans to launch a $44,990 SUV in 2027.

Who is eligible?

California’s new EV discounts are available only to first-time EV buyers, according to the legislation.

SB 168 says the buyer’s eligibility will be “confirmed by a buyer attestation” that they have not previously owned a zero-emission vehicle.

Advertisement

The new EV incentive is less than half of the federal incentive that expired nine months ago. Whereas the federal incentive may have been enough to spark interest in a range of buyers, Moody said the lesser amount will probably appeal mainly to people who already have their eye on an EV.

“I think you have to already be considering it, or in the market,” Moody said. “I think that the amount is just right for that.”

What are California’s clean car goals?

The incentives are intended to help California reach its electric vehicle and air quality goals as those targets have been under fire from President Trump.

Shortly after taking office, Trump signed an executive order that revoked California’s authority to set its own EV regulations, which included a goal of having 100% of new vehicle sales in the state be zero-emission by 2035.

California sued the administration in response. The state also has goals, including some that have been in place since 2012, that set declining limits on smog-causing pollutants and required automakers to sell increasing percentages of electric and hybrid vehicles through 2025.

Advertisement

In March, the administration filed a new lawsuit again trying to block California’s ability to set stricter-than-federal emissions standards for cars.

Early this year, California announced that more than 2.5 million zero-emission vehicles had been sold in the state since 2010, surpassing a target to put 1.5 million zero-emission vehicles on the road by 2025.

Continue Reading

Business

Want an AI-proof job? New research says you may be safer at companies embracing the technology

Published

on

Want an AI-proof job? New research says you may be safer at companies embracing the technology

While AI is often cited as one of the reasons for mass layoffs, particularly in the tech sector, for fast-growing companies it also seems to be creating new jobs in many companies, according to a study published Tuesday from financial services company Ramp and employment database Revelio Labs.

“Our early result is that it looks like firms are starting to look for more entry-level hires, likely people who are more AI native,” said Ara Kharazian, the lead economist at Ramp, a financial services company that found a rise in early-career hiring by companies in the period they started spending heavily on AI.

The study tracked AI spending and the workforce records of nearly 22,000 U.S. companies between January 2021 and February 2026.

It found that firms that spent more on AI ended up increasing their workforce headcount by an average of 10% over the two years after rolling out the technology. Companies that made the largest AI investment expanded entry-level job hiring by 12%.

“If you are a job seeker, or you are graduating from college, and you’re choosing between two different firms that are otherwise similar, I would choose the one that’s using AI,” Kharazian said. “Our paper shows that that firm is going to grow faster.”

Advertisement

The early and intense AI adopters spent more than $100 per month per employee on AI and had their employees using advanced AI, such as coding subscriptions, as opposed to simple ChatGPT subscriptions.

The low-intensity, casual AI adopters didn’t see any hiring gains and reduced headcount.

The Ramp study showed a positive effect on employment from AI because it focused on firms adopting AI, many of them fast-growing, venture-backed companies hiring AI-native junior employees.

It reached a different conclusion than a November 2025 Stanford University study, which examined payroll data across the entire labor market and found that employment among young software developers had declined by nearly 20% from its late-2022 peak.

The two findings can both be true, Kharazian said, because the Stanford study was broader and didn’t focus just on the firms that use AI.

Advertisement

“While there may be overall weak hiring for young people, what we found is that hiring is actually strong at the firms that use AI, and the firms that use AI intensely,” he said.

In another recent study on the impact of AI on jobs, the California AI-unemployment tracker examined the state across industries, education levels and region and highlighted some worrying trends.

It seemed to disprove the understanding that AI has been hurting mostly younger employees and those in entry-level jobs.

It found that unemployment insurance claims among college-educated workers in high-AI-exposed jobs, such as customer service and software development, increased after ChatGPT’s release in 2022 and remained elevated through May 2026.

Unemployment insurance claims among master’s and PhD holders in highly AI-exposed occupations have also risen, moving from a baseline average of 13,000 claims per month in November 2022 to between 16,000 and 22,000 claims per month since mid-2023, the study found.

Advertisement

The study also categorized unemployment claims by age and found that a significant portion of claims were from those aged 36 to 65, signaling that AI’s effect doesn’t only affect early-career jobs.

It also found a higher rate of insurance claims in the San Francisco Bay Area compared with the rest of California, and that job loss claims were concentrated in the technology sector.

In 2026, tech companies have let go of more than 160,000 workers, according to trueup.io, a website tracking industry layoffs.

Many companies have said AI was one of the main reasons for layoffs. Meta, Oracle, Microsoft and other big tech companies have laid off tens of thousands of employees, while simultaneously investing billions in AI data centers.

Ramp’s findings that heavy AI adoption can lead to increased hiring suggests that some of the companies announcing large layoffs may be guilty of blaming regular cost cutting on AI, a practice dubbed “AI washing.”

Advertisement

“When you hear CEOs talk about layoffs and they attribute it to AI, I would be skeptical,” Kharazian said.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending