Return to Transcripts main page

What We Know with Max Foster

Meta And YouTube Found Liable In Social Media Addiction Trial; U.S. And Iran Offer Competing Narratives On War; OpenAI Shutting Down Video Generation App Sora; White House: "Unnecessary" Now To Seek Troop Approval; HBO Releases First Trailer Of New "Harry Potter" Series. Aired 3-4p ET

Aired March 25, 2026 - 15:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[15:00:28]

MAX FOSTER, CNN HSOT: Meta and YouTube found liable.

This is WHAT WE KNOW.

There's been a landmark decision in a U.S. trial involving Meta, the owner of Facebook and Instagram, as well as YouTube, owned by Google.

Now, a California jury found YouTube and Meta liable for $3 million in damages. The case involved testimony from a young woman who claimed the

company's apps intentionally caused addiction and depression. The ruling could set a precedent for hundreds of similar cases, claiming tech firms

should be held accountable for harmful design decisions.

CNN business tech editor Lisa Eadicco joins us now.

Lisa, this is so significant, isn't it, because, it speaks to the heart of what many people have as an issue, particularly in relation to young people

on social.

LISA EADICICCO, CNN BUSINESS TECH EDITOR: Yes. Max. Exactly. This is a really significant case. This trial was really seen as a bellwether because

it's the first of many hundreds of cases that could be brought to trial, kind of trying to hold these tech giants accountable for what parents and

advocates have said have argued for stronger guardrails on social media over the years. So, this is really a significant moment. And in this

particular trial, the California jury found Meta and YouTube liable on all counts, saying that the companies have intentionally -- finding that these

companies liable for things like negligence, being negligent in the design of their platforms and also failing to warn users about the risks of their

platforms.

And this comes after eight days of deliberation. That's how long it took for the jury to come to this decision. And it is a bellwether moment. And I

think the big question is what happens next? What happens in the long term? And I think that's what we're going to be looking for in the future.

And of course, today's decision doesn't necessarily directly impact the future cases that might be to come. But what it might do is it might guide

some of those decisions and set a precedent. And in the long term, if these companies do face a lot of decisions like this, there could be potentially

billions of dollars in damages on the hook. And also perhaps force changes to their platforms, which is what I think a lot of parents who have

children that have been affected by social media and online safety advocates are looking for here.

FOSTER: Well, let's just listen to what one lawyer speaking to that president's idea that you were mentioning.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DAVE ARONBERG, FORMER STATE ATTORNEY, PALM BEACH COUNTY: This is the bellwether. This will serve as a real, tough point for Facebook and Google.

They're going to have to live with this because the outcome and the damages will serve as a template for how the rest of these thousands of cases are

litigated or settled. And I suspect they will settle.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

FOSTER: Can I just ask you, Lisa, does that mean what are we ultimately talking about here? Will the design of these platforms have to be changed

as a result of this?

EADICICCO: So, we don't know for sure. That's something that we haven't heard anything about yet. That's more of a long-term question, but I do

think that has been a really focal point in this trial is, you know, are these features, were they intentionally designed to hook users?

And, you know, some of the things that were in question during the testimony, we saw Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg testify. We saw Instagram chief

Adam Mosseri testify, and they did face a lot of questions around things like likes and the face filters on Instagram and things like that.

So, I do think, you know, in the long term, if these companies do face a lot of losses like this and a lot of questions and pressure around this, it

perhaps could lead to changes in how they think about the design and the development of the features on their platforms. But of course, it's too

soon to say. And right now, all we've really heard about from this jury's decision is what they are facing in terms of monetary damages. And so far,

that's broken down by 70 percent -- Meta will face the responsibility for 70 percent of that. And Google's YouTube will face 30 percent.

FOSTER: Okay. I will take a look at to see how that develops. Lisa, thank you so much for joining us.

Now, are the U.S. and Iran talking about ways to end the war? Well, it pretty much depends who you ask.

U.S. President Donald Trump says Tehran is eager to make a deal, but the Iranians claim it's not logical to even negotiate with the U.S. CNN has

learned that Vice President J.D. Vance will travel to Pakistan, where the White House is working, to set up a meeting this weekend to discuss a

possible off ramp to the conflict. Tehran has responded to the 15-point proposal from the U.S. with five conditions of its own, including

sovereignty over the pivotal Strait of Hormuz.

[15:05:06]

Well, the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, says the broader campaign against Israel -- against Iran is still ongoing, and Israel is

expanding its military presence in southern Lebanon.

Let's go straight to the White House and CNN's Kevin Liptak.

If the Iranians, Kevin, are saying they're not negotiating at this point, you know, who are these talks even going to be held with in Pakistan?

KEVIN LIPTAK, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: Well, we don't know. And the White House has actually not explicitly said who exactly this

mysterious figure in the Iranian regime that President Trump claims is both respected and acting as the interlocutor for these discussions actually is.

But, you know, when you listen to White House officials, they do insist, including after that Iranian response today, that these talks are ongoing.

So, Karoline Leavitt, the press secretary, saying that they had not reached a dead end. She described them as productive and continuing and hoping to

advance to this potential meeting that the Pakistanis are offering to host over the weekend.

Now, whether that actually transpires and whether that comes together very much unknown at this point. I think a lot of hurdles have to be reached

before that actually happens. But when you listen to the president, when you listen to his top advisors, they do suggest that this diplomacy is

continuing apace.

But I would note there are also these military developments occurring in the background that suggest that they are not relying on this diplomacy

alone. And so, you hear the 86th airborne being deployed, that group of paratroopers heading into the region. You also have those marine

expeditionary units that we reported on last week, also heading into the Middle East, which does suggest that the administration at this point is

not, you know, taking off the table some sort of ground operation in Iran, potentially to take Kharg Island, that key export hub for Iranian energy

potentially to go after some of the nuclear material that's buried far underground, all of these options that you've heard discussed for American

troops, if the president decides to go that route.

And so even though you hear them discussing the diplomacy in relatively optimistic terms, you see these deployments, I think it's just evidence

that the administration is continuing its war objectives, even as the president looks for a potential diplomatic end to this conflict, which I do

think underscores, you know, for all of the success that the U.S. and Israel have had in taking out some of these military sites inside Iran, the

war is extracting a political cost. You know, it's unpopular in the United States. The president's talking about asking Congress for another $200

billion, which even Republicans are balking at because they don't have enough information from the White House about what exactly is going on over

the course of this conflict. I think the president and his advisors realize that this war cannot go on endlessly. They have made very clear that they

don't see this as a prolonged quagmire akin to Iraq or Afghanistan.

And so, the president will have to seek an off ramp at some point. And it's evident he sees this diplomacy, in whatever form, as a potential way to get

this conflict over with. But how that happens remains to be seen.

FOSTER: Okay, we're going to come back to this in a moment. Thank you so much, Kevin.

But we're getting some reaction at the moment outside the courthouse where that social media trial we mentioned is happening. Let's take a listen to

attorneys I think for the plaintiffs.

MARK LANIER, PLAINTIFF ATTORNEY: We had ten, two almost all the way down. And so, what do we have now? Now we've got a punishment phase. We put the

net worth of both companies in front of the jury. And then having put that net worth there, the lawyers had 20 minutes per side to argue. And we've

done that argument. And now the jury goes back to make a decision of whether or not it's appropriate to put a financial fine, a punitive damage

figure on this case. And that's what we're waiting for now.

And once we get that finding, the jury will be discharged. The judge has indicated she will probably visit with the jury herself, and then she would

like some of the lawyers to visit with those jurors who want to stay and visit with lawyers. Then and only then do we come out and are we able to

visit with you.

Kaley has asked me that she does not want to get in front of the cameras. She is averse to that, but she did want me to express her appreciation

publicly for the work of the court, for the work of the jury, and for the work of the media in helping to recognize what the first social media

addiction trial is all about.

[15:10:01]

And that's a very serious issue, not only here to California and the U.S., but to the world.

So, with that, I'm glad to take a couple of questions.

REPORTER: -- for specific number of punitive damages. We know that you talked about the 415 peanut M&Ms and talked about a handful not making a

difference. But why did you not give a specific number?

LANIER: The question is, why did I not give a specific number on punitive damages? I have gotten, I don't know, $15 billion, $20 billion plus in

punitive damages in my career. And I've never asked for a specific number. So I wouldn't know where to start.

I think jurors are pretty smart about that. My goal is to say here's how much money means to these people. And so, in light of that, here's how much

you should assess. I say that one time in 2005 against Merck, I told the jury to award $200 million and some $220 million because of fact. In that

case. And the jury did.

But generally, I've never asked them to award punitive damage amounts. I leave that up to them.

REPORTER: What message does that send all right for other families.

LANIER: Okay. These two questions are the same. Let me talk about the message that's sent already. This message is one that's important to Kaley

and her family. But it's a very great importance to a generation of people who have been affected. We've had a number of family members who have been

so diligent to be here to lend moral support, prayer support, emotional support during this trial.

There are so many families who've been tragically hurt through the addiction of social media. And while we've never been able to talk about

the content of what these social media platforms can do that's protected under the judge's rulings, we have been able to talk about the features and

we've sent a message with this that you will be held accountable for the features, regardless of whether the children are getting sent pornographic

pictures, regardless of whether they're being sex exploitative, regardless of those types of issues, just because of the features alone that drive

addiction, these companies can be held accountable. That's a huge message for these companies.

Yeah?

REPORTER: (INAUDIBLE)

LANIER: One of the hardest things to do for us ordinary people is to figure out how to speak in economic terms these companies understand

because these companies, Google's net worth was set in front of the jury by agreement at $415 billion with a B. That's 415,000 million dollars. How on

Earth do you ever find that entity for what behavior we're talking about here?

And so I just took a jar of M&Ms that had 415 M&Ms in it, and I showed it to the jury and I said, you can grab a handful out. You don't even notice

they're gone. But that's 20 M&Ms. That's $20 billion to these companies.

REPORTER: (INAUDIBLE)

LANIER: Okay, $3 million. You know, these are, these are interesting. And the public doesn't, always know what this money does. First of all, to try

this case. Look at this sea of people behind me, this sea is just one drop of who we have. We had 40 people down here in 40 hotel rooms for two and a

half months. And all of those types of expenses, along with all of the expert fees, along with everything else, has to come out of the money.

And so, it's so expensive to pursue a case like this. It takes an army of these incredible lawyers to team up together. These are from different

firms. Weve got every firm that -- we've got the famous Wagstaff and Cartmell firm from Kansas City here. We've got Beasley Allen from Alabama.

We've got Morgan and Morgan from every city that's got a billboard.

We've got -- we've got countless law firms here, including my own because it takes that much money and that much effort. So, by the time you put all

of that into the formula and you credit some settlements that may have already been come, I'm not sure how much of a difference it makes to Kaley.

[15:15:03]

That'll have to be an accounting question, but I will tell you, as a result of this, Kaley's life will be different and rightfully so.

REPORTER: Are you anticipating an appeal --

LANIER: Oh, yeah, yeah, they'll appeal this all day long. Yes.

REPORTER: How does it feel to get --

LANIER: How does it -- how does it feel to get this --

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Like a weight off.

LANIER: Yeah. These folks behind me, including my, my sweet daughters to my left and right, these folks behind me have carried a burden of this case

for a long, long time. The Social Media Law Center has carried a burden behind this for a long, long time. And, and I've shouldered some weight of

that during the trial with the help of my friends. But it's like this entire, you know, you've seen the photographs of Atlas, you know, with the

world on his shoulders. It's like that weights been set aside and it's a cause for rejoicing.

I'm a man of faith. And so, I love the Proverb that's found in the Bible, that says the horse is trained for battle, but the victory belongs to the

Lord. I feel like what were about here is something beyond just trying to make a buck, beyond just trying to help Kaley. I feel like were about

something that is incredibly socially important and responsible, and I feel like we've made a great step forward.

And I am thankful to God as I understand him. I hope you are too, God as you understand him, her or whatever your faith may be, but this is a

righteous event and a righteous moment that makes me proud to be an American and proud to be a lawyer.

REPORTER: Mark, how will this change things? Is this a landmark moment?

LANIER: This is a landmark moment. It will reverberate. I'll tell you this -- if the jury had returned to no, the champagne corks would be popping in

the boardrooms of Google and Meta. But instead, Mark Zuckerberg has to take a phone call, and the only thing he's waiting for now is to find out if

there are going to be punishment damages. Yeah?

REPORTER: (INAUDIBLE) Europe.

LANIER: Europe has some unique aspects to it. I know that Europe is tuned in. We've been in in great dialog with a number of different media sources

over in Europe that are dying to know what's going on. And I think that the European government, I think The Hague will be very responsive. I know the

individual country governments are responsive.

And I think that you're going to see even more legal changes that will alter the landscape of social media attraction and opportunity for those

young child developing brains.

Yes, Kaley -- Kaylie. Kelly (ph)?

REPORTER: (INAUDIBLE)

LANIER: That's a great question. You know, inside the company's documents at meta, they have some people who were asking one day when all of this

stuff gets out, are we going to be the big tobacco? Is that what we are?

You know, are we trying to sow doubt about whether or not this is really damaging? Like big tobacco worked for generations to sow doubt about

whether or not tobacco really caused cancer. And I think what we've got right now is the beginning of an answer to that. I think we've got the

beginning of an answer that says addiction is a serious issue, and it's an issue that should be dealt with.

And, you know, as Rachel wrote me a note while I was doing the closing on rebuttal on punitive damages, Rachel's note just underlined -- children,

children, children, because that's what this is really about. You know, if you're 35 years old and you get addicted to YouTube and Instagram or shame

on you, but to take that pre-teen, to take that teenager whose mind is still developing and to be fully aware of how you can use a casino effect,

which is what the YouTube documents talk about -- using a casino effect on a young developing mind. That's outrageous. And I think that we'll get some

responses.

[15:20:02]

All right, I'm going to go back in. Y'all do your good work. And thank you for all you do. Thank you, guys.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Thank you.

REPORTER: Thank you, Mark.

FOSTER: Attorney for the plaintiff in what he describes as a landmark case in California, where Meta and YouTube were found liable for $3 million in

damages to a 20-year-old called Kaley. She was a teenager at the time, saying she became addicted to their apps and it made her mental health

suffer, and they are expecting that case to be appealed.

So, we'll wait to see where it goes. But the idea of it being a landmark case is that there are many other similar cases waiting, and it could play

into that and possibly define many other cases, too.

We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

FOSTER: Back to the courthouse in California, the plaintiffs involved in that social media trial are speaking.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And for parents, we now know that they were manipulating our children for profits while we were watching and trying to

keep our families safe. They are the predators.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And it's a little bit more --

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No more looking away.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yeah, parents, no more looking away. We're headed -- this is not over. We know this is a long game. We're headed to D.C. with

the evidence we have in hand and this verdict. And we're demanding safety protections and legislation to keep kids safe online from our legislators.

And we have a message for them. We don't want any more hearings. We don't want any more loopholes in these bills. We don't want any more of them

shielding big tech. Enough is enough.

We want them to do their jobs and keep American families safe. And I think what we found right now is big tech is predator number one right now in

this -- in this world.

[15:25:02]

So, I want to say that we're not going to give up. This is not a sprint. It's not even a marathon.

This is, you know, iron man, okay. And we are not giving up until we get to the finish line. There we go.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And for everybody on Capitol Hill -- for everybody on your --

REPORTER: Name, please.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Oh, excuse me, Juliana Arnold.

REPORTER: And you're a mother of?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Coco.

REPORTER: Are you part of this lawsuit?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hold on.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No, we're going to have another statement, and then we can take questions.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I want everybody here, every parent here, to say their child's name on (INAUDIBLE) Colorado.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Coco Konar (ph), Los Angeles

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Alexandra Hinks (ph), San Rafael.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: England Roberts, Louisiana.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Alexander Neville, Orange County, California.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: (INAUDIBLE), Colorado

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Riley Bashford, Potsdam, New York.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Eric Robinson, Santa Monica, California.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We have fought on Capitol Hill to get reforms through. Nobody hear us. Capitol Hill, hear us now.

If it was not for these trial lawyers to get us to this place in time, we would not have this opportunity today to show the world the harms that big

tech knew they were doing.

So, enough. Invite us parents to Capitol Hill. Let's fix this. Big tech, us, let's make this world a better place. But parents, we need you to join

in with us because it stops today. Big tech, your gig is over.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes.

(CHEERING)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Say your name.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Oh. Oh. Lori Schott (ph), Colorado.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So, we'll take a couple of questions, and then we got to get them to one so they can get back.

REPORTER: On these lost girl that can give us a statement as well.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: There's only one plaintiff in this lawsuit. This is Kaley's lawsuit. We're part of the GCP, which is the larger group. This was

not our case.

REPORTER: But you do have your own cases, right?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We are part of the GCP. Yes.

REPORTER: What are your thoughts on age verification laws that are making their way through a bunch of states right now?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Well, you know, I think positively about them. Oh, sorry -- I mean, I think that they're still new and were figuring out how

they would work and seeing what's going on in other countries that are implementing them. I think they have value, but I really still like to see

these companies, you know, do what's needed to keep -- to design their platforms safely for kids now and in the future.

And as we move on to A.I., that's even more important because kids are dying from A.I. chatbots as we speak. And that's not okay either. So, we

need to pull them in or it's just going to be out of control. So --

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I was honest about how old my son was five years ago. They knew he was 15 and still a predator with 50 fraudulent accounts was

able to contact him and lure him and shame him in five hours. And they knew he was 15. They didn't let him use marketplace because he wasn't old

enough.

Sure, I want age verification, but I know how smart these kids are. The platforms have to have a duty of care. They have to have transparency and

reporting like every other industry. No more denying that they know what they are doing. They will stop at nothing to keep these kids eyes on the

screen. And that's the message.

No family is alone in this. Every kid with a cell phone that with any device with a camera in connection to the internet is in danger. Even if

you're honest about their age. They do not care about these kids except for the money that they make for them.

And it's time for the executive branch and the legislative branch to step up. Like the warriors have here, and helped us and point out the -- how far

behind we are and having basic expectations that these companies protect children.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No more allowing them to self-regulate.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Can I just say.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No more.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It's not fair. We shouldn't have to -- to keep our -- their customers safe on their product. Like we shouldn't have to do that.

That is not all down to the parents. They know this.

And if -- you know, if social media was the gateway drug, A.I. is like the crack and heroin and it moves fast, and tech moves very fast and government

does not. So, they need to catch up because by the time we get legislation, this only this is a victory and we all feel vindicated. But like until it

has to be coupled with legislation, because this could just be like, okay, this is just the cost of doing business.

And then they go back to doing it. And we hope that that's not the case. So, it has to be coupled with legislation.

[15:30:01]

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yeah. And again, for our legislators, there are bills on the table in the House right now. The Senate version of the Kids Online

Safety Act. We worked for years to get that passed in the Senate in 2024, 91 to 3. That's what we're looking for. That version, not the House

version, but the Senate version.

And also talking about what we're going to do about Section 230, reforming Section 230. So, we can have a voice and we can take action against these

companies. That's the only way they're going to stop as we hit them in their pocketbook. So, we need to really look at this and understand where

we are right now with this law that is 30 years old.

We need to reform it. And we -- no more excuses anymore that it's just impossible. Nothing is impossible. And our kids' lives depend on it. And

the future of this country depends on it, because those kids are going to be the ones that are supposed to lead our country. What are we going to do

if they can't even think or talk? And so depressed and anxious? I mean, come on, wake up.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yeah. These social media companies have created an anxious generation. Our kids were the first cohort in this -- the guinea

pigs in this social media experiment. And it's -- we have lost a whole generation. And so, it's not -- it's not fair that what they're doing to

our kids and they know this.

They are -- the tech companies are knowingly and intentionally preying upon the fragile psyche of teenage girls in particular. And they know this.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I want to say a word about.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: My name is Victoria Hinks (ph).

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I really want to say a word.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I'm sorry. Victoria Hinks.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: So Victoria Hinks from San Rafael, California.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I just want to say a word about something that is --

FOSTER: So, we have a group of child safety advocates there outside this civil case. It was a civil case brought against Meta, and YouTube. We had

TikTok and Snap, who settled out of court, out of court. So they weren't part of this case, but they were found liable have to pay out $3 million

for that.

I think what the -- this group, mainly parents who had children affected by this issue, are saying that, you know, it's often made a parental issue.

They feel it should be up to the tech giants to be ensuring safety online. And whilst this was not a criminal case, they do want it to become a

criminal offense, as they're saying, trying to get legislation through Congress on that.

So, this is seen as a landmark case because it could affect other cases that follow. But we'll wait to see how those tech giants actually respond,

because they could very well appeal to this.

Still to come, why the company behind ChatGPT is shutting down its video creation app just months after its launch.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:36:02]

FOSTER: It is the final moments of trade on Wall Street. Stocks are solidly higher. The Dow has been up for the entire session now.

This is our Business Breakout.

Energy shortages could hit Europe as soon as next month if the war in Iran doesn't end. That is the warning from the CEO of Shell. Speaking at an

energy conference in Texas. His claims were echoed by Germany's economic economics minister, who said energy could become scarce in April or May.

Meta's been found liable in a case that claimed it failed to protect children from sexual predators, a New Mexico jury found that Facebook's

parent company engaged in unfair and deceptive practices and now must pay $375 million in damages. The company says it remains confident in its

record of protecting teenagers online.

The BBC has a new boss. Matt Brittin, the former head of Google's European business, will take over as director general in May. He replaces Tim Davie,

who left in the wake of an editing controversy involving a documentary about President Trump.

Just months after launching the A.I. video app, Sora, OpenAI is shutting it down. The company says it's turning its focus to things like robotics,

which it says may help people solve, quote, "real world physical tasks". Critics warn that video generation software could fuel misinformation and

what some people call A.I. slop.

Joining us now, Kerry Flynn, media reporter at "Axios".

I mean, you speak to these people all the time. What do you think is the real reason for them dropping this app so quickly? They've spent a huge

amount of money on it.

KERRY FLYNN, MEDIA REPORTER, AXIOS: Correct. And it generated a lot of buzz when it first launched. People were making memes of themselves,

creating weird situations. It felt like my whole feed was all these Sora videos.

But it really comes down to a compute crunch. Every major A.I. company like OpenAI, Google, Anthropic is competing for limited chips and

infrastructure, and this video generation, while its fun, is incredibly expensive to run.

So, internally at OpenAI, the question was, do you spend resources on something that's fun and viral or areas that drive revenue and long term

breakthroughs? And clearly, OpenAI chose the latter.

FOSTER: It worked though, didn't it? I think it was in many countries, the top app on app store. People wanted it. But is this -- it just comes down

to money or is this a pivot in strategy? This isn't -- just isn't the area they want to focus on.

FLYNN: Well, I think we need a reality check the hype. It's shot to the top of the App Stores really quickly and generated. I think it was a

million downloads in just a week. That's incredibly impressive. But downloads were fading and it's not like the app had really become a habit

that you saw people using day in and day out.

Sure. Yes, it was fun, but not like as crazy as other apps are. But yes, it really was this financial decision that OpenAI has made as it reaches,

narrows its focus and needs to compete with these huge other companies.

You noted that they're really focused on physical A.I., working with robotics. They see their future in foundational models, enterprise things,

things that really bring long-term success and revenue to this company that, yes, is having great consumer success, but wants to do a lot better

and clearly bring in a profit.

FOSTER: Yeah. Really interesting. Kerry, appreciate it. Thank you.

We'll be back in just a moment

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:42:27]

FOSTER: The White House press secretary says, at this moment, it is unnecessary for congressional approval before deploying troops in Iran.

Karoline Leavitt today declined to promise that President Trump would seek authorization because she said the U.S. is currently in major combat

operations. There are reports the White House plans to send around 1,000 more soldiers soon to the Middle East, including members of an immediate

response force.

We don't know is, will President Trump send boots on the ground to Iran?

Joining us now, Colin Clarke, executive director of the Soufan Center.

Thank you so much for joining us, Colin. We asked the question because sometimes it is just words and part of a negotiation. Other times it is

something is going to follow through. But what are you hearing?

COLIN CLARKE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, THE SOUFAN CENTER: Yeah, we really just don't know. Trump is that much of a wild card and to date, his foreign

policy has been so erratic and mercurial that really it's anyone's guess. However, you know where I'm coming down on my assessment right now is we've

moved so many troops and so much hardware into theater.

I think it's a better-than-half chance that he actually uses troops, not in a full-scale occupation. The force isn't that large. It's not big enough to

do that, but it's certainly big enough to attempt to seize Kharg Island. There could also be some special operations forces activity going after

Iran's nuclear material, although that's a very highly complex operation and there's a lot of potential dangers there.

FOSTER: So, the Kharg Island is where it's the energy hub, isn't it, for Iran. And that presumably would give him a very strong negotiating position

with any talks that he's trying to pursue.

CLARKE: Yeah, it would, but it also wouldn't reopen the Strait of Hormuz. So there's bigger fish to fry. And I think, you know, so far, the military

has been brilliant from a tactical perspective. And the political leadership that's running the war has utterly failed to produce a strategy

of any, you know, of any worth because we still don't know what the ultimate goal is here, what the objectives are. And we're still guessing

whether this force that's been moved into theater is part of coercive diplomacy, or it's going to be operationalized.

You know, Trump's been trying to fight this war in the weekends to keep the markets happy. That's not the way that you actually commit to full scale

war. And I think we risk doing something in between and losing to or, you know, going to a draw with a much weaker enemy that figures out a political

strategy before we do.

FOSTER: Yeah. Take us to this weekday weekend thing because, what you're talking about there is how he said something very positive, didn't he,

going into the week on Monday before the markets open, saying we're -- you know, we're dialing things down effectively.

[15:45:08]

And that brought the markets up. And a bit of a pattern is forming here. So, people are suspecting that he will do something, but it won't come

until the markets close on Friday.

CLARKE: Yeah. I mean, that's the conventional wisdom. But you know, at some point you risk becoming the boy who cried wolf and people no longer

believe what you're saying or your threats begin to ring hollow. And I think that's particularly dangerous when facing an adversary like the

Iranians.

They've been battered significantly. And they're continuing to fight. And I think the United States and the Israelis so far have both underestimated

the Iranians' will to fight.

Look, from a conventional military perspective, nobody can go toe to toe with the United States. But insurgencies, lesser powers that fight

asymmetrically, that use guerilla tactics -- historically, they win simply by not losing. And I think that's the Iranians' goal here.

FOSTER: Yeah. Just keep going until they do win, as you say.

But what about this legal aspect? Because, you know, traditionally you would have to go through Congress to send troops some sort of ground force,

wouldn't you? But the White House spokesperson suggested that, you know, this isn't the time for that because they're actually in a war already. I

mean, do you know where, you know, where do the legalities stand on that?

CLARKE: I mean, asking Congress, why start now? I mean, the administration has sidelined Congress from the beginning. You know, frankly, it's a little

embarrassing at how little input Congress has had.

You know, as an American citizen, not only an analyst. I've been surprised time and time again at how Congress has been marginalized.

So, you know, we can talk about legalities, but the administration's going to do what it wants to do. You know, when push comes to shove, they're also

for all the glory that they seek to achieve, they've also got to be willing to accept the criticism if things go sideways.

And the bigger force buildup we have, the more ambitious the aims are, which we still don't know, the bigger risk there is for things to go awry,

unfortunately.

FOSTER: Okay. Colin Clarke, appreciate your thoughts on that. Thank you.

Still to come, a glimpse into the wizarding world. The first trailer of the brand new "Harry Potter" television series has just dropped. We'll show you

what to expect after the break.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You are a normal boy.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:50:06]

FOSTER: So, we've just seen it. The first glimpse of the new "Harry Potter" television series. HBO, which shares the same parent company as

CNN, has posted the first trailer of the new series. And here it is.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

(MUSIC)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mr. Potter, I think we can expect great things from you. Let's see who you are.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

FOSTER: The trailer also reveals that the series, which is being filmed here in London, is set to debut at Christmas this year. Some thought it

would be later.

For more, I'm joined by Jordan Moreau, a senior online news editor at "Variety".

I mean, you guys, we've all been waiting for this, haven't we? And that's our first glimpse. So what struck you?

JORDAN MOREAU, SENIOR ONLINE NEWS EDITOR, VARIETY: I just thought I mean, as a Harry Potter fan, I love it. I think it's a -- it's a cool new take.

The kids look charming. And you know, I think their acting is going to be great. The supporting cast, everything looks very authentic as a book

lover, as a movie lover, I think there are a lot of things here that look familiar, but it's going to be a new take. You know, seeing it on TV,

getting to spend more time with these characters, but I'm very excited for this.

FOSTER: Is it going to be very similar to the original screenplay, do you think? Because I saw there how they're saying it's based on the book?

Actually, the original films were very accurate to the book, weren't they? Do we know whether it's, you know, there's any, any, any shift to what

people should expect?

MOREAU: I think now with a season of television, you get more time to explore the subplots. You know, the side characters. We can really dive

deeper into the books than the movies originally let you do. So, I think this could even go deeper and more be more authentic to the original books

than the movies were.

FOSTER: So, it's going to be a series for each movie, is that right, in the book?

MOREAU: Yeah. One season of TV per each of the seven books in the series.

FOSTER: And I'm just looking. They're looking at the Harry Potter. I mean, he does look like Harry Potter, doesn't he, as everyone imagines Harry

Potter. But you're just looking at this guy thinking you're going to be a star either way.

MOREAU: Yeah, I think his chemistry with the actors who play Ron and Hermione is so fun. You know, it was a really short trailer, but you want

to get those looks at, you know, Snape, Dumbledore, Hagrid, McGonagall. Everyone gets kind of just a quick glimpse.

So, they're probably going to, you know, save some of the good stuff for later. But I think for a first trailer, this was, you know, very, very

impressive.

FOSTER: And you know, we've heard rumors about the budget, haven't we? But it looks expensive.

MOREAU: Yeah. I mean, this is going to be one of the most expensive shows of all time. In comparison, you know, "Game of Thrones" and the prequel

"House of the Dragon" those already, you know, crack the bank there for money. So, it was 15 million to 20 million per episode for those shows.

This is going to be right there up -- right up there with those ones for yeah, one of the most expensive shows ever made.

FOSTER: And what do you think about them bringing the date forward? I don't think it was originally meant to be this year. Was it?

MOREAU: Yeah, that was a big surprise. I mean, I think it's smart, you know, having a Christmas release date. Everyone's home, you're off from

work, you're off from school. The family is, you know, huddled around and you have TV to watch, you know, all together. I think it's such a family

friendly series that people are going to, you know, bring their kids all together, watch it, you know, with the family.

You know, they're going to dominate the end of the year. We just saw "Stranger Things" in the final season, you know, dominate the conversation

this past holiday season. So, I think HBO is, you know, marking its territory and say -- saying we have Harry Potter. This is going to be a big

show. Everyone is going to want to watch it this holiday season.

FOSTER: Yeah, they're really not messing about, are they? The trailer at least looks absolutely brilliant.

Jordan, really appreciate you joining us.

Now to another fantasy universe. And as he approaches the end of his 11- year run as host of "The Late Show with Stephen", Colbert, is looking forward to starting a new job. The Tolkien superfan will be taking a trip

to middle-earth, co-writing and developing a new installment in "The Lord of the Rings" franchise, currently titled shadow of the past.

The movie will be based on parts of Tolkien's "Fellowship of the Rings" book that didn't make it to the original films.

It'll be the second of two new upcoming films in the fantasy franchise, produced by Warner Bros. Discovery, the parent company of CNN, with New

Line Cinema.

Back here on earth, though, the travel nightmare continues at airports across the U.S., a shortage of TSA agents caused by the prolonged shutdown

of homeland security, as many airports operating with less than half of the normal number of security lines.

Now, congressional negotiators say they are getting closer to a deal to restore TSA funding. But until they do, travelers will continue to suffer.

With some busy airports reporting lines as much as four hours long. So, look at that and take it in.

Finally, tonight, an interesting guest at the White House -- not a catwalk show. It's in the White House First Lady Melania Trump, joined by humanoid

robot today on day two of her educational summit. The event focuses on expanding opportunities for children in technology and education.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

FIGURE 03, HUMANOID: Thank you, First Lady Melania Trump, for inviting me to the White House. It is an honor to be at Fostering the Future Together

Global Coalition inaugural meeting. I'm Figure 03, a humanoid built in the United States of America. I am grateful to be part of this --

(END VIDEO CLIP)

FOSTER: The robot named Figure 03, as she said, was made by A.I. robotics company Figure. The first lady said it was her first ever humanoid guest.

So, a piece of White House history there for you.

I'm Max Foster. That's WHAT WE KNOW. Do stay with CNN.

END

TO ORDER VIDEOTAPES AND TRANSCRIPTS OF CNN INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMMING, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS