Meta has dramatically raised the stakes in Big Tech’s battle over artificial intelligence oversight, committing “tens of millions” of dollars to a newly launched super PAC designed to influence state-level politics, Axios reports.

The group, called the American Technology Excellence Project, will back candidates in the 2026 midterms who embrace AI development and oppose restrictive tech policies. The move comes as statehouses across the U.S. consider an unprecedented wave of legislation in the absence of federal action.

According to policy trackers, more than 1,000 AI-related bills were introduced in state legislatures during the 2025 session, ranging from transparency mandates to outright bans on certain AI applications. For Silicon Valley, the patchwork is increasingly viewed as a major business risk.

A Bipartisan Political Machine

Meta’s super PAC is structured to appeal across party lines. Republican strategist Brian Baker will co-lead the effort alongside Hilltop Public Solutions, a prominent Democratic consulting firm. The bipartisan leadership reflects Meta’s intention to align with politicians who prioritize innovation, regardless of partisan affiliation.

Company spokesperson Rachel Holland described the PAC’s focus as promoting U.S. technological leadership, defending AI progress, and ensuring parents maintain control over how children use AI and online apps. That last priority is a direct response to heightened scrutiny over child safety after internal documents revealed that Meta chatbots had engaged in “romantic” conversations with minors, while whistleblowers alleged the company suppressed research into those risks.

California at the Forefront

Meta has already tested this approach with a California-focused PAC launched last month. California is the epicenter of AI legislation, with two bills on Governor Gavin Newsom’s desk. SB 243 would regulate AI companion chatbots to protect minors and vulnerable users, while SB 53 would impose sweeping transparency requirements on large AI companies. How Newsom acts on these bills could set the tone for the rest of the country.

Brian Rice, Meta’s VP of public policy, said the new PAC will “support the election of state candidates across the country who embrace AI development, champion the U.S. technology industry, and defend American tech leadership at home and abroad.” His language reflects a broader Silicon Valley concern: that fragmented state-level rules could slow down innovation and leave the U.S. lagging in its race with China for AI dominance.

Silicon Valley’s Broader Political Offensive

Meta is not alone in this fight. Just last month, Andreessen Horowitz and OpenAI president Greg Brockman unveiled their own pro-AI super PAC, with a war chest of $100 million. That group shares Meta’s goal of preventing what the industry sees as harmful state-level restrictions, arguing that AI development must remain agile and nationally coherent to compete globally.

Where Meta’s PAC leans heavily on its parental control message and a bipartisan management team, the Andreessen Horowitz–OpenAI venture reflects Silicon Valley’s pure financial muscle and its emphasis on keeping AI policy firmly in federal hands. Their strategy aligns with a failed proposal earlier this year that would have barred states from regulating AI for 10 years — a measure narrowly excluded from the federal budget after fierce debate.

Taken together, the two PACs reveal the contours of a high-stakes lobbying arms race. Meta has positioned itself as a tech company seeking to balance safety messaging with innovation, hoping to soften regulatory scrutiny by emphasizing family concerns. Andreessen Horowitz and OpenAI, by contrast, have adopted a more straightforward posture, openly spending to make sure AI innovation is not slowed down by what they see as politically fragmented rules.

Meta has yet to disclose which states the American Technology Excellence Project will prioritize, or how many staffers it will employ. But with two of Silicon Valley’s biggest players now bankrolling political machines, the fight over AI regulation is poised to dominate next year’s midterms.

Meta’s gamble is to pair a child-safety message with political spending to blunt the impact of bills like California’s SB 243 and SB 53, while for Andreessen Horowitz and OpenAI, the calculus is to use money to keep statehouses at bay and keep AI’s regulatory battles in Washington.

Either way, the message from Silicon Valley is that the race to shape AI policy is no longer just a matter of lobbying. It is now one of the most expensive political projects in American technology history.

Disney has announced sweeping price increases across its streaming services, effective October 21, 2025, deepening its push to lift revenue from its direct-to-consumer business.

The move affects standalone Disney+ subscriptions as well as bundles that include Hulu, ESPN, and HBO Max, placing Disney squarely within the broader trend of escalating streaming costs across the industry.

The New Pricing Structure

The changes are extensive:

• The Disney+ ad-supported plan will increase by $2, reaching $11.99 per month.
• The Disney+ Premium (no ads) plan will rise by $3 to $18.99 per month, with the annual option climbing by $30 to $189.99 per year.
• The Disney+ and Hulu ad-supported bundle will increase by $2 per month.
• Both Disney+, Hulu, and ESPN bundles, as well as Disney+, Hulu, and HBO Max bundles, will see a $3 per month hike.

By contrast, NFL+ plans will remain at current prices, offering stability for sports fans.

Disney previously lifted its subscription prices in October 2024, with most plans going up between $1 and $2. Management had hinted at another round of increases during its third-quarter 2025 earnings call, saying it expected only a modest increase in Disney+ subscribers in its fourth fiscal quarter.

The announcement comes at a delicate moment for Disney. The company has faced mounting scrutiny following ABC’s decision last week to pull Jimmy Kimmel Live! off the air after the host’s remarks about the alleged killer of conservative activist Charlie Kirk. After nearly a week of backlash from viewers and other late-night hosts, Disney announced the show’s reinstatement on Tuesday.

During the interim, some fans declared on social media that they were canceling their Disney+ subscriptions in solidarity with Kimmel. The timing of the price hike, coinciding with this controversy, adds to consumer sensitivity around the brand.

How Disney’s Pricing Compares

The streaming market has become increasingly crowded, and price hikes have swept across the industry as companies race toward profitability. Disney’s new pricing now sits alongside — and in some cases above — its biggest rivals.

• Netflix currently charges about $7.99 per month for its ad-supported tier, $17.99 per month for its ad-free standard plan, and $24.99 per month for its premium tier.
• Max (formerly HBO Max) charges around $9.99 per month for its ad-supported tier, with ad-free plans ranging between $16.99 and $20.99 per month depending on features.
• Apple TV+, which has steadily raised prices since its low-cost launch, now costs $12.99 per month in the U.S.

In this landscape, Disney’s $11.99 ad-supported plan is higher than Netflix’s and HBO Max’s entry-level ad tiers, and it matches Apple’s newly elevated price. Its $18.99 premium plan is slightly above Netflix’s standard option and competitive with HBO Max’s higher ad-free offering, though still below Netflix’s premium tier.

Bundles and Consumer Calculus

Disney’s bundle strategy is central to its pricing play. By combining Disney+, Hulu, ESPN, and HBO Max, the company aims to lock in households willing to pay more for multiple services. However, those bundles — all climbing by $3 per month — also raise the baseline that subscribers compare against competitors offering cheaper standalone subscriptions.

Some introductory promotional pricing for bundles will remain available to new users for a limited period, a strategy meant to ease the shock of higher bills and retain customers in the short term.

Industry-Wide Pressures

Streaming companies have been under mounting pressure to justify soaring content budgets, sports rights deals, and technology infrastructure costs. Disney, Netflix, Max, and Apple have all raised prices in 2024–2025, signaling a broader industry move toward prioritizing average revenue per user over rapid subscriber growth.

For Disney, profitability in streaming has only just arrived after years of heavy losses, and higher per-subscriber revenue is essential to sustaining the business. Still, the combination of rising costs and political or reputational controversies, such as the Kimmel affair, risks accelerating churn.

But the price hikes may push some households to cut subscriptions, downgrade to ad-supported tiers, or switch between services depending on promotions. Disney’s decision to leave NFL+ pricing unchanged is likely a strategic attempt to keep its sports audience anchored even as other parts of the streaming package rise in cost.

However, the price hikes reflect both the company’s internal financial priorities and an industry-wide shift toward squeezing more revenue out of existing subscribers. But the timing — arriving in the wake of controversy at ABC — is expected to test customer loyalty.

With its ad-supported tier now more expensive than Netflix’s and HBO Max’s entry-level options, and its premium plan sitting in the middle of the pack, Disney is betting that brand strength, content breadth, and bundled value will outweigh consumer frustration over higher bills.