HBO Max subscribers will no longer be able to watch CNN from the streaming platform as of November 17, Warner Bros. Discovery (WBD) informed customers today.
After this date, HBO Max subscribers will still be able to watch some CNN content, including shows and documentaries, on demand.
The CNN Max livestream for HBO Max launched as an open beta in September 2023. Since then, it has featured live programming from CNN’s US arm and CNN International, as well as content made specifically for HBO Max.
WBD is pulling HBO Max’s CNN channel as it prepares to launch a standalone CNN streaming service, inevitably introducing more fragmentation to the burgeoning streaming industry. The streaming service is supposed to launch this fall and provide access to original CNN programing and journalism, including “a selection of live channels, catch-up features, and video-on-demand programming,” a May announcement said.
In a statement today, Alex MacCallum, EVP of digital products and services for CNN, said:
CNN has benefitted tremendously from its two years of offering a live 24/7 feed of news to HBO Max customers. We learned from HBO Max’s large base of subscribers what people want and enjoy the most from CNN, and with the launch of our own new streaming subscription offering coming later this fall, we look forward to building off that and growing our audience with this unique, new offering.
WBD will sell subscriptions to CNN’s new streaming service as part of an “All Access” subscription that will include the ability to read paywalled articles on CNN’s website.
Consumers in America would pay twice as much 10 years ago for content. People were spending, on average, $55 for content 10 years ago, and the quality of the content, the amount of content that we’re getting, the spend is 10 or 12 fold and they’re paying dramatically less. I think we want a good deal for consumers, but I think over time, there’s real opportunity, particularly for us, in that quality area, to raise price.
A question of quality
Zaslav is arguing that the quality of the shows and movies on HBO Max warrants an eventual price bump. But, in general, viewers find streaming services are getting less impressive. A Q4 2024 report from TiVo found that the percentage of people who think the streaming services that they use have “moderate to very good quality” has been declining since Q4 2021.
From TiVO’s Q4 2024 Video Trends report.
Credit: TiVo
From TiVO’s Q4 2024 Video Trends report. Credit: TiVo
Research also points to people being at their limit when it comes to TV spending. Hub Entertainment Research’s latest “Monetizing Video” study, released last month, found that for consumers, low prices “by far still matters most to the value of a TV service.”
Meanwhile, niche streaming services have been gaining in popularity as streaming subscribers grow bored with the libraries of mainstream streaming platforms and/or feel like they’ve already seen the best of what those services have to offer. Antenna, a research firm focused on consumer subscription services, reported this month that specialty streaming service subscriptions increased 12 percent year over year in 2025 thus far and grew 22 percent in the first half of 2024.
Zaslav would likely claim that HBO Max is an outlier when it comes to streaming library dissatisfaction. Although WBD’s streaming business (which includes Discovery+) turned a $293 million profit and grew subscriber-related revenue (which includes ad revenues) in its most recent earnings report, investors would likely be unhappy if the company rested on its financial laurels. WBD has one of the most profitable streaming businesses, but it still trails far behind Netflix, which posted an operating income of $3.8 billion in its most recent earnings.
Still, increasing prices is rarely welcomed by customers. With many other options for streaming these days (including free ones), HBO Max will have to do more to convince people that it is worth the extra money than merely making the claim.
Warner Bros. case builds on arguments raised in a Disney/Universal lawsuit.
DVD art for the animated movie Scooby-Doo & Batman: The Brave and the Bold. Credit: Warner Bros. Discovery
Warner Bros. hit Midjourney with a lawsuit Thursday, crafting a complaint that strives to shoot down defenses that the AI company has already raised in a similar lawsuit filed by Disney and Universal Studios earlier this year.
The big film studios have alleged that Midjourney profits off image generation models trained to produce outputs of popular characters. For Disney and Universal, intellectual property rights to pop icons like Darth Vader and the Simpsons were allegedly infringed. And now, the WB complaint defends rights over comic characters like Superman, Wonder Woman, and Batman, as well as characters considered “pillars of pop culture with a lasting impact on generations,” like Scooby-Doo and Bugs Bunny, and modern cartoon characters like Rick and Morty.
“Midjourney brazenly dispenses Warner Bros. Discovery’s intellectual property as if it were its own,” the WB complaint said, accusing Midjourney of allowing subscribers to “pick iconic” copyrighted characters and generate them in “every imaginable scene.”
Planning to seize Midjourney’s profits from allegedly using beloved characters to promote its service, Warner Bros. described Midjourney as “defiant and undeterred” by the Disney/Universal lawsuit. Despite that litigation, WB claimed that Midjourney has recently removed copyright protections in its supposedly shameful ongoing bid for profits. Nothing but a permanent injunction will end Midjourney’s outputs of allegedly “countless infringing images,” WB argued, branding Midjourney’s alleged infringements as “vast, intentional, and unrelenting.”
Examples of closely matching outputs include prompts for “screencaps” showing specific movie frames, a search term that at least one artist, Reid Southen, had optimistically predicted Midjourney would block last year, but it apparently did not.
Here are some examples included in WB’s complaint:
Midjourney’s output for the prompt, “Superman, classic cartoon character, DC comics.”
Midjourney could face devastating financial consequences in a loss. At trial, WB is hoping discovery will show the true extent of Midjourney’s alleged infringement, asking the court for maximum statutory damages, at $150,000 per infringing output. Just 2,000 infringing outputs unearthed could cost Midjourney more than its total revenue for 2024, which was approximately $300 million, the WB complaint said.
Warner Bros. hopes to hobble Midjourney’s best defense
For Midjourney, the WB complaint could potentially hit harder than the Disney/Universal lawsuit. WB’s complaint shows how closely studios are monitoring AI copyright litigation, likely choosing ideal moments to strike when studios feel they can better defend their property. So, while much of WB’s complaint echoes Disney and Universal’s arguments—which Midjourney has already begun defending against—IP attorney Randy McCarthy suggested in statements provided to Ars that WB also looked for seemingly smart ways to potentially overcome some of Midjourney’s best defenses when filing its complaint.
WB likely took note when Midjourney filed its response to the Disney/Universal lawsuit last month, arguing that its system is “trained on billions of publicly available images” and generates images not by retrieving a copy of an image in its database but based on “complex statistical relationships between visual features and words in the text-image pairs are encoded within the model.”
This defense could allow Midjourney to avoid claims that it copied WB images and distributes copies through its models. But hoping to dodge this defense, WB didn’t argue that Midjourney retains copies of its images. Rather, the entertainment giant raised a more nuanced argument that:
Midjourney used software, servers, and other technology to store and fix data associated with Warner Bros. Discovery’s Copyrighted Works in such a manner that those works are thereby embodied in the model, from which Midjourney is then able to generate, reproduce, publicly display, and distribute unlimited “copies” and “derivative works” of Warner Bros. Discovery’s works as defined by the Copyright Act.”
McCarthy noted that WB’s argument pushes the court to at least consider that even though “Midjourney does not store copies of the works in its model,” its system “nonetheless accesses the data relating to the works that are stored by Midjourney’s system.”
“This seems to be a very clever way to counter MJ’s ‘statistical pattern analysis’ arguments,” McCarthy said.
If it’s a winning argument, that could give WB a path to wipe Midjourney’s models. WB argued that each time Midjourney provides a “substantially new” version of its image generator, it “repeats this process.” And that ongoing activity—due to Midjourney’s initial allegedly “massive copying” of WB works—allows Midjourney to “further reproduce, publicly display, publicly perform, and distribute image and video outputs that are identical or virtually identical to Warner Bros. Discovery’s Copyrighted Works in response to simple prompts from subscribers.”
Perhaps further strengthening the WB’s argument, the lawsuit noted that Midjourney promotes allegedly infringing outputs on its 24/7 YouTube channel and appears to have plans to compete with traditional TV and streaming services. Asking the court to block Midjourney’s outputs instead, WB claims it’s already been “substantially and irreparably harmed” and risks further damages if the AI image generator is left unchecked.
As alleged proof that the AI company knows its tool is being used to infringe WB property, WB pointed to Midjourney’s own Discord server and subreddit, where users post outputs depicting WB characters and share tips to help others do the same. They also called out Midjourney’s “Explore” page, which allows users to drop a WB-referencing output into the prompt field to generate similar images.
“It is hard to imagine copyright infringement that is any more willful than what Midjourney is doing here,” the WB complaint said.
WB and Midjourney did not immediately respond to Ars’ request to comment.
Midjourney slammed for promising “fewer blocked jobs”
McCarthy noted that WB’s legal strategy differs in other ways from the arguments Midjourney’s already weighed in the Disney/Universal lawsuit.
The WB complaint also anticipates Midjourney’s likely defense that users are generating infringing outputs, not Midjourney, which could invalidate any charges of direct copyright infringement.
In the Disney/Universal lawsuit, Midjourney argued that courts have recently found that AI tools referencing copyrighted works is “a quintessentially transformative fair use,” accusing studios of trying to censor “an instrument for user expression.” They claim that Midjourney cannot know about infringing outputs unless studios use the company’s DMCA process, while noting that subscribers have “any number of legitimate, noninfringing grounds to create images incorporating characters from popular culture,” including “non-commercial fan art, experimentation and ideation, and social commentary and criticism.”
To avoid losing on that front, the WB complaint doesn’t depend on a ruling that Midjourney directly infringed copyrights. Instead, the complaint “more fully” emphasizes how Midjourney may be “secondarily liable for infringement via contributory, inducement and/or vicarious liability by inducing its users to directly infringe,” McCarthy suggested.
Additionally, WB’s complaint “seems to be emphasizing” that Midjourney “allegedly has the technical means to prevent its system from accepting prompts that directly reference copyrighted characters,” and “that would prevent infringing outputs from being displayed,” McCarthy said.
The complaint noted that Midjourney is in full control of what outputs can be generated. Noting that Midjourney “temporarily refused to ‘animate'” outputs of WB characters after launching video generations, the lawsuit appears to have been filed in response to Midjourney “deliberately” removing those protections and then announcing that subscribers would experience “fewer blocked jobs.”
Together, these arguments “appear to be intended to lead to the inference that Midjourney is willfully enticing its users to infringe,” McCarthy said.
WB’s complaint details simple user prompts that generate allegedly infringing outputs without any need to manipulate the system. The ease of generating popular characters seems to make Midjourney a destination for users frustrated by other AI image generators that make it harder to generate infringing outputs, WB alleged.
On top of that, Midjourney also infringes copyrights by generating WB characters, “even in response to generic prompts like ‘classic comic book superhero battle.'” And while Midjourney has seemingly taken steps to block WB characters from appearing on its “Explore” page, where users can find inspiration for prompts, these guardrails aren’t perfect, but rather “spotty and suspicious,” WB alleged. Supposedly, searches for correctly spelled character names like “Batman” are blocked, but any user who accidentally or intentionally mispells a character’s name like “Batma” can learn an easy way to work around that block.
Additionally, WB alleged, “the outputs often contain extensive nuance and detail, background elements, costumes, and accessories beyond what was specified in the prompt.” And every time that Midjourney outputs an allegedly infringing image, it “also trains on the outputs it has generated,” the lawsuit noted, creating a never-ending cycle of continually enhanced AI fakes of pop icons.
Midjourney could slow down the cycle and “minimize” these allegedly infringing outputs, if it cannot automatically block them all, WB suggested. But instead, “Midjourney has made a calculated and profit-driven decision to offer zero protection for copyright owners even though Midjourney knows about the breathtaking scope of its piracy and copyright infringement,” WB alleged.
Fearing a supposed scheme to replace WB in the market by stealing its best-known characters, WB accused Midjourney of willfully allowing WB characters to be generated in order to “generate more money for Midjourney” to potentially compete in streaming markets.
Midjourney will remove protections “on a whim”
As Midjourney’s efforts to expand its features escalate, WB claimed that trust is lost. Even if Midjourney takes steps to address rightsholders’ concerns, WB argued, studios must remain watchful of every upgrade, since apparently, “Midjourney can and will remove copyright protection measures on a whim.”
The complaint noted that Midjourney just this week announced “plans to continue deploying new versions” of its image generator, promising to make it easier to search for and save popular artists’ styles—updating a feature that many artists loathe.
Without an injunction, Midjourney’s alleged infringement could interfere with WB’s licensing opportunities for its content, while “illegally and unfairly” diverting customers who buy WB products like posters, wall art, prints, and coloring books, the complaint said.
Perhaps Midjourney’s strongest defense could be efforts to prove that WB benefits from its image generator. In the Disney/Universal lawsuit, Midjourney pointed out that studios “benefit from generative AI models,” claiming that “many dozens of Midjourney subscribers are associated with” Disney and Universal corporate email addresses. If WB corporate email addresses are found among subscribers, Midjourney could claim that WB is trying to “have it both ways” by “seeking to profit” from AI tools while preventing Midjourney and its subscribers from doing the same.
McCarthy suggested it’s too soon to say how the WB battle will play out, but Midjourney’s response will reveal how it intends to shift tactics to avoid courts potentially picking apart its defense of its training data, while keeping any blame for copyright-infringing outputs squarely on users.
“As with the Disney/Universal lawsuit, we need to wait to see how Midjourney answers these latest allegations,” McCarthy said. “It is definitely an interesting development that will have widespread implications for many sectors of our society.”
Ashley is a senior policy reporter for Ars Technica, dedicated to tracking social impacts of emerging policies and new technologies. She is a Chicago-based journalist with 20 years of experience.
But that old promise to HBO Max subscribers hasn’t carried over to Max, even though WBD is renaming Max to HBO Max this summer. As PCWorld noted, Max has been showing ads during HBO original content like The Last of Us. The publication reported seeing three ad breaks during the show in addition to ads before the show started.
Ars Technica reached out to WBD for comment about these changes but didn’t receive a response ahead of publication.
Depleting value
With numerous streaming services launching over the past few years, many streaming customers have been pushed to subscribe to multiple streaming services to have access to all of the shows and movies that they want. Streaming providers also regularly increase subscription fees and implement password crackdowns, and ad-based subscriptions were supposed to offer a cheaper way to stream.
Streaming providers forcing subscribers to watch more commercials risk depleting the value of ad-based streaming tiers. Online, for example, people are questioning the value of their ad-based Max subscriptions, which start at $10 per month, compared to $17/month for ad-free Max.
“I don’t how it could be worse. I watched several HBO documentaries, and they already had more adverts than Pluto TV [a free, ad-supported streaming service]. The kids programs for Cartoon Network started out with few adverts, but they have been loading up on adverts,” a Reddit user said in response to Max showing more ads.
Another Reddit user said that “if [Max] has ads, it shouldn’t be $10/month.”
Beyond Max, PCWorld cited MediaRadar data finding that Disney+ shows over 5.3 minutes of ads per hour, and Hulu shows over seven minutes of commercials hourly.
Such lengthy commercial breaks can extend past a convenient snack or bathroom break and force subscribers to consider the value of their time and how much time they want to allocate to get through a 22-minute program, for example.
With linear TV reportedly showing 13 to 16 minutes of commercials per hour, though, streaming providers still have space to show even more ads while still claiming that they show fewer ads than alternatives.
Warner Bros. Discovery will split its business into two publicly traded companies, with one focused on its streaming and studios business and the other on its television network businesses, including CNN and Discovery.
The US media giant said the move would unlock value for shareholders as well as create opportunities for both businesses, breaking up a group created just three years ago from the merger of Warner Media and Discovery.
Warner Bros. Discovery last year revealed its intent to split its business in two, a plan first reported by the Financial Times in July last year. The company intends to complete the split by the middle of next year.
The move comes on the heels of a similar move by rival Comcast, which last year announced plans to spin off its television networks, including CNBC and MSNBC, into a separate company.
US media giants are seeking to split their faster growing streaming businesses from their legacy television networks, which are facing the prospect of long-term decline as viewers turn away from traditional television.
Warner Bros. Discovery shares were more than 10 percent higher pre-market.
David Zaslav, chief executive of Warner Bros. Discovery, will head the streaming and studios arm, while chief financial officer Gunnar Wiedenfels will serve as president and chief executive of global networks. Both will continue in their present roles until the separation.
Zaslav said on Monday the split would result in a “sharper focus” and enhanced “strategic flexibility,” that would leave each company better placed to compete in “today’s evolving media landscape.”
Warner Bros. Discovery Chair Samuel A. Di Piazza Jr. said the move would “enhance shareholder value.”
The streaming and studios arm will consist of Warner Bros. Television, Warner Bros. Motion Picture Group, DC Studios, HBO, and HBO Max, as well as their film and television libraries.
Global networks will include entertainment, sports, and news television brands around the world, including CNN, TNT Sports in the US, and Discovery.
Today, Zaslav and company are doing an about-face, with the CEO saying that WBD is “bringing back HBO, the brand that represents the highest quality in media, to further accelerate” the streaming service’s “growth in the years ahead.”
WBD’s announcement added that “returning the HBO brand into HBO Max will further drive the service forward and amplify the uniqueness that subscribers can expect from the offering.”
“It is also a testament to WBD’s willingness to keep boldly iterating its strategy and approach—leaning heavily on consumer data and insights—to best position itself for success,” the media conglomerate claimed.
“Not everything for everyone”
The announcement is a result of WBD rethinking its streaming strategy as leadership acknowledges that it failed to sell Max as an essential streaming service.
Last month, executives admitted that Max is viewed as more of an add-on service, per The Wall Street Journal (WSJ). Executives said at the time that they no longer want to try to push their streaming service as something for every member of the household.
“What people want from us in a world where they’ve got Netflix and Amazon [Prime Video] are those things that differentiate us,” Casey Bloys, chairman and CEO of HBO and Max content, told WSJ.
The strategy pivot since has included moving further away from children’s programming and some Discovery content, like shows from the Food Network and HGTV. There have also been reports of WBD exploring splitting Discovery from Max.
“We’re not fighting for the more-is-better game,” JB Perrette, WBD’s streaming president and CEO, told WSJ. “We’ll let others deal with the volume.”
In today’s announcement, Perrette doubled down on those sentiments:
We will continue to focus on what makes us unique—not everything for everyone in a household, but something distinct and great for adults and families. It’s really not subjective, not even controversial—our programming just hits different.
Although digital media has surpassed physical media in popularity, there are still plenty of reasons for movie buffs and TV fans to hold onto, and even continue buying, DVDs. With physical media, owners are assured that they’ll always be able to play their favorite titles, so long as they take care of their discs. While digital copies are sometimes abruptly ripped away from viewers, physical media owners don’t have to worry about a corporation ruining their Friday night movie plans. At least, that’s what we thought.
It turns out that if your DVD collection includes titles distributed by Warner Bros. Home Entertainment, the home movie distribution arm of Warner Bros. Discovery (WBD), you may one day open up the box to find a case of DVD rot.
Recently, Chris Bumbray, editor-in-chief of movie news and reviews site JoBlo, detailed what would be a harrowing experience for any film collector. He said he recently tried to play his Passage to Marseille DVD, but “after about an hour, the disc simply stopped working.” He said “the same thing happened” with Across the Pacific. Bumbray bought a new DVD player but still wasn’t able to play his Desperate Journey disc. The latter case was especially alarming because, like a lot of classic films and shows, the title isn’t available as a digital copy.
DVDs, if taken care of properly, should last for 30 to up to 100 years. It turned out that the problems that Bumbray had weren’t due to a DVD player or poor DVD maintenance. In a statement to JoBlo shared on Tuesday, WBD confirmed widespread complaints about DVDs manufactured between 2006 and 2008. The statement said:
Warner Bros. Home Entertainment is aware of potential issues affecting select DVD titles manufactured between 2006 – 2008, and the company has been actively working with consumers to replace defective discs.
Where possible, the defective discs have been replaced with the same title. However, as some of the affected titles are no longer in print or the rights have expired, consumers have been offered an exchange for a title of like-value.
Consumers with affected product can contact the customer support team at whv@wbd.com.
Collectors have known about this problem for years
It’s helpful that WBD recently provided some clarity about this situation, but its statement to JoBlo appears to be the first time the company has publicly acknowledged the disc problems. This is despite DVD collectors lamenting early onset disc rot for years, including via YouTube and online forums.
Although Fubo’s lawsuit against the JV appears to be settled, other rivals in sports television seemed intent on continuing to fight Venu.
In a January 9 letter (PDF) to US District Judge Margaret M. Garnett of the Southern District in New York, who granted Fubo’s premliminary injunction against Venu, Michael Hartman, general counsel and chief external affairs officer for DirectTV, wrote that Fubo’s settlement “does nothing to resolve the underlying antitrust violations at issue.” Hartman asked the court to maintain the preliminary injunction against the app’s launch.
“The preliminary injunction has protected consumers and distributors alike from the JV Defendant’s scheme to ‘capture demand,’ ‘suppress’ potentially competitive sports bundles, and impose consumer price hikes,” the letter says, adding that DirectTV would continue to explore its options regarding the JV “and other anticompetitive harms.”
Similarly, Pantelis Michalopoulos, counsel for EchoStar Corporation, which owns Dish, penned a letter (PDF) to Garnett on January 7, claiming the members of the JV “purchased their way out of their antitrust violation.” Michalopoulos added that the JV defendants “should not be able to pay their way into erasing the Court’s carefully reasoned decision” to temporarily block Venu’s launch.
In addition to Fubo, DirecTV, and Dish, ACA Connects (a trade association for small- to medium-sized telecommunication service providers) publicly expressed concerns about Venu. NFL was also reported to be worried about the implications of the venture.
Now, the three giants behind Venu are throwing in the towel and abandoning an app that could have garnered a lot of subscribers tired of hopping around apps, channels, and subscriptions to watch all the sports content they wanted. But they’re also avoiding a lot of litigation and potential backlash in the process.
At the same time, the rest of WBD is in a period of duress as the cable and movie industries struggle. Films like Beetlejuice Beetlejuice failed to reach the same success as last year’s Barbie, sending WBD studios’ revenue down 17 percent and its theatrical revenue down 40 percent. As WBD CEO David Zaslav put it:
Inconsistency also remains an issue at our Motion Picture Studio, as reinforced recently by the disappointing results of Joker 2.
Some things that helped buoy WBD’s legacy businesses won’t be around the next time WBD execs speak to investors. This includes revenue from distributing the Olympics in Europe and gains from the Hollywood writers’ and actors’ strikes ending. With WBD’s networks business also understandably down, WBD’s overall revenue decreased 3 percent YoY. It’s natural for the company to lean more on its strongest leg (streaming) to help support the others.
WBD wants more streaming M&As
Today, Zaslav reiterated earlier stated beliefs that the burgeoning streaming industry needs more mergers and acquisitions activity to maintain profitability. He discussed complications for users, who have to consider various services’ pricing and are “Googling where a show is, or where a sport is, and you’re going from one to another, and there’s so many.” He added:
It’s not sustainable. And there probably should have been more meaningful consolidation… You’re starting to see fairly large players saying, ‘Hey, maybe I should be a part of you. Or maybe I should be a part of somebody else.’
Zaslav said that it’s too early to know if Donald Trump’s presidency will boost these interests. But he suggested that the incoming administration “may offer a pace of change and an opportunity for consolidation that may be quite different [and] that would provide a real positive and accelerated impact on this industry that’s needed.”
It’s also too early to know if streaming consolidation would help subscribers fed up with rising prices and growing ad loads. But for now, that’s about all we can bet on from streaming services like Max.
“That movie sucks,” Elon Musk said in response to the lawsuit.
Credit: via Alcon Entertainment
Elon Musk may have personally used AI to rip off a Blade Runner 2049 image for a Tesla cybercab event after producers rejected any association between their iconic sci-fi movie and Musk or any of his companies.
In a lawsuit filed Tuesday, lawyers for Alcon Entertainment—exclusive rightsholder of the 2017 Blade Runner 2049 movie—accused Warner Bros. Discovery (WBD) of conspiring with Musk and Tesla to steal the image and infringe Alcon’s copyright to benefit financially off the brand association.
According to the complaint, WBD did not approach Alcon for permission until six hours before the Tesla event when Alcon “refused all permissions and adamantly objected” to linking their movie with Musk’s cybercab.
At that point, WBD “disingenuously” downplayed the license being sought, the lawsuit said, claiming they were seeking “clip licensing” that the studio should have known would not provide rights to livestream the Tesla event globally on X (formerly Twitter).
Musk’s behavior cited
Alcon said it would never allow Tesla to exploit its Blade Runner film, so “although the information given was sparse, Alcon learned enough information for Alcon’s co-CEOs to consider the proposal and firmly reject it, which they did.” Specifically, Alcon denied any affiliation—express or implied—between Tesla’s cybercab and Blade Runner 2049.
“Musk has become an increasingly vocal, overtly political, highly polarizing figure globally, and especially in Hollywood,” Alcon’s complaint said. If Hollywood perceived an affiliation with Musk and Tesla, the complaint said, the company risked alienating not just other car brands currently weighing partnerships on the Blade Runner 2099 TV series Alcon has in the works, but also potentially losing access to top Hollywood talent for their films.
The “Hollywood talent pool market generally is less likely to deal with Alcon, or parts of the market may be, if they believe or are confused as to whether, Alcon has an affiliation with Tesla or Musk,” the complaint said.
Musk, the lawsuit said, is “problematic,” and “any prudent brand considering any Tesla partnership has to take Musk’s massively amplified, highly politicized, capricious and arbitrary behavior, which sometimes veers into hate speech, into account.”
In bad faith
Because Alcon had no chance to avoid the affiliation while millions viewed the cybercab livestream on X, Alcon saw Tesla using the images over Alcon’s objections as “clearly” a “bad faith and malicious gambit… to link Tesla’s cybercab to strong Hollywood brands at a time when Tesla and Musk are on the outs with Hollywood,” the complaint said.
Alcon believes that WBD’s agreement was likely worth six or seven figures and likely stipulated that Tesla “affiliate the cybercab with one or more motion pictures from” WBD’s catalog.
While any of the Mad Max movies may have fit the bill, Musk wanted to use Blade Runner 2049, the lawsuit alleged, because that movie features an “artificially intelligent autonomously capable” flying car (known as a spinner) and is “extremely relevant” to “precisely the areas of artificial intelligence, self-driving capability, and autonomous automotive capability that Tesla and Musk are trying to market” with the cybercab.
The Blade Runner 2049 spinner is “one of the most famous vehicles in motion picture history,” the complaint alleged, recently exhibited alongside other iconic sci-fi cars like the Back to the Future time-traveling DeLorean or the light cycle from Tron: Legacy.
As Alcon sees it, Musk seized the misappropriation of the Blade Runner image to help him sell Teslas, and WBD allegedly directed Musk to use AI to skirt Alcon’s copyright to avoid a costly potential breach of contract on the day of the event.
For Alcon, brand partnerships are a lucrative business, with carmakers paying as much as $10 million to associate their vehicles with Blade Runner 2049. By seemingly using AI to generate a stylized copy of the image at the heart of the movie—which references the scene where their movie’s hero, K, meets the original 1982 Blade Runner hero, Rick Deckard—Tesla avoided paying Alcon’s typical fee, their complaint said.
Musk maybe faked the image himself, lawsuit says
During the live event, Musk introduced the cybercab on a WBD Hollywood studio lot. For about 11 seconds, the Tesla founder “awkwardly” displayed a fake, allegedly AI-generated Blade Runner 2049 film still. He used the image to make a point that apocalyptic films show a future that’s “dark and dismal,” whereas Tesla’s vision of the future is much brighter.
In Musk’s slideshow image, believed to be AI-generated, a male figure is “seen from behind, with close-cropped hair, wearing a trench coat or duster, standing in almost full silhouette as he surveys the abandoned ruins of a city, all bathed in misty orange light,” the lawsuit said. The similarity to the key image used in Blade Runner 2049 marketing is not “coincidental,” the complaint said.
If there were any doubts that this image was supposed to reference the Blade Runner movie, the lawsuit said, Musk “erased them” by directly referencing the movie in his comments.
“You know, I love Blade Runner, but I don’t know if we want that future,” Musk said at the event. “I believe we want that duster he’s wearing, but not the, uh, not the bleak apocalypse.”
The producers think the image was likely generated—”even possibly by Musk himself”—by “asking an AI image generation engine to make ‘an image from the K surveying ruined Las Vegas sequence of Blade Runner2049,’ or some closely equivalent input direction,” the lawsuit said.
Alcon is not sure exactly what went down after the company rejected rights to use the film’s imagery at the event and is hoping to learn more through the litigation’s discovery phase.
Musk may try to argue that his comments at the Tesla event were “only meant to talk broadly about the general idea of science fiction films and undesirable apocalyptic futures and juxtaposing them with Musk’s ostensibly happier robot car future vision.”
But producers argued that defense is “not credible” since Tesla explicitly asked to use the Blade Runner 2049 image, and there are “better” films in WBD’s library to promote Musk’s message, like the Mad Max movies.
“But those movies don’t have massive consumer goodwill specifically around really cool-looking (Academy Award-winning) artificially intelligent, autonomous cars,” the complaint said, accusing Musk of stealing the image when it wasn’t given to him.
If Tesla and WBD are found to have violated copyright and false representation laws, that potentially puts both companies on the hook for damages that cover not just copyright fines but also Alcon’s lost profits and reputation damage after the alleged “massive economic theft.”
Musk responds to Blade Runner suit
Alcon suspects that Musk believed that Blade Runner 2049 was eligible to be used at the event under the WBD agreement, not knowing that WBD never had “any non-domestic rights or permissions for the Picture.”
Once Musk requested to use the Blade Runner imagery, Alcon alleged that WBD scrambled to secure rights by obscuring the very lucrative “larger brand affiliation proposal” by positioning their ask as a request for much less expensive “clip licensing.”
After Alcon rejected the proposal outright, WBD told Tesla that the affiliation in the event could not occur because X planned to livestream the event globally. But even though Tesla and X allegedly knew that the affiliation was rejected, Musk appears to have charged ahead with the event as planned.
“It all exuded an odor of thinly contrived excuse to link Tesla’s cybercab to strong Hollywood brands,” Alcon’s complaint said. “Which of course is exactly what it was.”
Alcon is hoping a jury will find Tesla, Musk, and WBD violated laws. Producers have asked for an injunction stopping Tesla from using any Blade Runner imagery in its promotional or advertising campaigns. They also want a disclaimer slapped on the livestreamed event video on X, noting that the Blade Runner association is “false or misleading.”
For Musk, a ban on linking Blade Runner to his car company may feel bleak. Last year, he touted the Cybertruck as an “armored personnel carrier from the future—what Bladerunner would have driven.” This amused many Blade Runner fans, as Gizmodo noted, because there never was a character named “Bladerunner,” but rather that was just a job title for the film’s hero Deckard.
In response to the lawsuit, Musk took to X to post what Blade Runner fans—who rated the 2017 movie as 88 percent fresh on Rotten Tomatoes—might consider a polarizing take, replying, “That movie sucks” on a post calling out Alcon’s lawsuit as “absurd.”
Ashley is a senior policy reporter for Ars Technica, dedicated to tracking social impacts of emerging policies and new technologies. She is a Chicago-based journalist with 20 years of experience.
A US judge has temporarily blocked the launch of a sports streaming service formed by Disney’s ESPN, Warner Bros and Fox, finding that it was likely to “substantially lessen competition” in the market.
The service, dubbed Venu, was expected to launch later this year. But FuboTV, a sports-focused streaming platform, filed an antitrust suit in February to block it, arguing its business would “suffer irreparable harm” as a result.
On Friday, US District Judge Margaret Garnett in New York granted an injunction to halt the launch of the service while Fubo’s lawsuit against the entertainment giants works its way through the court.
The opinion was sealed but the judge noted in an entry on the court docket that Fubo was “likely to succeed on its claims” that by entering the agreement, the companies “will substantially lessen competition and restrain trade in the relevant market” in violation of antitrust law.
In a statement, ESPN, Fox and Warner Bros Discovery said they planned to appeal against the decision.
Venu was aimed at US consumers who had either ditched their traditional pay TV packages for streaming or never signed up for a cable subscription. “Cord cutting” has been eroding the traditional TV business for years, but live sports has remained a primary draw for customers who have held on to their cable subscriptions.
Fubo TV was launched in 2015 as a sports-focused streamer. It offers more than 350 channels—including those carrying major sporting events such as Premier League football matches, baseball, the National Football League and the US National Basketball Association—for monthly subscription prices starting at $79.99. Its offerings included networks owned by Disney and Fox.
ESPN, Fox and Warner Bros said Venu was “pro-competitive,” aimed at reaching “viewers who currently are not served by existing subscription options.”
Venu was expected to charge $42.99 a month when it launched later this month. It “will feature just 15 channels, all featuring popular live sports—the kind of skinny sports bundle that Fubo has tried to offer for nearly a decade, only to encounter tooth-and-nail resistance,” Fubo said in a court filing seeking the injunction.
Venu was expected to aggregate about $16 billion worth of sports rights, analysts have estimated. It was not expected to have an impact on the individual companies’ ability to strike new rights deals.
Analysts had questioned its position in the marketplace. Disney plans to roll out ESPN as a “flagship” streaming service in August 2025 that will carry programming that appears on the TV network as well as gaming, shopping and other interactive content. Disney chief executive Bob Iger said he wants the service to become the “pre-eminent digital sports platform.”
Fubo shares rose 16.8 percent after the ruling, but the stock is down 51 percent this year.
Streaming services like Netflix and Peacock have already found multiple ways to aggravate paying subscribers this week.
The streaming industry has been heating up. As media giants rush to establish a successful video streaming business, they often make platform changes that test subscribers’ patience and the value of streaming.
Below is a look at the most exasperating news from streaming services from this week. The scale of this article demonstrates how fast and frequently disappointing streaming news arises. Coincidentally, as we wrote this article, another price hike was announced.
We’ll also examine each streaming platform’s financial status to get an idea of what these companies are thinking (spoiler: They’re thinking about money).
Peacock’s raising prices
For the second time in the past year, NBCUniversal is bumping the price of Peacock, per The Hollywood Reporter (THR) on Monday.
As of July 18, if you try to sign up for Peacock Premium (which has ads), it’ll cost $7.99 per month, up from $5.99/month today. Premium Plus, (which doesn’t have ads), will go up from $11.99/month to $13.99/month. Annual subscription pricing for the ad plan is increasing 33.3 percent from $59.99 to $79.99, and the ad-free annual plan’s price will rise 16.7 percent from $119.99/year to $139.99/year.
Those already subscribed to Peacock won’t see the changes until August 17, six days after the closing ceremony of the 2024 Summer Olympics, which will stream on Peacock.
The pricing changes will begin eight days before the Olympics’ opening ceremony. That means that in the days leading up to the sporting event, signing up for Peacock will cost more than ever. That said, there’s still time to sign up Peacock for its current pricing.
As noted by THR, the changes come as NBCUniversal may feel more confident about its streaming service, which now includes big-ticket items, like exclusive NFL games and Oppenheimer(which Peacock streamed exclusively for a time),in addition to new features for the Olympics, like multiview.
Some outspoken subscribers, though, aren’t placated.
“Just when I was starting to like the service,” Reddit user MarkB1997 said in response to the news. “I’ll echo what everyone has been saying for a while now, but these services are pricing themselves out of the market.”
Peacock subscribers already experienced a price increase on August 17, 2023. At the time, Peacock’s Premium pricing went from $4.99/month to $5.99/month, and the Premium Plus tier from $9.99/month to $11.99/month.
Peacock’s pockets
Peacock’s price bumps appear to be a way for the younger streaming service to inch closer to profitability amid a major, quadrennial, global event.
NBCUniversal parent company Comcast released its Q1 2024 earnings report last week, showing that Peacock, which launched in July 2020, remains unprofitable. For the quarter, Peacock lost $639 million, compared to $825 million in Q4 2023 and $704 million in Q1 2023. Losses were largely attributed to higher programming costs.
Peacock’s paid subscriber count is lower than some of its rivals. The platform ended the quarter with 34 million paid users, up from 31 million at the end of 2023. Revenue also rose, with the platform pulling in $1.1 billion, representing a 54 percent boost compared to the prior year.
Sony bumps Crunchyroll prices weeks after shuttering Funimation
Today, Sony’s anime streaming service Crunchyroll announced that it’s increasing subscription prices as follows:
The Mega Fan Tier, which allows streaming on up to four devices simultaneously, will go from $9.99/month to $11.99/month
The Ultimate Fan Tier, which allows streaming on up to six devices simultaneously, will go from $14.99/month to $15.99/month
Crunchyroll’s cheapest plan ($7.99/month) remains unchanged. None of Crunchyroll’s subscription plans have ads. Crunchyroll’s also adding discounts to its store for each subscription tier, but this is no solace for those who don’t shop there on a monthly basis or at all.
The news of higher prices comes about a month after Sony shuttered Funimation, an anime streaming service it acquired in 2017. After buying Crunchyroll in 2021, Funimation was somewhat redundant for Sony. And now that Sony has converted all remaining Funimation accounts into Crunchyroll accounts (while deleting Funimation digital libraries), it’s forcing many customers to pay more to watch their favorite anime.
A user going by BioMountain on Crunchyroll said the news is “not great,” since they weren’t “a big fan of having to switch from Funimation to begin with, especially since that app was so much better” than Crunchyroll.
Interestingly, when Anime News Network asked on February 29 whether Crunchyroll would see prices rise over the next two years, the company told the publication that predicting a price change for that time frame would be improbable.
Crunching numbers
Crunchyroll had 5 million paid subscribers in 2021 but touted over 13 million in January, (plus over 89 million unpaid users, per Bloomberg). Crunchyroll president Rahul Purini has said that Crunchyroll is profitable, but not by how much.
In 2023, Goldman Sachs estimated that Crunchyroll would represent 36 percent of Sony Pictures Entertainment’s profit by 2028, compared to about 1 percent in March.
However, Purini has shown interest in growing the company further and noted to Variety in February an increase in “general entertainment” companies getting into anime.
Still, anime remains a more niche entertainment category, and Crunchyroll is more specialized than some other streaming platforms. With Sony making it so that anime fans have one less streaming service option and jacking up the prices for one of the limited options, it’s showing that it wants as much of the $20 billion anime market as possible.
Crunchyroll claimed today that its pricing changes are tied to “investment in more anime, additional services like music and games, and additional subscriber benefits.”
