Listen up, flyers: United Airlines said it will start removing passengers from flights who refuse to wear headphones while listening to content on their personal devices, and such behavior could lead to a permanent ban.

The airline revised its contract of carriage on Feb. 27 to include the new provision, which sits under the ‘refusal of transport’ section that outlines the instances in which United can boot its passengers from flights.

According to the document, United reserves the right to refuse transport — on a permanent basis — to any passenger who listens to their entertainment on speaker.

It also states that any passenger who causes United ‘any loss, damage or expense of any kind,’ may be responsible for reimbursing the airline.

‘We’ve always encouraged customers to use headphones when listening to audio content — and our Wi-Fi rules already remind customers to use headphones,’ United said in a statement. ‘With the expansion of Starlink, it seemed like a good time to make that even clearer by adding it to the contract of carriage.’

Passengers who forgot their headphones at home can request a free pair on their flight, if they’re available, according to United’s in-flight entertainment information.

The move inspired a strong reaction online.

‘One would think this is common sense and airlines would have in their rules,’ said one Reddit user. ‘Now let’s have the same rule for airline lounges.’

Others complained that this has become increasingly common on flights, especially among those with small children.

‘As a flight attendant; we have to tell people literally every flight,’ another person said on Reddit. ‘It makes our jobs harder when we’re stuck policing common courtesy instead of just focusing on service & safety.’

The Justice Department’s endeavor to break up Live Nation, Ticketmaster’s parent company, has officially made its way to the courtroom.

The antitrust case, which began with jury selection Monday, is unfolding in federal court in New York. Opening statements are scheduled to start Tuesday, with the trial expected to last six weeks.

The lawsuit, filed in 2024 by the Justice Department and dozens of state attorneys general, as well as Washington, D.C., alleges that Live Nation has illegally dominated the live concert industry by monopolizing ticketing, concert booking, venues and promotions.

The complaint, which was filed in the Southern District of New York, accuses the company of engaging in ‘anticompetitive conduct’ that leads fans to pay more in fees, artists to get fewer opportunities to play concerts and venues to have limited choices for ticketing services.

Ticketmaster has for years been the target of scrutiny by music fans who reported frustrations with buying tickets through the platform.

Live Nation directly manages more than 400 musical artists and owns or controls more than 265 concert venues in North America. And through Ticketmaster, the lawsuit says, it controls around 80% of major concert venues’ ticketing — as well as a growing share of the resale market.

“Through interconnected agreements associated with Live Nation’s various roles as ticketer, promoter, artist manager, and venue owner,” the complaint says, “Live Nation has created a feedback loop that pushes ticketing and ancillary fees higher while allowing Live Nation to be on all sides of numerous transactions and thereby double-dip from the pockets of fans, artists, and venues.”

Here’s what else to know.

Attempts to advocate for ticketing reform have spanned decades. The rock band Pearl Jam tried to push the issue forward 30 years ago when its members testified before Congress, saying Ticketmaster had refused to agree to low concert ticket prices and fees. The case was dismissed a year later, and Ticketmaster’s dominance has persisted over the decades that followed.

But frustration over Ticketmaster began to boil over when it incurred the wrath of one of the country’s largest fan bases: Swifties, aka followers of Taylor Swift.

In late 2022, overloaded presale queues for the domestic leg of Swift’s 2023 Eras Tour caused the site to crash and led Ticketmaster to cancel the sale. The fiasco even drew the attention of Swift herself, who called it “excruciating” to watch.

Soon afterward, in January 2023, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing examining Ticketmaster’s dominance in the industry. During the bipartisan hearing, which probed whether Ticketmaster’s outsize control has unfairly hurt customers, even senators couldn’t refrain from making references to Swift.

The Swifties also brought their own lawsuits against Ticketmaster in December 2022. One class-action suit was dropped by the end of 2023, while another suit, filed together by 355 individual ticket buyers, still awaits trial.

Live Nation Entertainment has denied that it’s a monopoly.

The company has told NBC News that the Justice Department’s lawsuit “won’t solve the issues fans care about relating to ticket prices, service fees, and access to in-demand shows.”

“Calling Ticketmaster a monopoly may be a PR win for the DOJ in the short term, but it will lose in court because it ignores the basic economics of live entertainment, such as the fact that the bulk of service fees go to venues, and that competition has steadily eroded Ticketmaster’s market share and profit margin,” the company said.

Last week, Live Nation asked U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian to pause the case so it could appeal his decision denying the case’s dismissal.

Subramanian, who was appointed by President Joe Biden, declined to delay the trial and ruled to allow the Justice Department’s claims to proceed.

Potential witnesses for the trial include: musician Kid Rock (whose real name is Robert Ritchie), Minnesota Timberwolves CEO Matthew Caldwell, Roc Nation CEO Desiree Perez, Live Nation Entertainment CEO Michael Rapino and Mumford & Sons keyboardist Ben Lovett.

Kid Rock is expected to testify about ‘competitive conditions for concert promotions and primary ticketing, including the impact of Defendants’ actions on artists and fans,’ according to the potential witness list provided by the plaintiffs’ attorneys. In January, he told the Senate Commerce Committee at a hearing that the ticketing industry is ‘full of greedy snakes and scoundrels.’ (It appears Kid Rock is still partnering with Live Nation for his “Freedom 250” tour, with tickets currently being sold exclusively through the platform.)

Lovett’s testimony, meanwhile, would be likely to address ‘artist preferences and competitive dynamics associated with the promotions and amphitheaters markets,’ according to the plaintiffs’ potential witness list document. He’s also listed on the defendants’ potential witness list document.

Live Nation CEO Michael Rapino and former Ticketmaster CEO Irving Azoff are also expected to take the stand. They were instrumental figures in the 2010 merger.

Azoff, who represents major artists such as Harry Styles, is ‘likely to testify about industry trends, dynamics, and competition, the selection of live event promotion companies, and tour and show routing and venue selection, as well as ticketing provider preferences,’ according to the potential witness list provided by the defendants’ attorneys.

Rapino’s expected testimony would focus on ‘the company’s business, its corporate structure, strategy, and finances, including the different lines of business and how they interact, as well as industry trends, dynamics, and competition.’ The defendants’ attorneys also said he would be likely to ‘rebut the plaintiff’s allegations of misconduct and anticompetitive effects.’

Last year, the Federal Trade Commission separately sued Live Nation and Ticketmaster over allegations of illegal and deceptive business practices that it says caused consumers to pay ‘significantly more’ than the face value of a ticket.

Seven states — Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Nebraska, Tennessee, Utah and Virginia — joined the FTC’s suit, which was filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

Los Angeles County filed a civil lawsuit against Roblox, alleging that the platform markets itself as a gaming experience for children but has created a ‘largely unsupervised online world’ that allows adults to mingle with minors with very little oversight.

The lawsuit says that Roblox’s architecture makes it easy for adults to masquerade as children in order to target them.

‘Beneath the bright animation and cheerful branding lies an environment in which child predators can readily locate, contact, and interact with minors through Roblox-enabled features and defaults, and where age-inappropriate sexual content and sexually themed interactions and experiences can be assessed and disseminated through Roblox’s functionality and tools, leaving minors to navigate dangers they do not and cannot understand,’ the lawsuit says.

The suit was filed on Thursday and asks that Roblox be ordered to pay a civil penalty of up to $2,500 for each violation of the Unfair Competition and False Advertising laws. It also asks that Roblox cover the county’s legal fees.

Roblox said in a statement that it disputes the county’s claims ‘and will defend against it vigorously.’

‘Roblox is built with safety at its core, and we continue to evolve and strengthen our protections every day,’ a company spokesperson said. ‘We have advanced safeguards that monitor our platform for harmful content and communications, and users cannot send or receive images via chat, avoiding one of the most prevalent opportunities for misuse seen elsewhere online.’

The company said safety remains a top priority and takes ‘swift action against anyone found to violate our safety rules.’

The lawsuit, however, accuses Roblox of failing to implement safety measures, including age verification, default communications restrictions and effective reporting mechanisms.

‘These fixes are obvious, easy, and long overdue,’ it says.

The county said in its suit that it has had to ‘expend, divert and increase resources to address rising rates of child sexual exploitation, trafficking, abuse and mental health trauma.’

‘By taking actions that increase the costs of law enforcement, child protective services, victim services, mental health counseling, and other public services, Roblox has diverted taxpayer dollars away from other critical public programs and services,’ the suit alleges.

Roblox said in its statement that as of January, it requires all users to undergo a facial age check to use the chat feature, and that chat users are placed into age groups.

Parents are given control over whether their child can access the chat feature, can block specific users and games, and can set screen time limits. The company also said it does not allow users to send images or videos via chat.

‘There is no finish line when it comes to protecting kids, and while no system can be perfect, our commitment to safety never ends,’ Roblox said.

Since its launch in 2006, Roblox has grown to become a massive global success. It has 144.5 million daily active users with over 35 billion engagement hours, its website states.

According to its most recent shareholder letter for Quarter 4, revenue grew 36% year-over-year to $4.9 billion and generated $1.8. billion in operating cash flow in fiscal 2025.

This was due to the addition of about 60 million daily active users from Quarter 4 of 2024 to Quarter 4 of 2025, the letter says.

Over the years, the gaming platform has been at the center of several lawsuits, including one filed last year where a California woman alleged that her teenage son was groomed and coerced to send explicit images on Roblox and Discord. The suit was filed after the boy took his own life in April 2024.

Attorneys for the mother said the boy was targeted by “an adult sex predator” who posed as a child on Roblox. The lawsuit alleged that the conversation between the boy and the man escalated to include “sexual topics and explicit exchanges.” The man eventually encouraged the boy to move the conversation to Discord, demanded that the boy share explicit videos and images, and then threatened to post them, the lawsuit alleged.

Both companies said at the time that it does not comment on legal matters. The case is still pending.

Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill also sued the platform last year, alleging that it was “the perfect place for pedophiles” due to its failure to implement strong safety protocols. Roblox denied her claims and said it was committed to working with the prosecutor’s office to keep children safe.

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) is stepping in to stop what it calls an “onslaught” of state-level regulation of prediction markets.

CFTC Chairman Michael Selig said Tuesday in a video posted on X that the agency has filed a “friend of the court brief” in support of Crypto.com in its escalating legal battle with regulators in Nevada.

The move is significant because it marks the first time under Selig that the CFTC has taken sides in what is shaping up to be an epic fight between regulators and prediction markets, platforms that allow users to trade contracts tied to a wide range of events, from local elections to the Super Bowl.

By intervening, Selig’s CFTC is effectively arguing that prediction markets are federally regulated and not subject to state-level gambling laws.

“Over the past year, American prediction markets have been hit with an onslaught of state-led litigation,” Selig said in the video.

“The CFTC will no longer sit idly by while overzealous state governments undermine the agency’s exclusive jurisdiction over these markets by seeking to establish statewide prohibitions on these exciting products,’ said Selig.

The debate over how the platforms should be regulated comes as they explode in popularity. Kalshi said Super Bowl 60 generated more than $1 billion in total trading volume — a 2,700% increase from last year.

It’s a fight with broad implications and high stakes. Over the past year, several states including Massachusetts and Nevada have moved to restrict prediction markets, filing lawsuits, issuing cease-and-desist letters and arguing that the platforms amount to unlicensed gambling.

Utah’s Republican governor, Spencer Cox, said in a post on X Tuesday that he will use “every resource” within his disposal to “beat” Selig in court.

“These prediction markets you are breathlessly defending are gambling—pure and simple,” he said. “They are destroying the lives of families and countless Americans, especially young men. They have no place in Utah.”

Meanwhile, Cox’s fellow Republican, Sen. Bernie Moreno of Ohio, issued his support of Selig’s announcement on X. “Clear lines of delineation and clarity on regulations is essential for American led innovation,’ he said.

Selig’s move comes days after a group of Democratic senators led by Nevada’s Catherine Cortez Masto sent the chairman a letter urging the CFTC to ‘abstain from intervening in pending litigation involving contracts tied to sports, war, or other prohibited events.’

As states attempt to rein in these fast-growing platforms, the question is no longer simply whether these products amount to gambling. It’s who gets to decide that question.

Industry advocates argue that the platforms aren’t gaming, which is traditionally regulated by states. Instead, they claim the prediction markets are financial exchanges that fall under the CFTC’s purview, where users trade contracts with one another. and don’t bet against a “house.” The exchanges don’t set odds or take the opposite side of trades. Instead, they collect transaction fees, similar to a brokerage.

In the video, Selig said prediction markets allow Americans to “hedge commercial risks like increases in temperature and energy price spikes,” and they act as “an important check on our news media and our information screens.”

He ended the video with a warning directed at the state attorneys general who are on the front lines of the legal fights to regulate prediction markets: “To those who seek to challenge our authority in this space, let me be clear: We will see you in court.”

Warner Bros. Discovery said Tuesday that it was reopening talks with Paramount Skydance, giving the studio a week to rival Netflix in its bid to take over the streaming and cable giant.

In a statement, Warner Bros. Discovery said it had rejected the latest $30-a-share offer from Paramount but would give the company until Monday ‘to make its best and final offer.’

It also said a ‘senior representative’ of Paramount had indicated that the CBS owner would be willing to meet an even higher price, $31 a share, seemingly enticing the board back to the table.

At the same time, Warner Bros. is still recommending its shareholders vote at a special meeting March 20 to approve the $82.7 billion deal it reached in December to sell its streaming service, studio and HBO cable channel to Netflix.

Paramount is seeking to buy the entirety of Warner Bros. Discovery.

‘Every step of the way, we have provided [Paramount Skydance] with clear direction on the deficiencies in their offers and opportunities to address them,’ David Zaslav, CEO of Warner Bros. Discovery, said in the statement.

In a letter to the Paramount board — chaired by David Ellison, also the company’s CEO and controlling shareholder — Warner Bros. said that while Paramount had indicated it would address ‘unfavorable terms and conditions,’ these had not yet been removed from the proposed merger agreement.

Warner Bros. has repeatedly rejected previous bids from Paramount, citing the ‘insufficient value’ offered.

In a separate statement, Netflix hit out at what it called Paramount’s ‘antics.’

‘Throughout the robust and highly competitive strategic review process, Netflix has consistently taken a constructive, responsive approach with WBD, in stark contrast to Paramount Skydance,’ it said.

Netflix said that it was ‘confident that our transaction provides superior value and certainty’ but also recognized ‘the ongoing distraction for WBD stockholders and the broader entertainment industry caused by’ Paramount. The company said it granted Warner Bros. the one-week window to reopen talks with Paramount to ‘fully and finally resolve this matter.’

Netflix also took aim at the regulatory process required for either company to complete a takeover.

It said that Paramount has ‘repeatedly mischaracterized the regulatory review process by suggesting its proposal will sail through.’

‘WBD stockholders should not be misled into thinking that PSKY has an easier or faster path to regulatory approval — it does not,’ Netflix said.

In a statement, Paramount Skydance reiterated its existing offer to Warner Bros. Discovery of $30 per share. The company did not indicate if it would submit a higher bid.

Paramount called the one-week negotiating window ‘unusual’ but said it ‘is nonetheless prepared to engage in good faith and constructive discussions.’

The Ellison-backed media giant also said it would continue advocating against the Netflix deal and submit a slate of directors for Warner Bros.’ board at the upcoming shareholder meeting, as it previously planned to.

President Donald Trump, whose administration approved Ellison’s takeover of Paramount last year, said early in the bidding process he would be involved in approving a deal with Warner Bros.

But earlier this month, Trump changed his tune. ‘I’ve been called by both sides, it’s the two sides, but I’ve decided I shouldn’t be involved,’ he told ‘NBC Nightly News’ anchor Tom Llamas.

Trump still hinted that one company looked problematic to him. ‘I mean, there’s a theory that one of the companies is too big and it shouldn’t be allowed to do it,’ he said.

‘They’re beating the hell out of each other and there’ll be a winner,’ Trump said.

Warner Bros. has an archive of storied movies, as well as a diverse portfolio of brands including CNN and HBO.

The bidding war for the media empire comes at a pivotal time for the entertainment industry, with traditional broadcasters and studios facing serious challenges from digital newcomers Netflix, Apple and Amazon.

Since Netflix announced its deal to buy parts of Warner Bros. Discovery, its shares have tumbled nearly 25%.

The head of the Justice Department’s antitrust unit said Thursday she is leaving the role, effective immediately, at a critical moment for corporate mergers in America.

Gail Slater, the assistant attorney general in charge of the Antitrust Division, wrote on X: ‘It is with great sadness and abiding hope that I leave my role as AAG for Antitrust today.’

Slater continued, ‘It was indeed the honor of a lifetime to serve in this role. Huge thanks to all who supported me this past year, most especially the men and women of’ the Department.

The White House referred questions to the Justice Department.

Attorney General Pam Bondi said in a statement, “On behalf of the Department of Justice, we thank Gail Slater for her service to the Antitrust Division which works to protect consumers, promote affordability, and expand economic opportunity.”

Slater is leaving just as media giants Netflix and Paramount Skydance battle for control of Warner Bros. Discovery.

President Donald Trump had said he was going to get involved in reviewing whichever Warner Bros. deal proceeds, an uncommon occurrence in antitrust matters.

But in an interview with NBC News, Trump slightly changed his tune. ‘I’ve been called by both sides, it’s the two sides, but I’ve decided I shouldn’t be involved,’ he said.

‘The Justice Department will handle it.’

Trump has met with executives from both of Warner Bros.’ bidders.

The Justice Department will also head to court in weeks in a bid to challenge concert venue manager Live Nation’s ownership of Ticketmaster.

Shares of Live Nation jumped as much as 5.8% after Slater announced her departure. By 1 p.m. ET, the rally had abated to around 2.5%.

When the Senate confirmed Slater, 78 senators from both sides of the aisle voted in her favor. Only 19 opposed her confirmation.

This week, her deputy in the Antitrust Division also departed.

Mark Hamer, deputy assistant attorney general for the Antitrust Division, wrote on LinkedIn, ‘Decided the time is right for me to return to private practice.’ He praised Slater as a ‘leader of exceptional wisdom, strength and integrity.’

CHICAGO — Cardi B was part of Bad Bunny’s Super Bowl halftime show. What she did exactly, well, that turned into a perplexing question for two major prediction markets.

At least one Kalshi trader filed a complaint with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission over how the prediction market handled Sunday’s appearance by the Grammy-winning rapper. The result of a similar event contract on Polymarket also drew the ire of some users on that platform.

Prediction markets provide an opportunity to trade — or wager — on the result of future events. The markets are comprised of typically yes-or-no questions called event contracts, with the prices connected to what traders are willing to pay, which theoretically indicates the perceived probability of an event occurring.

The buy-in for each contract ranges from $0 to $1 each, reflecting a 0% to 100% chance of what traders think could happen.

More than $47.3 million was wagered on Kalshi’s market for “ Who will perform at the Big Game? ” A Polymarket contract had more than $10 million in volume.

Cardi B joined singers Karol G and Young Miko and actors Jessica Alba and Pedro Pascal on a starry front porch during the halftime spectacle. She danced to the music, but it was unclear whether she was singing along during the show, which included performances by Ricky Martin and Lady Gaga.

Due to “ambiguity over whether or not Cardi B’s attendance at the 2026 Super Bowl halftime show constituted a qualifying ‘performance,’” Kalshi cited one of its rules in settling the market at the last price before trading was paused: $0.74 for No holders and $0.26 for Yes holders. The platform returned all the money to its users.

Polymarket’s contract was resolved as Cardi B had performed, but the yes was disputed. A final decision on the contract is expected to be announced on Wednesday.

In the CFTC complaint — first reported by the Event Horizon newsletter and posted by Front Office Sports — the trader alleges that Kalshi violated the Commodity Exchange Act with how it resolved the Cardi B contract. The trader — a Yes holder — is seeking $3,700.

A CFTC spokesman declined comment on Wednesday.

The Super Bowl capped a big NFL season for prediction markets.

Kalshi reported a daily record high of more than $1 billion in total trading volume on the day of the game, an increase of more than 2,700% compared to last year’s Super Bowl. The season-long total for all Super Bowl winner futures was $828.6 million, up more than 2,000% from last year.

The increased activity on Sunday caused some deposit issues. Kalshi co-founder Luana Lopes Lara posted on X on Monday that the “traffic spike was way bigger than our most optimistic forecasts.” She said the platform had reimbursed processing fees on the effected deposits and added credits to users who experienced delays.

Robinhood Markets highlighted the strength of its prediction markets when it announced its financial results for the fourth quarter and full 2025 on Tuesday.

“I think we are just at the beginning of a prediction market super cycle that could drive trillions in annual volume over time,” CEO Vlad Tenev said during an earnings call. “This year is going to be a big year. Olympics are going on right now. World Cup coming in the summer.”

The operator of roughly 180 Eddie Bauer stores across the U.S. and Canada has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, blaming declining sales and a litany of other industry headwinds.

The bankruptcy filing marks the third time in a little over two decades for the storied-but-now-tired brand that began as a Seattle fishing shop, later outfitted the first American to climb Mount Everest and made thousands of newfangled down jackets and sleeping bags for the military during World War II.

Eddie Bauer LLC said Monday it had entered into a restructuring pact with its secured lenders as it made the filing in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey.

Most Eddie Bauer retail and outlet stores in the U.S. and Canada will remain open as the company winds down certain locations. It noted that it will conduct a court-supervised sales process, and if a sale can’t be executed, it will begin a wind-down of its U.S. and Canadian operations.

“This is not an easy decision,” said Marc Rosen, CEO of Catalyst Brands, which maintains the license to operate Eddie Bauer stores in the U.S. and Canada. “However, this restructuring is the best way to optimize value for the retail company’s stakeholders and also ensure Catalyst Brands remains profitable and with strong liquidity and cash flow.”

Eddie Bauer’s stores outside of the U.S. and Canada are operated by other licensees, are not included in the Chapter 11 filings, and will stay open, according to the release.

Authentic Brands Group continues to own the intellectual property associated with the Eddie Bauer brand and may license the brand to other operators, the company said. The operations of other brands in the Catalyst Brands portfolio are not affected by this filing and will continue in the normal course, according to the company.

Eddie Bauer’s e-commerce and wholesale operations will also not be impacted by the wind down, as they are operated by a company called Outdoor 5, LLC. That was a transition it made in January and became effective Feb. 2.

Eddie Bauer joins a growing list of U.S. retailers this year that are closing stores, as companies reorganize under bankruptcy protection or pare down their operations to focus on the most profitable businesses.

The parent company of Saks Fifth Avenue said last month that it was seeking bankruptcy protection, buffeted by rising competition and the massive debt it took on to buy its rival in the luxury sector, Neiman Marcus, just over a year ago. A few days later, the parent company said it was closing most of its Saks Off 5th stores.

Amazon said earlier this month that it was closing almost all of its Amazon Go and Amazon Fresh locations within days as it narrows its focus on food delivery and its grocery chain, Whole Foods Market.

Eddie Bauer’s namesake founder — an avid outdoorsman — started the company in Seattle in 1920 as Bauer’s Sports Shop, according to the brand’s website. In 1945, after making more than 50,000 jackets for the military, it launched a mail-order catalog.

“Bauer’s Sports Shop was not just a place where people purchased clothing and gear, it was a community hub where folks gathered to share their wisdom, learn, and talk about their experiences in the outdoors,” the website says.

The company created an American goose-down insulated jacket, known as the “Skyliner,” in 1936, and it became the company’s first patented jacket. It also outfitted the first American to climb Mount Everest — James W. Whittaker — with an Eddie Bauer parka in 1963.

After Bauer retired in 1968 and sold the business to his partner, the outdoor brand shifted more toward casual apparel and was bought by General Mills Inc. in 1971 and then by Spiegel Inc. in 1988. After Spiegel filed for bankruptcy in 2003 and most of its assets were sold, the remainder of the company was reorganized in 2005 as Eddie Bauer Holdings Inc.

In June 2009, Eddie Bauer filed bankruptcy and was acquired by Golden State Capital, the following month. In 2021, it was acquired by Authentic Brands and SPARC Group LLC.

A year ago, Catalyst was formed by the merger of SPARC and JCPenney, which Simon Property Group and fellow mall landlord Brookfield bought out of bankruptcy.

Rosen noted that even prior to the inception of Catalyst Brands last year, Eddie Bauer was in a “challenged situation.”

“Over the past year, these challenges have been exacerbated by various headwinds, including increased costs of doing business due to inflation, ongoing tariff uncertainty, and other factors,” he said.

He noted that while Catalyst’s leadership was able to make improvements in product development and marketing, those changes could not be implemented fast enough to fully address the problems created over several years.

Eddie Bauer had nearly 600 stores at its peak in 2001, according to CoStar Group Inc., a commercial real estate data firm.

In a note published earlier this month, Neil Saunders, managing director of GlobalData Retail, wrote that while the Eddie Bauer name is “well known,” the brand hasn’t kept pace with rivals like Swedish outdoor brand Fjallraven and Canadian label Arc’teryx. He also cited issues with quality deteriorating, which, for an outdoor brand measured by the performance of its products, is very problematic.

“And for many younger shoppers, the brand is seen as somewhat old-fashioned and a bit irrelevant,” he said.

LOS ANGELES — The world’s biggest social media companies face several landmark trials this year that seek to hold them responsible for harms to children who use their platforms. Opening statements for the first, in Los Angeles County Superior Court, begin this week.

Instagram’s parent company Meta and Google’s YouTube will face claims that their platforms deliberately addict and harm children. TikTok and Snap, which were originally named in the lawsuit, settled for undisclosed sums.

“This was only the first case — there are hundreds of parents and school districts in the social media addiction trials that start today, and sadly, new families every day who are speaking out and bringing Big Tech to court for its deliberately harmful products,” said Sacha Haworth, executive director of the nonprofit Tech Oversight Project.

At the core of the case is a 19-year-old identified only by the initials “KGM,” whose case could determine how thousands of other, similar lawsuits against social media companies will play out. She and two other plaintiffs have been selected for bellwether trials — essentially test cases for both sides to see how their arguments play out before a jury and what damages, if any, may be awarded, said Clay Calvert, a nonresident senior fellow of technology policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute.

It’s the first time the companies will argue their case before a jury, and the outcome could have profound effects on their businesses and how they will handle children using their platforms.

KGM claims that her use of social media from an early age addicted her to the technology and exacerbated depression and suicidal thoughts. Importantly, the lawsuit claims that this was done through deliberate design choices made by companies that sought to make their platforms more addictive to children to boost profits. This argument, if successful, could sidestep the companies’ First Amendment shield and Section 230, which protects tech companies from liability for material posted on their platforms.

“Borrowing heavily from the behavioral and neurobiological techniques used by slot machines and exploited by the cigarette industry, Defendants deliberately embedded in their products an array of design features aimed at maximizing youth engagement to drive advertising revenue,” the lawsuit says.

Executives, including Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, are expected to testify at the trial, which will last six to eight weeks. Experts have drawn similarities to the Big Tobacco trials that led to a 1998 settlement requiring cigarette companies to pay billions in health care costs and restrict marketing targeting minors.

“Plaintiffs are not merely the collateral damage of Defendants’ products,” the lawsuit says. “They are the direct victims of the intentional product design choices made by each Defendant. They are the intended targets of the harmful features that pushed them into self-destructive feedback loops.”

The tech companies dispute the claims that their products deliberately harm children, citing a bevy of safeguards they have added over the years and arguing that they are not liable for content posted on their sites by third parties.

“Recently, a number of lawsuits have attempted to place the blame for teen mental health struggles squarely on social media companies,” Meta said in a recent blog post. “But this oversimplifies a serious issue. Clinicians and researchers find that mental health is a deeply complex and multifaceted issue, and trends regarding teens’ well-being aren’t clear-cut or universal. Narrowing the challenges faced by teens to a single factor ignores the scientific research and the many stressors impacting young people today, like academic pressure, school safety, socio-economic challenges and substance abuse.”

A Meta spokesperson said in a recent statement that the company strongly disagrees with the allegations outlined in the lawsuit and that it’s “confident the evidence will show our longstanding commitment to supporting young people.”

José Castañeda, a Google Spokesperson, said that the allegations against YouTube are “simply not true.” In a statement, he said, “Providing young people with a safer, healthier experience has always been core to our work.”

The case will be the first in a slew of cases beginning this year that seek to hold social media companies responsible for harming children’s mental well-being.

In New Mexico, opening statements begin Monday for trial on allegations that Meta and its social media platforms have failed to protect young users from sexual exploitation, following an undercover online investigation. Attorney General Raúl Torrez in late 2023 sued Meta and Zuckerberg, who was later dropped from the suit.

Prosecutors have said that New Mexico is not seeking to hold Meta accountable for its content but rather its role in pushing out that content through complex algorithms that proliferate material that can be harmful, saying they uncovered internal documents in which Meta employees estimate that about 100,000 children every day are subjected to sexual harassment on the company’s platforms.

Meta denies the civil charges while accusing Torrez of cherry-picking select documents and making “sensationalist” arguments. The company says it has consulted with parents and law enforcement to introduce built-in protections to social media accounts, along with settings and tools for parents.

A federal bellwether trial beginning in June in Oakland, California, will be the first to represent school districts that have sued social media platforms over harms to children.

In addition, more than 40 state attorneys general have filed lawsuits against Meta, claiming it is harming young people and contributing to the youth mental health crisis by deliberately designing features on Instagram and Facebook that addict children to its platforms. The majority of cases filed their lawsuits in federal court, but some sued in their respective states.

TikTok also faces similar lawsuits in more than a dozen states.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission said Wednesday that it is investigating Nike for allegedly discriminating against white workers.

The agency that polices discrimination in the workplace filed an action in federal court in Missouri to compel the publicly traded athletic shoe and apparel giant to produce information in response to a subpoena the agency served on the company last fall, according to court filings reviewed by NBC News.

The EEOC said it was investigating allegations that the company’s mentorship and training programs and its personnel decisions gave nonwhite employees preferential treatment that amounts, according to the agency, to discrimination against white workers.

Nike is the world’s largest sportswear and apparel company, with nearly 80,000 employees and revenues of around $51.4 billion in 2024.

The allegations were not made by workers at Nike who believed they had been the targets of unfair treatment, however, as is typically the case in EEOC investigations.

Instead, the court filings show that this case stems from a commissioner’s charge brought by then-commissioner Andrea Lucas herself in May 2024, and based on publicly available information such as Nike’s own annual “Impact Reports” and information on its public website.

The EEOC’s request that a judge enforce the subpoena is the latest instance of the Trump administration using a federal agency that is typically charged with preventing and responding to discrimination against nonwhite Americans, and deploying it instead to protect what it says are the underrepresented interests of white people.

Nike has objected in court to many of the EEOC’s demands to documents over the last several months, arguing that they are vague, overly broad, and seek information dating back to well before the period in question.

“This feels like a surprising and unusual escalation,” a Nike spokesperson said. “We have had extensive, good-faith participation in an EEOC inquiry into our personnel practices, programs, and decisions and have had ongoing efforts to provide information and engage constructively with the agency.”

The spokesperson added that Nike has shared “thousands of pages of information and detailed written responses” in connection with the agency’s inquiry and said the company is in the “process of providing additional information.” Nike will respond to the agency’s petition, the spokesperson said.

Lucas was appointed chair of the EEOC by President Donald Trump in November 2025 after serving as a commissioner since 2020, when the president nominated Lucas to the agency.

The agency said it filed the subpoena enforcement action after “first attempting to obtain voluntary compliance with its investigative requests.”