OPEC+ has agreed to raise oil production again in August, extending its gradual reversal of earlier supply cuts as the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz after months of disruption eases concerns over Middle East exports and keeps downward pressure on crude prices.

The alliance, comprising the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries and allies led by Russia, announced after a virtual meeting on Sunday that it would increase collective production quotas by 188,000 barrels per day (bpd) from August. The latest adjustment follows identical quota increases approved for June and July as the group steadily restores production that had been withheld under a 2023 supply agreement.

The decision comes at a time when global oil markets are shifting focus from geopolitical supply risks to concerns over slowing demand, particularly in China, and rising output from producers outside the Middle East.

Since April, the seven core producers responsible for OPEC+’s active supply management have collectively increased production targets by nearly 800,000 bpd. Those countries include Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iraq, Kuwait, Algeria, Kazakhstan, and Oman.

However, much of the planned increase has yet to materialize.

Exports from several Gulf producers were severely disrupted during the U.S.-Israeli conflict with Iran after shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s most critical oil transit chokepoints, was interrupted. The waterway serves as the main export route for Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Kuwait, and several other major oil exporters.

As a result, OPEC data show the group’s production fell sharply to 33.13 million bpd in May, down from 42.77 million bpd in February, reflecting the impact of the conflict on regional exports.

Production began recovering in June after diplomatic efforts led by the United States helped facilitate the resumption of oil shipments from Gulf producers, although output remains below levels recorded before the conflict.

Despite the lingering supply disruptions, oil prices have largely surrendered the gains triggered by the war.

Brent crude was trading around $72 per barrel on Friday, a dramatic retreat from highs above $120 per barrel reached during the height of the conflict and broadly back to levels seen before the United States and Israel launched military operations against Iran on February 28.

Several factors have contributed to the decline.

Demand from China, the world’s largest crude importer, has remained weaker than expected, while producers outside the Middle East have continued increasing exports. In addition, the International Energy Agency (IEA) coordinated a record release of strategic petroleum reserves among consuming nations, helping ease concerns over potential supply shortages.

Markets have also been reassured by a memorandum of understanding between Washington and Tehran aimed at ending hostilities, increasing expectations that Gulf oil exports will continue normalizing in the coming months.

Giovanni Staunovo, an analyst at UBS, said the latest production decision was widely anticipated by the market.

“The group of seven kept unwinding their production cuts as widely expected,” Staunovo said.

He added that investors will now focus on how quickly oil exports through the Strait of Hormuz recover and whether Chinese crude imports rebound strongly enough to absorb additional supply.

While the immediate concern has shifted toward restoring production, OPEC+ also faces longer-term internal challenges that could complicate future policy decisions.

The alliance has been reshaped by the United Arab Emirates’ decision to leave the production management agreement earlier this year. Abu Dhabi withdrew from the quota arrangement in late April, arguing that it wanted greater flexibility to produce in line with its expanding production capacity rather than remain constrained by group limits.

At the same time, Iraq has indicated it wants a larger production allocation, potentially setting the stage for difficult negotiations as OPEC+ approaches the final phase of unwinding its voluntary cuts.

Although OPEC+ has 21 member countries, only the seven core producers have been actively participating in the monthly supply adjustment mechanism in recent years. Their current production increases represent the phased reversal of a 1.65 million bpd voluntary production cut agreed in 2023, when the UAE was still part of the arrangement.

According to Reuters calculations, after accounting for the UAE’s withdrawal effective May 1, the remaining seven producers will still have approximately 379,000 bpd of the original cut left to restore following the August increase.

If OPEC+ approves another production increase of roughly the same magnitude at its next meeting scheduled for August 2, the alliance would complete the unwinding of its 2023 voluntary production cuts by September.

The decision underpins OPEC+’s confidence that supply disruptions caused by the Middle East conflict are gradually easing. Nevertheless, the group’s strategy remains highly dependent on the pace of recovery in global oil demand, the stability of shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, and broader geopolitical developments that continue to influence energy markets.

Artificial intelligence startup Midjourney is escalating its legal battle with some of Hollywood’s biggest studios by asking a U.S. court to compel Disney, Universal and Warner Bros. to disclose the full extent of their own use of generative AI, arguing that the information could undermine the studios’ copyright infringement claims.

The latest court filing marks a significant shift in one of the most closely watched copyright disputes involving generative artificial intelligence, with Midjourney attempting to demonstrate that the entertainment companies may themselves be relying on AI systems trained on copyrighted material while simultaneously suing AI developers over similar practices.

Disney and Universal filed suit against Midjourney last year, accusing the image-generation platform of widespread copyright infringement by enabling users to create images featuring iconic characters owned by the studios, including Bart Simpson, Darth Vader and numerous other copyrighted properties.

Several months later, Warner Bros. joined the litigation, further raising the stakes in what has become a landmark legal battle over whether AI companies can lawfully train models using copyrighted works without obtaining licenses from rights holders.

The dispute is centered on Midjourney’s argument that using copyrighted material to train artificial intelligence models constitutes fair use, a long-established legal doctrine under U.S. copyright law that permits limited use of protected works under certain circumstances without the copyright owner’s permission.

The latest disagreement focuses on the discovery phase of the lawsuit, during which both sides are required to exchange evidence. A federal judge previously ordered the studios to provide documents relating to their use of generative AI. However, the court limited that disclosure to AI-generated videos and images intended for consumer-facing products.

Midjourney is now asking the court to substantially broaden that order.

In its filing, the company argues that the restriction allows the studios to selectively disclose only information supporting their claims while withholding evidence that could strengthen Midjourney’s defense.

According to the startup, the documents currently being withheld could reveal whether the studios are internally using AI systems trained on copyrighted content in much the same way they accuse Midjourney of doing.

“The documents they are withholding are precisely those that would reveal whether, behind closed doors, they are doing exactly what they are suing Midjourney for doing,” the company argued in its court submission.

Midjourney specifically contends that if the studios are developing image-generation tools for internal creative purposes such as storyboarding, concept art, visual development or film and television production planning, such evidence would demonstrate that using copyrighted content to train AI models has become an accepted industry practice.

The company argues that this information would directly support its fair use defense by showing that even major copyright owners consider such practices necessary for developing modern AI systems.

Beyond internal AI development, Midjourney is also seeking disclosure of the studios’ own interactions with its platform.

The company wants Disney, Universal, and Warner Bros. to produce every prompt they entered into Midjourney, along with every image generated in response, rather than only those examples they claim infringe copyrighted works.

Midjourney argues that limiting production to allegedly infringing outputs creates an incomplete picture of how its technology performs and prevents the company from presenting evidence that many generated images do not violate copyright.

The studios have strongly opposed the broader discovery request.

Their lead attorney, David Singer, previously described Midjourney’s demands as a “fishing expedition,” arguing that the company is seeking information unrelated to the central copyright issues before the court.

Singer has also rejected suggestions that the lawsuit represents opposition to artificial intelligence itself.

According to him, the studios are not attempting to stop AI development or shut down Midjourney’s business. Instead, he argues that they want the company to stop copying copyrighted films, television programmes and famous fictional characters without authorization and distributing AI-generated derivative works based on those protected properties.

The case has become one of the defining legal battles shaping the future of generative AI. A ruling in favor of the studios could strengthen the ability of copyright holders to demand licensing fees from AI developers and potentially reshape how future models are trained.

Conversely, if Midjourney succeeds in establishing that AI training constitutes fair use, the decision could provide significant legal support for the broader AI industry, where leading companies including OpenAI, Anthropic, Meta and Google also face lawsuits over the use of copyrighted material in model development.

The discovery dispute also highlights growing tensions between traditional media companies and AI developers. Several Hollywood studios have publicly criticized generative AI firms for allegedly using copyrighted content without permission, while simultaneously investing heavily in AI tools to improve production workflows, visual effects, animation, script development and creative planning.

Meta is facing fresh criticism after introducing a new monthly subscription for its AI-powered smart glasses, a move that raises the long-term cost of using one of its fastest-growing consumer products and comes just weeks after the company was drawn into a privacy controversy over the device’s facial recognition capabilities.

The social media behemoth has launched Meta One Premium, a $19.99-per-month subscription that expands access to advanced artificial intelligence features on its smart glasses. While owners can continue using the devices without paying, several premium AI capabilities will now be subject to stricter usage limits unless users subscribe.

Companies in the tech industry are now turning to recurring subscription revenue to offset the rising costs of AI development and infrastructure. However, Meta’s latest move has drawn particular scrutiny because one of the key features now being restricted operates entirely on the device itself rather than relying on cloud-based computing.

At the center of the controversy is Conversation Focus, an AI-powered hearing enhancement feature that amplifies the voices of the people users are speaking with. Under the new pricing model, subscribers receive up to 15 hours of Conversation Focus each month, while non-subscribers are limited to three hours monthly.

Unlike generative AI services that require expensive cloud computing resources, Conversation Focus functions locally on the glasses and does not need an internet connection. That has prompted critics to question the technical justification for imposing subscription-based limits on the feature.

Technology publication The Verge, which first reported on the matter, noted that the restriction appears difficult to justify because Meta does not incur significant ongoing computing costs when the feature is used. The publication questioned whether any hidden licensing costs exist or whether the limitation is simply designed to encourage users to pay recurring fees.

The pricing changes come at a delicate time for Meta’s wearable business. Only last month, the company came under intense scrutiny after Wired reported that Meta had quietly integrated facial recognition technology into software powering its smart glasses. The revelation reignited concerns surrounding privacy, surveillance, and informed consent.

Meta’s smart glasses had already generated controversy because their built-in cameras allow users to discreetly record people in public spaces, often without their knowledge. Privacy advocates have warned that the combination of AI capabilities, cameras, and facial recognition technology could significantly expand surveillance risks.

Those concerns have contributed to the glasses acquiring the derogatory nickname “pervert glasses” among critics, highlighting growing unease about how wearable AI devices could affect privacy in everyday life.

Despite the backlash, Meta’s wearable strategy has emerged as one of the company’s most successful AI initiatives.

The smart glasses have reportedly sold millions of units, making them one of the few consumer AI hardware products to achieve meaningful commercial adoption at scale. Their success stands in contrast to broader challenges facing Meta’s AI division, which has reportedly grappled with internal management issues, employee dissatisfaction and intense competition in the rapidly evolving artificial intelligence market.

The subscription rollout also underpins a pattern of technology companies looking beyond one-time hardware sales to generate recurring revenue streams from AI-enabled products.

Across the industry, firms are introducing paid AI tiers for software, productivity tools and consumer devices as the cost of training and operating increasingly sophisticated AI systems continues to climb. Many companies argue that subscription fees are necessary to fund the infrastructure required for advanced AI services.

Meta’s approach differs because some of the newly restricted functionality does not depend on expensive cloud-based AI inference, raising questions about whether the move is driven more by monetization than by operating costs.

The development also exposes a shift in the consumer electronics industry, where buyers are increasingly paying not only for hardware but also for continued access to features through recurring subscriptions.

Analysts believe the development has now exposed Meta to the challenge of balancing revenue growth with customer satisfaction. While subscriptions could strengthen the economics of its wearable business, charging existing customers extra for capabilities embedded in devices they already own risks undermining goodwill at a time when the company is attempting to establish itself as a leader in AI-powered consumer hardware.

With privacy concerns already surrounding the glasses, the addition of recurring fees may further test consumer acceptance of one of Meta’s most important AI products.