FlashFeed

Full text

In February 2026, the California Attorney General announced a $2.75 million settlement with Disney DTC and ABC Enterprises, the largest in the history of the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA).

Most of the noise has focused on the legal and interpretive dimensions: how the settlement reads against the statute, what it signals about enforcement posture, and what it adds to an enforcement record that has been building for more than three years.

Since the first major CCPA action against Sephora, in 2022, for failing to honor opt-out requests, settlements with DoorDash, Tilting Point, Healthline, Sling TV and Jam City have progressively expanded the technical specificity of what compliance has to look like in practice.

For privacy leaders trying to decide what to do on Monday morning, the most useful lessons from the Disney settlement are technical. In many enterprises, there is a gap between two initiatives that operate in parallel: a privacy tech layer focused on cookies, cookie banners, and webforms, and a data layer that runs on identity graphs, pseudonymous profiles and cross-system data flows.

The four technical claims leveled by the California Attorney General: gaps in how opt-outs reach logged-out users, disconnected opt-out tooling, missing cross-brand propagation, and absent opt-out functionality on apps and connected TV, are four symptoms of this misalignment

These challenges and claims are not unique to Disney, nor do they reflect negligence. They are consequences of timing. The privacy layer in most enterprises is built to satisfy a regulatory model that took shape between 2018 and 2022, when "consent management" largely meant deciding which cookies fired on a webpage.

The data layer it was bolted onto had been evolving for a decade by then, towards exactly the kind of cross-device, partner-dependent identity resolution that makes modern advertising and personalization possible. The two were never properly integrated in most enterprise environments because, for several years no one seemed to mind.

What the recent enforcement record establishes is that they do now.

One principle, four symptoms

The settlement's central principle is unusually direct: "If a business can associate a consumer's devices with the consumer for advertising purposes, it can and must associate those devices with the consumer for purposes of honoring the consumer's opt-out rights."

In other words, the scope of your opt-out obligation is defined by the scope of your data monetization, not by the scope of your consent management platform. If your advertising stack resolves an anonymous device signal to a known profile to target a consumer, you have, for the purposes of the law, identified that consumer.

The obligation follows the use of identity capabilities, not who built them. If identity is being used to target a consumer with ads, the same identity must be used to exclude them once they opt out.

That single principle unifies the four technical points of the settlement.

The first: identity parity concerns whether opt-outs cover consumers who aren't currently logged in. Many enterprise programs apply opt-outs only to authenticated users, on the reasoning that the business doesn't know who a logged-out user is. The settlement reframes that. If your advertising infrastructure uses pseudonymous profiles—the device-level identifiers that ad-tech systems use to recognize the same person across visits without a login - to target that user, then for the purposes of the law, you have identified them. The opt-out has to reach the same identity.

The second: architectural fragmentation concerns how opt-out requests travel through the systems meant to enforce them. Most enterprise privacy programs run two separate products: a consent management platform (CMP) that governs which trackers and tags fire on the website, and a data subject rights (DSR) tool that handles webform submissions like Do Not Sell or Share requests. When those products aren't integrated, a consumer who submits a webform may stop appearing in certain backend records, but the CMP keeps firing the same tags on every page they visit, and data sharing continues. The webform captured the request. The collection infrastructure never received it.

The third: cross-brand propagation concerns whether an opt-out submitted on one property reaches the others that share its data infrastructure. If a media company runs three streaming services on a single advertising stack, and a customer opts out on one, the law treats that as an opt-out across all three because the data is monetized across all three. The technical capability to propagate the signal usually exists; the compliance logic that ties opt-outs to it rarely does. The same point extends downstream: if ad-tech partners already hold a consumer's data, blocking tags on your own site doesn't reach what they have. They need to be actively notified, through a workflow that runs every time an opt-out is processed.

The fourth: non-browser surfaces concerns the consumer-facing channels that aren't a website. Cookie-based consent tools were built for browsers. They do not, by default, extend to mobile apps, connected TV environments, or any other surface where data is collected outside the browser. In Disney's case, consumers on a connected TV app could only opt out by going to a webform on a different device - a webform that had no effect on the code transmitting data from the TV app to its ad-tech partners. The mechanism existed; the obligation it was meant to satisfy went unmet.

The difficulty is structural

The four technical gaps above share a common root, and fixing them points to something more fundamental than patching individual systems. None of this is straightforward to operationalize.

Modern data infrastructure is genuinely complex and rebuilding how the privacy and data layers of an enterprise stack actually communicate is not the kind of project that gets completed in a quarter. But the structural difficulty points to something deeper than implementation effort: a flaw in how most organizations have framed the problem from the start.

Privacy as a data infrastructure question, not a regulatory one

Privacy programs built around regulations are, by design, reactive. A new law passes, a settlement lands, an enforcement sweep reveals an unexpected gap, and the program scrambles to respond. That cycle is the predictable outcome of treating privacy as a compliance checklist rather than a capability embedded in how data actually moves through the organization. Regulations will keep coming, and they will keep changing. No program designed around any single regulatory framework will stay current for long.

The more durable approach starts in the data infrastructure itself. When privacy controls are built into the data layer, tied to identity resolution and data flows rather than bolted onto individual regulatory requirements, they adapt. A new regulation adds a specific obligation, but the underlying framework for honoring consumer choices across identifiers and systems is already in place to absorb it. The work becomes configuration, not reconstruction.

The path forward is not another tool layered on top of existing infrastructure to satisfy the next regulation. It starts by embedding privacy controls into the data layer itself, tied to how data actually flows through the organization. That foundation does not need to be rebuilt every time the regulatory landscape shifts. It absorbs change. For privacy leaders looking to get off the reactive cycle for good, that is where the work begins.

The best business VPN helps you connect safely and securely online to your business.

This article was produced as part of TechRadar Pro Perspectives , our channel to feature the best and brightest minds in the technology industry today.

The views expressed here are those of the author and are not necessarily those of TechRadarPro or Future plc. If you are interested in contributing find out more here: https://www.techradar.com/pro/perspectives-how-to-submit

Full text

Kirby and Super Smash Bros. creator Masahiro Sakurai and Square Enix are celebrating the 43rd anniversary of the release of Nintendo's first major home console, the Famicom.

As Super Mario Bros and The Legend of Zelda are fresh off celebrating their 40th anniversaries, and Donkey Kong celebrated its 45th last week, Nintendo's first proper home console – not counting the single-game Color TV-Game series, which had been released beforehand – the Famicom celebrates its 43rd today. While it would take another couple of years for the console to arrive as the NES in North America (and another couple on top for the UK), the Famicom dropped in Japan on July 15, 1983, with Donkey Kong, Donkey Kong Jr., and Popeye in tow.

Sakurai, whose sole NES credit is directing Kirby's Adventure, which was one of the final Nintendo-published releases on the system, posted on Twitter (via machine translation) wishing the console a happy 43rd anniversary. He added that the platform – despite consoles releasing before and after – had the biggest impact on him as a game creator.

Square Enix also posted a short video celebrating the release of the classic console, showing the original Final Fantasy booting up on the platform (with a Dragon Quest box sitting off to the side). The two most iconic and influential JRPG series of all time both started on the platform, making it a crucial place for the genre.

Back in 2023, Sakurai released a video about the Famicom on his 'Masahiro Sakurai on Creating Games' YouTube show, where he dubbed it "perfect". The director opened the video saying, "I can proudly say I've developed a game for the Famicom, aka the Family Computer. That makes me pretty lucky!"

Sakurai bought the console in 1983 – owning one of the earlier models which featured square buttons instead of the circular A and B buttons seen by the time the NES was released. As for one reason the console remains such an iconic part of his life, he points out the massive leaps in game development back then, using the gulf in scope between 1983's Mario Bros. and 1985's Super Mario Bros. as an example.

He points out that there are a number of game developers like Nier's Yoko Taro, Devil May Cry's Hideki Kamiya, Kingdom Hearts' Tetsuya Nomura, and Doom's John Carmack who are the same age as Sakurai, "but only a small handful of them ever actually developed a game for the Famicom."

Sakurai adds, "If the Famicom had never existed, the shape of the modern game market – really the entire video game industry – would be completely different." And that even though the games are easily available and may seem quaint now, Sakurai says, "what I really want to stress is that at the time, it truly was an absolute dream machine."

Super Smash Bros creator Masahiro Sakurai sometimes "sounds exactly like Goku," ex-Tekken boss says: "A Saiyan who genuinely believes he's just another ordinary human"

Full text

The use of nicotine pouches is increasing among teenagers and young adults in the U.S. As researchers who study nicotine use among young people and develop strategies to prevent it, we worry these discreet products might be driving a new public health crisis. It may be that more and more teens are becoming addicted to nicotine pouches under our watch.

To stop that crisis in its tracks, we need to act now. Myriad strategies would help, including eliminating flavored pouches and reducing the amount of nicotine in the products, as well as regulating their marketing and stopping companies from making deceptive claims. And while we await such regulation, informing educators, parents and teens about the harms of nicotine pouches will be key.

Why worry now? Nicotine pouches — small, pillow-like products that users place between their gum and lip — are now the second most used tobacco product among U.S. adolescents. In a recent survey , 2.3% of high school and about 1% of middle school students, an estimated 460,000 students total, reported using a pouch in the past month. More than 9 in 10 pouch users opted for flavored pouches, with mint being the most popular.

While rates of pouch use remain behind e-cigarette use, more students reported using pouches than cigarettes, cigars, smokeless tobacco or any other form of nicotine. Nicotine pouches were the only product whose use increased in the survey, while the popularity of other products declined or remained stable.

What makes nicotine pouches particularly tricky is how invisible they are to the outside observer. Unlike cigarettes, they produce no smoke. Unlike e-cigs, they generate no visible aerosol. They are small and easy to conceal. That invisibility is not a coincidence; it's part of big tobacco companies' intentional design. An adolescent can use nicotine pouches during class and no one around them would know.

Each pouch contains nicotine powder that is either derived from tobacco plants or synthetically produced, as well as other ingredients like acidity regulators and flavorings. Those flavors can be dessert-like, fruity, minty, and reminiscent of coffee or cocktails — all of which appeal to young people .

The amount of nicotine per pouch varies by brand, but generally, using one pouch is roughly equivalent to smoking one to four — or more — cigarettes. That's a problem because, although pouches don't produce smoke, nicotine is still very addictive and harmful to the developing brain.

Nicotine use can negatively affect teens' attention and impede their impulse control , hurting their academic performance and mental health. In regards to physical health, data suggest that smokeless oral nicotine products may harm some aspects of heart health and raise the risk of death in people with existing heart disease.

Tobacco companies are employing the same advertising tropes that they've successfully used to lure young users in the past. (Image credit: Peter Dazeley via Getty Images) It may be tempting to wave away concern because the percentage of adolescents using these pouches appears relatively small. However, that would be a mistake, as doing so would mean watching history repeat itself.

Rates of e-cigarette use also started low, and by the time national data finally showed a clear increase, their use was already a deeply entrenched behavior among adolescents, with many addicted. Furthermore, national surveillance studies are, by design, snapshots in time and often lag behind what is happening in real time in classrooms and communities.

We're concerned that more teens are becoming addicted to nicotine pouches, now, and want to curb the trend. At Stanford Medicine's REACH lab , we work with thousands of schools and teachers across the U.S. every year, providing free, evidence-based tobacco prevention curriculums. We've spoken with hundreds of educators, parents and students across the country who have raised significant concerns about nicotine pouches, and presented talks to over 1,200 people on the subject.

It became clear that we must create a specific approach to prevent teens from using pouches — so, we created a course called Not So Sweet: Oral Nicotine and Smokeless Tobacco Prevention Curriculum .

The free course is designed to be used in schools or by anyone who works with teens. It explains the different types of oral nicotine and smokeless tobacco products and their many health effects, including addiction. It also lays out the marketing tactics employed by the tobacco industry to attract youth in the first place. In just a few short weeks of releasing the curriculum, we already have over 1,500 active users.

We're heartened that people are already engaging with the course, because we might already have a public health crisis on our hands.

Today's nicotine pouch market in the U.S. is dominated by three brands : the top seller, ZYN; On!; and VELO. These brands are owned by Philip Morris International, Altria, and British American Tobacco, respectively. The companies have decades of knowledge in marketing nicotine products that they are now deploying to sell nicotine pouches.

They're falling back on successful advertising tropes , telling consumers that nicotine pouches could help them socialize, unwind, or appear cool to potential romantic partners. Ads also emphasize the discreet nature of the pouches, which allows them to be used anywhere without drawing too much attention.

Related stories

Why is tobacco so addictive?

Simple vaping 'quitline' can help over 40% of young people quit, study finds

Is vaping healthier than smoking?

Through these marketing strategies, nicotine pouches have soared in popularity and sales, Zyn has become a household name, gaining nicknames like Zynnie, Zynfluence and Zyndulgence. Zyn has effectively become the "Coke" of colas, the Kleenex of tissues, the Juul of e-cigs.

What's more, the Food and Drug Administration just authorized various Zyn products to be marketed with the claim that using Zyn instead of cigarettes puts you at a lower risk of mouth cancer, heart disease, lung cancer, stroke, emphysema and chronic bronchitis. But when it comes to teenagers, we see many using Zyn or other nicotine pouches alone or alongside other nicotine products that aren't cigarettes. Unlike adult smokers who may be switching to pouches, teens may be newly introduced to nicotine addiction through products like Zyn.

It is not a matter of cigarettes versus Zyn for many teens; it is Zyn versus nothing.

Nicotine pouches might come in tantalizing flavors, but they are not sweet — they are dangerous, especially for adolescents. Reminiscent of what we've seen for decades with cigarettes and over the last decade with e-cigarettes, we once again have a nicotine product that is very appealing to and being increasingly used by young people. Yet, they contain a great deal of nicotine and are unsafe . We need to work together, now, to ensure we don't perpetuate another generation of addicted kids.

Editor's note: Bonnie Halpern-Felsher has served as an expert witness in litigation against various tobacco companies.

This article is for informational purposes only and is not meant to offer medical advice.

Opinion on Live Science gives you insight on the most important issues in science that affect you and the world around you today, written by experts and leading scientists in their field.

Full text

New York State has temporarily banned new, large-scale data centers

One-year moratorium affects new 50MW+ campuses

NY wants to assess community, environmental and grid impacts

New York State has banned the construction of new hyperscaler data centers, marking the latest step as mounting local opposition against AI and cloud facilities builds, with communities citing concerns over rising electricity costs, water consumption and other environmental factors,

State Governor Kathy Hochul is responsible for introducing the first statewide moratorium on new campuses, which imposes a one-year pause while the state looks into the environment, energy supply and communities.

Projects that have already been permitted will still continue as expected, but new buildouts will face restrictions and delays until the moratorium is lifted.

Data centers banned in NY - for one year

The one-year ban buys the state time to evolve regulations to address some of the challenges presented by large hyperscaler data centers, including strained grid supplies, emissions and other environmental impacts, and stresses on local communities.

Under the new ban, campuses that require at least 50MW of electricity will be affected, which for an AI data center isn't all that much. Some of the largest measure power consumption in the hundreds of megawatts, or even gigawatts in the case of high-profile, flagship campuses like OpenAI's Stargate Project.

"[The moratorium] comes as the direct result of immense public pressure from people across the state demanding their elected leaders protect them from Big Tech's assault, which threatens the state's clean air and water and New Yorkers' financial security," New York State's Food & Water Watch Director Laura Shindell said.

"New York has always been at the forefront of innovation and change but we’ve also always guaranteed that New Yorkers benefit," Hochul noted.

Although New York represents the first statewide temporary ban, other regions have also been looking to pause buildouts as they assess the damages. Just last month, Seattle also voted to ban new projects for a year.