Electronic Arts, maker of video games like “Madden NFL,” “Battlefield,” and “The Sims,” is being acquired for $52.5 billion in what could become the largest-ever buyout funded by private-equity firms.

The private equity firm Silver Lake Partners, Saudi Arabia’s sovereign wealth fund PIF, and Affinity Partners will pay EA’s stockholders $210 per share. Affinity Partners is run by President Donald Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner.

PIF, which was already the largest insider stakeholder in Electronic Arts, will be rolling over its existing 9.9% stake in the company.

The commitment to the massive deal is inline with recent activity by Saudi Arabia’s sovereign wealth fund, wrote Andrew Marok of Raymond James.

“The Saudi PIF has been a very active player in the video gaming market since 2022, taking minority stakes in most scaled public video gaming publishers, and also outright purchases of companies like ESL, FACEIT, and Scopely,” he wrote. “The PIF has made its intentions to scale its gaming arm, Savvy Gaming Group, clear, and the EA deal would represent the biggest such move to date by some distance.”

Electronic Arts would be taken private and its headquarters will remain in Redwood City, California.

The total value of the deal eclipses the $32 billion price paid to take Texas utility TXU private in 2007.

If the transaction closes as anticipated, it will end EA’s 36-year history as a publicly traded company that began with its shares ending its first day of trading at a split-adjusted 52 cents.

The IPO came seven years after EA was founded by former Apple employee William “Trip” Hawkins, who began playing analog versions of baseball and football made by “Strat-O-Matic” as a teenager during the 1960s.

CEO Andrew Wilson has led the company since 2013 and he will remain in that role, the firms said Monday.

“Electronic Arts is an extraordinary company with a world-class management team and a bold vision for the future,” said Kushner, who serves as CEO of Affinity Partners. “I’ve admired their ability to create iconic, lasting experiences, and as someone who grew up playing their games — and now enjoys them with his kids — I couldn’t be more excited about what’s ahead.”

This marks the second high-profile deal involving Silver Lake and a technology company with a legion of loyal fans in recent weeks. Silver Lake is also part of a newly formed joint venture spearheaded by Oracle involved in a deal to take over the U.S. oversight of TikTok’s social video platform, although all the details of that complex transaction haven’t been divulged yet.

Silver Lake has also previously bought out two other well-known technology companies, the now-defunct video calling service Skype in a $1.9 billion deal completed in 2009, and a $24.9 billion buyout of personal computer maker Dell in 2013. After Dell restructured its operations as a private company, it returned to the stock market with publicly traded shares in 2018.

By going private, EA will be able to reprogram its operations without being subjected to the investment pressures and scrutiny that sometimes compel publicly held companies to make short-sighted decisions aimed at meeting quarterly financial targets. Although its video games still have a fervent following, EA’s annual revenues have been stagnant during the past three fiscal years, hovering from $7.4 billion to $7.6 billion.

Meanwhile, one of its biggest rivals Activision Blizzard was snapped up by technology powerhouse Microsoft for nearly $69 billion in 2023, while the competition from mobile video game makers such as Epic Games has intensified.

After being taken private, formerly public companies often undergo extensive cost-cutting that includes layoffs, although there has been no indication that will be the case with EA. After jettisoning about 5% of its workforce in 2024, EA ended March with 14,500 employees and then laid off several hundred people in May.

The deal is expected to close in the first quarter of 2027. It still needs approval from EA shareholders.

EA’s stock rose more than 5% before the opening bell.

President Donald Trump on Thursday announced a new round of punishing tariffs, saying the United States will impose a 100% tariff on imported branded drugs, 25% tariff on imports of all heavy-duty trucks and 50% tariffs on kitchen cabinets.

Trump also said he would start charging a 30% tariff on upholstered furniture next week.

He said the new heavy-duty truck tariffs were to protect manufacturers from “unfair outside competition” and said the move would benefit companies such as Paccar-owned PCAR.O Peterbilt and Kenworth and Daimler Truck-owned DTGGe.DE Freightliner.

Trump has launched numerous national security probes into potential new tariffs on a wide variety of products.

He said the new tariffs on kitchen, bathroom and some furniture were because of huge levels of imports that were hurting local manufacturers.

“The reason for this is the large-scale ‘FLOODING’ of these products into the United States by other outside Countries,” Trump said, citing national security concerns about U.S. manufacturing.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce urged the department not to impose new tariffs, noting the top five import sources are Mexico, Canada, Japan, Germany and Finland “all of which are allies or close partners of the United States posing no threat to U.S. national security.”

Mexico is the largest exporter of medium- and heavy-duty trucks to the United States. A study released in January said imports of those larger vehicles from Mexico have tripled since 2019.

Higher tariffs on commercial vehicles could put pressure on transportation costs just as Trump has vowed to reduce inflation, especially on consumer goods such as groceries.

Tariffs could also affect Chrysler-parent Stellantis STLAM.MI, which produces heavy-duty Ram trucks and commercial vans in Mexico. Sweden’s Volvo Group VOLVb.ST is building a $700 million heavy-truck factory in Monterrey, Mexico, set to start operations in 2026.

Mexico is home to 14 manufacturers and assemblers of buses, trucks, and tractor trucks, and two manufacturers of engines, according to the U.S. International Trade Administration.

The country is also the leading global exporter of tractor trucks, 95% of which are destined for the United States.

“We need our Truckers to be financially healthy and strong, for many reasons, but above all else, for National Security purposes!” Trump added.

Mexico opposed new tariffs, telling the Commerce Department in May that all Mexican trucks exported to the United States have on average 50% U.S. content, including diesel engines.

Last year, the United States imported almost $128 billion in heavy vehicle parts from Mexico, accounting for approximately 28% of total U.S. imports, Mexico said.

The Japanese Automobile Manufacturers Association also opposed new tariffs, saying Japanese companies have cut exports to the United States as they have boosted U.S. production of medium- and heavy-duty trucks.

A group of the country’s top economic leaders, including every living former Federal Reserve chair, filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court on Thursday in support of Fed governor Lisa Cook, who President Donald Trump is seeking to remove.

The group, led former central bank chiefs Alan Greenspan, Ben Bernanke and Janet Yellen, said that “allowing the removal of Governor Lisa D. Cook while the challenge to her removal is pending would threaten that independence and erode public confidence in the Fed.”

The bipartisan group, which also includes former Treasury Secretaries Robert Rubin, Larry Summers, Hank Paulson, Jack Lew and Timothy Geithner, added that “the independence of the Federal Reserve, within the limited authority granted by Congress to achieve the goals Congress itself has set, is a critical feature of our national monetary system.”

As the U.S. central bank, the Federal Reserve is part of the U.S. government and its leaders are put in place by elected officials, but it also retains a considerable amount of independence that is meant to allow it to make decisions purely out of economic concerns rather than political ones.

The former economic officials said that an erosion of Fed independence could result “in substantial long-term harm and inferior economic performance overall.”

The Supreme Court is considering whether Trump has the authority to fire Cook, who has been a target for the White House for weeks as part of a broader pressure campaign to push the Fed to more aggressively cut interest rates.

Cook’s attempted removal stems from allegations of mortgage fraud, made in August by top Trump ally and Federal Housing Finance Authority Director Bill Pulte.

Cook has repeatedly denied the allegations and has not been charged with any crime. Documents reviewed by NBC News in mid-September appeared to contradict Pulte’s allegations.

Two courts have so far blocked Cook’s removal, leading Trump to ask the Supreme Court a week ago to allow him to fire her. In a court filing, Solicitor General D. John Sauer said a judge’s ruling that blocked the firing constituted “improper judicial interference.”

In a filing to the Supreme Court on Thursday, Cook’s lawyers said that ‘she committed neither ‘fraud’ nor ‘gross negligence’ in relation to her mortgages.’

Cook asked the court to deny Trump’s attempt to remove her while the case is argued.

The White House has repeatedly maintained that Trump “lawfully removed Lisa Cook for cause.”

The brief filed Thursday is a who’s who of the country’s top economic minds. Former Fed governor Dan Tarullo is also listed as a signatory to the brief, as well as the economists Ken Rogoff, Phil Gramm and John Cochrane.

Glenn Hubbard, Greg Mankiw, Christina Romer, Cecilia Rouse, Jared Bernstein and Jason Furman, a group who served as top officials on the White House’s council of economic advisers during Republican and Democrat administrations, also signed the brief.

None of the officials who signed the filing have served in either of Trump’s administrations.

Trump is the first president in U.S. history to try to remove a sitting Fed official.

‘There is broad consensus among economists, based on decades of macroeconomic research, that a more independent central bank will lead to lower and more stable inflation without creating higher unemployment — thus helping to achieve the Federal Reserve’s statutory objective of price stability and maximum employment,’ the officials said in the brief.

‘The Federal Reserve walks a careful line in pursuit of its goals.’

They noted that ‘elected officials often favor lowering interest rates to boost employment, particularly leading up to an election.’

‘Although that approach may satisfy voters temporarily, it does not lead to lasting gains for unemployment or growth and can instead lead to persistently higher inflation in the long-term and thus ultimately harm the national economy.’

The former Fed chairs and economic officials, in their filing, highlight a notorious case of political pressure on the Fed:

‘In the early 1970s, President Richard Nixon famously exerted political pressure over then-Chair of the Fed Arthur Burns to lower unemployment by reducing interest rates. During this period ‘the Fed made only limited efforts to maintain policy independence and, for doctrinal as well as political reasons, enabled a decade of high and volatile inflation.’ This contributed to an ‘inflationary boom’ and deep recession that took years to bring back under control.’

SEATTLE — Amazon has reached a historic $2.5 billion settlement with the Federal Trade Commission, which said the online retail giant tricked customers into signing up for its Prime memberships and made it difficult for them to cancel after doing so.

The Seattle company will pay $1 billion in civil penalties — the largest fine in FTC history, and $1.5 billion will be paid to consumers who were unintentionally enrolled in Prime, or were deterred from canceling their subscriptions, the agency said Thursday. Eligible Prime customers include those who may have signed up for a membership via the company’s “Single Page Checkout” between June 23, 2019 to June 23, 2025.

The Federal Trade Commission sued Amazon in U.S. District Court in Seattle two years ago alleging more than a decade of legal violations. That included a violation of the Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act, a 2010 law designed to ensure that people know what they’re being charged for online.

Amazon admitted no wrong-doing in the settlement. It did not immediately respond to requests by The Associated Press for comment Thursday.

Amazon Prime provides subscribers with perks that include faster shipping, video streaming and discounts at Whole Foods for a fee of $139 annually, or $14.99 a month.

It’s a key and growing part of Amazon’s business, with more than 200 million members. In its latest financial report, the company reported in July that it booked more than $12 billion in net revenue for subscription services, a 12% increase from the same period last year. That figure includes annual and monthly fees associated with Prime memberships, as well as other subscription services such as its music and e-books platforms.

The company has said that it clearly explains Prime’s terms before charging customers, and that it offers simple ways to cancel membership, including by phone, online and by online chat.

“Occasional customer frustrations and mistakes are inevitable — especially for a program as popular as Amazon Prime,” Amazon said in a trial brief filed last month.

But the FTC said Amazon deliberately made it difficult for customers to purchase an item without also subscribing to Prime. In some cases, consumers were presented with a button to complete their transactions — which did not clearly state it would also enroll them in Prime, the agency said.

Getting out of a subscription was often too complicated, and Amazon leadership slowed or rejected changes that would have made canceling easier, according to an FTC complaint.

Internally, Amazon called the process “Iliad,” a reference to the ancient Greek poem about the lengthy siege of Troy during the Trojan war. The process requires the customer to affirm on three pages their desire to cancel membership.

The FTC began looking into Amazon’s Prime subscription practices in 2021 during the first Trump administration, but the lawsuit was filed in 2023 under former FTC Chair Lina Khan, an antitrust expert who had been appointed by Biden.

The agency filed the case months before it submitted an antitrust lawsuit against the retail and technology company, accusing it of having monopolistic control over online markets.

WASHINGTON — Americans are more likely to watch newly released movies from the comfort of their own homes instead of heading out to a theater, according to a new poll.

About three-quarters of U.S. adults said they watched a new movie on streaming instead of in the theater at least once in the past year, according to the survey from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research, including about 3 in 10 who watched new movies on streaming at least once a month.

Meanwhile, about two-thirds of Americans said that they’ve watched a recently released movie in a theater in the past year, and only 16% said they went at least once a month.

The results suggest that, on the whole, American moviegoers are more likely to stream a film than see it in the theaters, a shifting tide that was only accelerated during the COVID-19 pandemic and its aftermath. Convenience and cost are both factors for many people who can’t find the time to go to a theater or pay the increasingly high price for a ticket.

Sherry Jenkins, 69, of New Jersey, turns to streaming for all of her moviegoing needs.

“It’s much more convenient,” Jenkins said. “I can watch anything I want, I just have to wait a month or two after the movies are released because they usually go to streaming pretty quickly.”

In the post-pandemic era, films end up on streaming services more quickly. In 2017, a 90-day exclusive theatrical window was common. Now, theaters are fighting for an industrywide standard of 45 days. For studios, the strategy seems to be different for every movie. This year’s best picture winner, “Anora,” had a 70-day exclusive theatrical window. “Wicked,” meanwhile, was available to purchase on demand only 40 days after opening in theaters — and that was a case in which the film was, and continued to be, a box-office hit. It was also profitable on streaming.

There is some overlap between theatergoers and people who opt for streaming — 55% of U.S. adults have seen a new movie in a theater and skipped the theater in favor of streaming at least once in the past year — but only watching new movies on streaming is more common than only going to the theater.

Some in the film industry believe that movies that start in theaters still have more cultural cachet, but Jenkins doesn’t see it that way.

“The studios now are so closely affiliated with the streaming services,” Jenkins said. “There’s really no logic behind why some skip the theaters.”

The last time she regularly went to the movie theaters was, she thinks, about 20 years ago. But as a tech-savvy retiree, there just hasn’t been enough of a reason to make the trek to the theater. A subscriber to Acorn, BritBox, Paramount+, Peacock, Netflix and Hulu, Jenkins doesn’t even see the need for cable anymore.

“People tell me, ‘Oh, you have to go to the theaters and see ‘Top Gun: Maverick,’ ” Jenkins said. “But my TV is 75 inches, and I’m comfortable. I’m at home.”

Maryneal Jones, 91, of North Carolina, said she likes to go to the movies but finds them too expensive.

“There’s some movies I would like to see, and I say to myself, I’ll just wait until they show them on TV or I’ll go visit a friend who has those apps,” Jones said. “But I just don’t want to pay 12 bucks.”

The average cost of a movie ticket in the U.S. is $13.17, according to data firm EntTelligence. In 2022, it was $11.76.

Jones does not subscribe to any streaming services, but she also sees more movies in theaters than many others. She estimates she sees about six to eight a year. Recent films she’s watched in the theater include “The Life of Chuck” and the French romantic comedy “Jane Austen Wrecked My Life.”

The AP-NORC poll also indicates that streaming may be a more accessible option for lower-income Americans. Higher-income adults are more likely than low-income adults to be at least occasional moviegoers for new releases, but the gap is smaller for watching movies on streaming instead of going to the theater.

New movies are more popular among young adults, regardless of how they see them. But streaming is more of a go-to for the younger generation.

Slightly less than half of adults under age 30 say they watched a recently released movie on streaming instead of going to the theater at least once a month in the past year, compared with about 2 in 10 who watched a movie in the theater with that frequency.

Eddie Lin, an 18-year-old student in Texas, said he mostly watches movies at home, on streamers like Crunchyroll, Hulu, HBO Max and Prime Video, but will go to the theaters for “bigger things” like “A Minecraft Movie,” which is the biggest movie of the year in North America.

“A couple of my friends wanted to see it,” Lin said. “And there were the memes. I felt like the audience would be more interactive and it would be enhanced by being there with, like, a bunch of people.”

While streaming will continue to be formidable competition for audience attention and dollars, there has also been rising interest in the value of seeing certain films in IMAX or on other premium format screens, whether it’s “Sinners” or “Oppenheimer.”

The North American box office is currently up more than 4% from last year, but the industry has struggled to reach pre-pandemic levels of business. Compared with 2019, the annual box office is down more than 22%.

“I used to go more when I was younger, with my family, seeing all the Marvel movies up to ‘Endgame,’ “ Lin said. “I like movie theaters. It’s an experience. For me, it’s mostly a time thing. But I do feel like a certain charm of watching movies in theaters is gone.”