ARMONK, N.Y., Oct. 8, 2025 /PRNewswire/ — IBM (NYSE: IBM) will hold its quarterly conference call to discuss its third-quarter 2025 financial results on Wednesday, October 22, 2025 at 5:00 p.m. ET. The live webcast of the earnings call can be accessed at www.ibm.com/investor.
Please also visit the investor website for the earnings press release prior to the webcast. A replay, associated charts and prepared remarks will be available after the event.
Ramon Laguarta was not widely known when he became PepsiCo’s chief executive in 2018, a veteran operator who had spent most of his career in Europe. His low profile stood in contrast to his former boss Indra Nooyi, one of few immigrant women atop corporate America and a regular at Davos with a keen eye for public relations.
Laguarta is now in the spotlight, willingly or not. Like Nooyi before him, he is staring down an activist investor agitating for a shake-up of the drinks and snacks powerhouse that owns brands such as Gatorade, Doritos and its namesake Pepsi cola.
The 29-year PepsiCo veteran on Thursday will face investors for the first time since hedge fund Elliott Management went public with a $4bn stake in the company last month, one of its biggest investments.
Thursday’s third-quarter results will be scrutinised for signs of how Laguarta will respond to Elliott’s demands. The earnings presentation is expected to be Laguarta’s last before the deadline for Elliott to wage a proxy contest at the end of November. How he rises to the challenge may determine whether the hedge fund takes that path.
The activist’s 75-page slide presentation asserts that weakening sales and profit margins in PepsiCo’s North American businesses and an unwieldy product portfolio have put it at a disadvantage to rival Coca-Cola and other competitors, wiping away more than $40bn in market capitalisation over the past three years.
“I think he’s going to get a real test here on his leadership and his resolve,” said Kevin Grundy, a senior consumer goods analyst at BNP Paribas.
Elliott’s case against PepsiCo is less dramatic than Nelson Peltz’s demands for Nooyi to engineer a full break-up more than a decade ago. Nooyi, who promoted a lofty agenda of “performance with purpose”, resisted those calls, but after a two-year stand-off agreed to give Peltz’s hedge fund Trian Management a board seat in 2015. A few years later, she left the top job.
Whether Laguarta decides to play peace broker or dig in may yet define the tactics that Elliott decides to deploy. Marc Steinberg, the Elliott portfolio manager leading the PepsiCo investment, last year masterminded one of the most conciliatory campaigns in Elliott’s history, reaching a speedy détente with industrials giant Honeywell after taking a $5bn position. The company has since added Steinberg to its board.
Laguarta, a cheerful 61-year-old Catalan, oversaw the company’s international growth before taking the reins at its headquarters in the New York City suburbs. Since he became chief executive, PepsiCo’s revenue has increased by nearly 40 per cent. He has divested poorly performing brands such as Tropicana and Naked Juice while making more than $10bn in acquisitions, according to data from S&P Capital IQ.
But over the course of his tenure he became overly focused on quarterly earnings, according to several former executives. He has struggled to sell colleagues and investors on his vision of how to respond to changing consumer habits, such as the impact of weight-loss drugs on taste preferences, rattling the wider consumer sector, the executives said.
He has rankled some of his senior colleagues, in particular by involving his wife Maria in corporate affairs, including strategy meetings and retreats on several occasions, according to people familiar with the matter. His wife also played a role in promoting PepsiCo’s culinary initiatives, which explained how its products could be used in home recipes.
Laguarta has acknowledged a need for a turnaround and has taken steps that include shuttering two snack manufacturing plants to adjust to shrinking US demand.
“Under Ramon’s leadership, PepsiCo has taken a series of steps to best position the company for the long term,” the company said in a statement, pointing to cost-cutting efforts, investments in core brands such as Gatorade and Walkers crisps and the growth of the international business, which has averaged 10 per cent annual growth over the past five years.
“Maria is passionate about PepsiCo and our products, and is an advocate for the culinary aspects of our portfolio,” the company added.
Elliott expressed its “deep respect for the company and its leaders” in a letter to PepsiCo’s board last month, but said investors were sceptical of the company’s prospects. Charts in Elliott’s presentation show how PepsiCo has been outpaced by rivals Coca-Cola and Procter & Gamble, set roughly over the timeline of Laguarta’s seven-year tenure.
The hedge fund also called for better corporate oversight and accountability, hinting at the appetite for a board refresh. Elliott declined to comment.
The first part of Laguarta’s reign looked good. Consumers binged on PepsiCo’s fizzy drinks and snacks while locked down during the Covid-19 pandemic, and the soaring price inflation that followed drove its market capitalisation to an all-time high of more than $260bn in 2023 — tantalisingly close to surpassing Coca-Cola’s market value.
But by the end of 2023 the momentum came out of the business as snack and drinks sales in North America began to decline, as higher prices finally drove away some consumers.
Now PepsiCo is valued at $90bn less than its rival. Elliott draws brutal comparisons to Coca-Cola, highlighting PepsiCo’s relentless soda sales declines. Elliott pinpoints Coca-Cola’s decision to farm out beverage bottling to independent companies as key to its continued success, and argues PepsiCo should do the same with its mostly in-house North American bottling system.
Elliott also called for PepsiCo to sell off legacy food brands that it contends no longer fit its snack-heavy portfolio, such as Pearl Milling baking mixes and syrups, and breakfast cereals such as Cap’n Crunch. Proceeds could be reinvested in acquisitions of high-end or healthy snacking brands, Elliott added.
PepsiCo added in its statement that Laguarta has “repositioned the portfolio” through acquisitions, including of prebiotic soda company Poppi and healthy tortilla chips brand Siete Foods.
Some PepsiCo investors have endorsed Elliott’s ideas, but questioned whether they differ from changes already under way inside the company. “I appreciate Elliott’s suggestions as they correspond with many of the ideas the current management has,” said Kai Lehmann of Flossbach von Storch, a large PepsiCo shareholder. Still, he said the company “needs a greater sense of urgency as PepsiCo risks falling behind”.
In a statement last month, the company said it was reviewing Elliott’s proposals as it “maintains an active and productive dialogue with our shareholders”. A former executive close to Laguarta said the company’s previous experience with activism may mean it is better prepared this time around. “They didn’t pick an easy target,” said the person.
From 1 January 2026, new SOLAS requirements for shipboard lifting appliances enter into force under Regulation II-1/3-13 (Resolution MSC.532(107)). If you operate cargo cranes, stores cranes, engine-room cranes, hose-handling gear or similar equipment, these changes affect your surveys, documentation, and day-to-day operations.
These amendments introduce significant obligations for shipowners, operators, and technical managers, with direct implications for compliance, certification and the safe operation of lifting equipment on board vessels.
During this session, LR experts will show you exactly what changes, who’s affected, and how to get compliant on time so that you can pass your first renewal survey after the deadline with confidence.
Date:18 November 2025 Time:11:30 – 13:30 CET
During this session, you’ll learn:
Exactly how Reg. II-1/3-13 impacts your fleet by equipment type.
The evidence pack surveyors expect at renewal: certificates, test records, SWL markings, manuals. Lloyd’s Register
How LR CLAME and other acceptable standards can demonstrate compliance.
Practical steps to close gaps now, without disrupting operations.
Viatris Named to Forbes’ Annual List of the World’s Best Employers for the Fifth Year in a Row
PITTSBURGH, Oct. 8, 2025 /PRNewswire/ — Viatris Inc. (Nasdaq: VTRS), a global healthcare company, today announced that it has been named to Forbes’ list of World’s Best Employers 2025. This is the fifth year in a row that Viatris has received this recognition, which is presented by Forbes and Statista, the world-leading statistics portal and industry ranking provider.
“Being included once again on the Forbes’ World’s Best Employers 2025 list is a great way to mark our company’s upcoming fifth anniversary and a testament to our dedicated and passionate colleagues who help foster a workplace that prioritizes wellbeing, promotes inclusivity, supports learning and development, and empowers high performance,” said Andrew Enrietti, Chief Administrative and Transformation Officer, Viatris. “Together, we’ve built an environment that makes Viatris an employer of choice — today and for the future.”
The World’s Best Employers were chosen through an independent survey covering a broad sample of more than 300,000 participants across 50 countries. Respondents worldwide rated their “willingness to recommend” their employer on a 1-to-10 scale and had the chance to evaluate their organization across multiple aspects of employment. They were also able to provide feedback on both current and former employers. Additionally, participants could share their public perception of other companies operating within their country and industry. In total, 900 companies were included in the ranking.
To learn more about Viatris’ culture that enables colleagues to learn, grow and make an impact, please visit its careers site. You can also learn more by reading its 2024 Sustainability Report, which outlines the company’s 2024 achievements and progress across key areas including Access and Global Health, Our People, the Environment and the Community.
Being named to Forbes’ list of World’s Best Employers 2025 follows Viatris’ inclusion on TIME’s list of World’s Most Sustainable Companies 2024 and Forbes’ list of World’s Top Companies for Women 2024. The Company has also received Great Place to Work® certifications and Top Employers certifications in multiple countries, among others.
About Viatris Viatris Inc. (Nasdaq: VTRS) is a global healthcare company uniquely positioned to bridge the traditional divide between generics and brands, combining the best of both to more holistically address healthcare needs globally. With a mission to empower people worldwide to live healthier at every stage of life, we provide access at scale, currently supplying high-quality medicines to approximately 1 billion patients around the world annually and touching all of life’s moments, from birth to the end of life, acute conditions to chronic diseases. With our exceptionally extensive and diverse portfolio of medicines, a one-of-a-kind global supply chain designed to reach more people when and where they need them, and the scientific expertise to address some of the world’s most enduring health challenges, access takes on deep meaning at Viatris. We are headquartered in the U.S., with global centers in Pittsburgh, Shanghai and Hyderabad, India. Learn more at viatris.com and investor.viatris.com, and connect with us on LinkedIn, Instagram, YouTube and X .
SOURCE Viatris Inc.
For further information: MEDIA: +1.724.514.1968, Communications@viatris.com, Jennifer Mauer, Jennifer.Mauer@viatris.com, Matthew Klein, Matthew.Klein@viatris.com; or INVESTORS: +1.412.707.2866, InvestorRelations@viatris.com, Bill Szablewski, William.Szablewski@viatris.com
In recent years, a burgeoning legal operations discipline has helped corporate law departments enable the business more than ever before; but due to a lack of service-centric metrics, many don’t know how well they’re accomplishing that goal
Key takeaways:
Cost centers to strategic business enablers — In-house legal departments and general counsel in particular are increasingly focused on aligning their goals with broader company objectives, moving beyond traditional cost containment to emphasize service enhancement and business growth.
Current success metrics are still heavily focused on spend — Although GCs and legal operations professionals want to prioritize service and enable their businesses, most law departments continue to track and report metrics related primarily to costs and spending.
Updated metrics are essential for future success— To truly support business objectives, law departments must evolve their metrics and implement new data strategies to better capture service quality, business impact, and enablement.
In recent years, and especially in the AI age, corporate law departments have been tasked to increase efficiency, doing more with less and contributing back to the business at large. This has contributed to the rise of corporate legal operations as a discipline — what was fairly recently a niche concept for only the largest companies has morphed into a regular part of the corporate legal equation, and one that is increasingly tasked with keeping up with a burgeoning technology ecosystem and aligning the in-house legal function with larger company goals.
Increasingly, corporate law departments are fully embracing their role in enabling larger business objectives, and general counsel in particular are more focused than ever before on service enhancement for the business, according the2025 Legal Department Operations (LDO) Index, published by the Thomson Reuters Institute (TRI) in conjunction with Buying Legal Council.
“Team mission: We are a trusted partner and strategic enabler, empowering [our company] and its builders to innovate with confidence,” answered one technology company GC about their team goal for legal operations. “We provide clear, practical legal guidance that removes friction and unlocks opportunity — driven by thoughtful leadership, collaboration, and operational excellence. The legal team intentionally tracks its greater vision to be the same as our company-wide mission.”
However, are law departments actually reaching that goal? That answer becomes a bit murkier, not the least of which because corporate law departments aren’t actually measuring what they identify as their goals. While GCs and corporate legal departments are gradually moving away from cost containment as their top priority, the primary success metrics they track by and large all deal with legal spend and spending impacts.
The message is clear: Law departments want to move away from being a cost center, but in order to truly accomplish that goal, they need to update their metrics and data gathering to actually move more in line with the business.
Aligning goals and metrics
Recent TRI research categorizes in-house legal departments’ role into four distinct categories: effectiveness, efficiency, protecting the business, and enabling growth. Each of these should be a focus of the department, but historically not all four have been given equal time. Many business leaders, for instance, traditionally have believed the legal department’s role to be more centered on protecting the business rather than enabling growth, leaving key business enablement to other internal teams in the company.
That shift is slowly changing, however. GCs are increasingly focused on aligning the department’s business goals with that of the larger organization, shifting the department from a cost center to a business generator, the LDO Index shows.
This is particularly true when comparing GC survey respondents with those respondents who hold a legal operations title. Among GC respondents, 47% say they are more focused on service enhancement than cost reduction, while just 7% say they are more focused on cost reduction. For legal ops professionals, that sentiment shifts, with a higher proportion focused on cost reduction (22%) and fewer focused on service enhancement (36%). This tracks with what is asked of each role, as legal operations professionals are typically tasked with more efficiency-centric and technology tasks, but GCs are conduits to the larger business.
Overall, however, both sides agree on one aspect: The legal department is shifting to become more service-focused than being simply about cost savings. It is interesting, then, that when asked what metrics are routinely reported on in their legal department, spend still remains far and away the top one. This is particularly surprising given that GCs are often the ones establishing these metrics, even though they hold a stronger stance towards service enablement than most legal operations professionals.
Indeed, spend by law firm and spend by matter type clearly dominate available metrics across many corporate law departments. Further, even many of the next most commonly tracked metrics available, according to one-third of respondents — forecasted versus actual spend, total spend by business unit, and total spend by practice group — still center around costs. Many of the service-centric metrics — such as quality of legal outcomes, cycle time, and costs avoided — are captured by less than 20% of respondent legal departments, the survey shows.
This also brings up one note about the survey: Respondents to this question leading to the chart above were given a choice from a list of predetermined metrics, meaning that conceptually, there may be service-centric metrics in use that are not listed here. However, additional open-ended research found in Thomson Reuters Market Insights backs up the assertion that many in-house legal departments are still primarily measuring costs, despite wishing to focus their overall priorities elsewhere.
Moving to better metrics tracking
There is recognition that the law department needs to evolve in order to serve constantly shifting business needs. And for many departments, meeting these needs starts by developing data sets that can be shared across the organization.
“I see my role evolving into a more strategic, innovation-focused function — leading digital transformation, leveraging [generative] AI for smarter legal service delivery, and aligning legal operations with enterprise-wide goals,” said one energy industry legal operations professional. “I anticipate deeper collaboration across departments, greater emphasis on data analytics, and a continued shift from process execution to proactive business enablement.”
In fact, many respondents — particularly those at companies with newer legal operations functions — did note that better metrics tracking is on their roadmap for the future. And some said their primary goal at first was simply to become established, and more business-centric goals would come next.
“We have just started to develop the legal operations function at the company over the past year and a half,” said one financial industry legal operations professional when asked how they see their role evolving. “During the first part of this second year, we have been focused on legal spend and tracking our work with outside counsel to see where we can reduce our overall spend and ensure we are receiving the best service from our outside counsel. The second half will be focused on furthering our knowledge management base internally with shared resources and regular tracking of regulatory risks… so as to better be able to support the business.”
Yet, this focus is not universal, and especially for law departments that have not updated their data gathering and metrics capabilities, the time for thoughtful action is now. The LDO Index concludes with 10 practical actions that legal department leaders can undertake, with one of them explicitly calling to implement key metrics for data-driven decision making. This goal should be a top priority for all legal departments, regardless of whether the action comes from a GC or a professional with a background in legal operations.
Entering 2026, GCs and legal operations professionals alike should look into supercharging their metrics for success, focusing on how they can better measure business enablement and promote service enhancement more than ever before.
WASHINGTON — WASHINGTON (AP) — The global economy is holding up better than expected despite major shocks such as President Donald Trump’s tariffs, but the head of the International Monetary Fund says that resilience may not last.
“Buckle up,” Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva says in prepared remarks to a think tank Wednesday. “Uncertainty is the new normal and it is here to stay.”
Her comments at the Milken Institute come on a day when gold prices hit $4,000 an ounce for the first time as investors seek safe haven from a weaker dollar and geopolitical uncertainty and before the IMF and World Bank hold their annual meetings next week in Washington. Trump’s trade penalties are expected to be in sharp focus when global finance leaders and central bankers gather.
The worldwide economy is forecast to grow by 3% this year, and Georgieva is citing a number of factors for why it may not slip below that: Countries have put in place decisive economic policies, the private sector has adapted and the tariffs have proved less severe than originally feared.
“But before anyone heaves a big sigh of relief, please hear this: Global resilience has not yet been fully tested. And there are worrying signs the test may come. Just look at the surging global demand for gold,” she says in her prepared remarks.
On Trump’s tariffs, she says “the full effect is still to unfold. In the U.S., margin compression could give way to more price pass-through, raising inflation with implications for monetary policy and growth.”
The Republican administration imposed import taxes on nearly all U.S. trading partners in April, including Canada, Mexico, Brazil, China and even the tiny African nation of Lesotho. “We’re the king of being screwed by tariffs,” Trump said Tuesday in the Oval Office during a meeting with Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney.
While the U.S. has announced some trade frameworks with nations such as the United Kingdom and Vietnam, the tariffs have created uncertainty worldwide.
“Elsewhere, a flood of goods previously destined for the U.S. market could trigger a second round of tariff hikes,” Georgieva says.
The Supreme Court next month will hear arguments about whether Trump has the authority to impose some of his tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.
In her wide-ranging remarks, Georgieva points to youth discontent around the world as many young people foresee a future where they earn less than their parents. She also is calling for greater internal trade in Asia, more business friendly changes in Africa and more competitiveness in Europe.
For the United States. Georgieva is urging the government to address the federal debt and to encourage household saving.
The IMF is a 191-country lending organization that seeks to promote global growth and financial stability and to reduce poverty.
A Cornell doctoral student has developed an open-source software package that could transform how engineers design floating offshore structures for renewable energy and other ocean applications.
Kapil Khanal, a doctoral student in the field of systems engineering, is lead author of a study in Applied Ocean Research describing a “fully differentiable boundary element solver” that uses modern computational techniques to deliver fast, precise analysis of wave-structure interactions. The software package is called MarineHydro.jl.
This solver allows engineers to test how small changes in a design of an offshore structure, such as altering the diameter of a floating platform or changing the spacing between floating platforms, will affect performance, without having to build multiple prototypes or running time-consuming simulations.
“Traditional simulation tools came out of the offshore oil and gas industry in the 1970s and ’80s,” Khanal said. “They perform well for oil and gas platforms, but when we look at new devices like wave-energy converters or floating wind turbines, the old methods don’t really capture the challenges we need to address today.”
Existing software can model how a design behaves when in waves, but recalculating for every parameter change is computationally expensive. Khanal’s software integrates reverse-mode automatic differentiation – a technique widely used in machine learning – directly into the hydrodynamic solver.
“When you run the simulation once, the software gives you not only the performance of the system as it is but also how that performance changes if you tweak any of your inputs,” Khanal said. “You get all the sensitivities at once without having to run multiple simulations.”
Khanal compares it to taking a single bite of a dish and knowing instantly how the salt, the spice, the lemon and the garnish shaped the flavor without having to taste the dish ingredient by ingredient.
The solver has already been applied to model interactions among floating spheres and to optimize the layout of wave-energy converters, and the tool’s flexibility will be useful as engineers experiment with other novel, offshore systems.
“For some newer technologies like wave-energy converters and hybrid symbiotic systems, there isn’t one agreed-upon base design yet,” Khanal said. “It depends on the application, and there’s a need for software that can handle that diversity of designs.”
MarineHydro.jl is supported by Sandia National Laboratories, which is funding its continued development. Khanal built the solver in Julia, a programming language gaining traction in engineering circles for its speed and interoperability. The solver is open source and is already attracting interest from researchers and engineers.
“It already has about 20 stars on GitHub, with people using it from Brazil, Virginia Tech and Europe,” Khanal said. “That’s been exciting. It shows my Ph.D. research produced a tool people can actually use.”
The study’s senior author is Maha Haji, visiting assistant professor in Cornell’s Sibley School of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering and an assistant professor at the University of Michigan.
This project was funded by grants from the U.S. Department of Energy’s Seedling and Sapling Program.
Chris Dawson is a communications coordinator for Cornell Engineering.
This article originally appeared in Insurance Day, September 2025.
It has been a period of significant change for the UK pensions industry, with both the Pensions Regulator (TPR) and the Pensions Ombudsman (TPO) undergoing reforms that will impact how schemes are managed, how disputes are resolved, and how professionals in the industry must operate. This will have implications for the sector’s professional liability insurers.
With the next Budget taking place on November 26 and the government under pressure to improve the country’s finances, further change could be on the horizon.
TPR has set out a new agenda, which seeks to place stronger emphasis on transparency, governance, and long-term value, particularly within defined contribution (DC) schemes. Previously, much of TPR’s attention – often with good reason – has been on defined benefit (DB) schemes. However, to ensure risks with DC schemes are not overlooked, the new Pension Schemes Bill will deliver a number of significant changes.
A new value-for-money framework will require schemes to be more transparent about costs, investment returns and governance. This means that advisers, administrators, and trustees will have to ensure they have adequate reporting in place and demonstrate that schemes are working in members’ interests.
DB scheme rules on accessing surplus funds are being relaxed. Employers and trustees are encouraged to return surplus funds to the beneficiaries, where appropriate. This caused some trepidation around exposing employers and trustees to potential claims, however, the surplus will only be returned if certain safe guards are met. While this could release locked-up value, it also creates new risks that professionals will need to navigate carefully.
The creation of DC “superfunds” is being encouraged, in an attempt to make the UK a more attractive investment option.
The handling of small pensions is being simplified – for example, funds of £1,000 or less will automatically be transferred to the consumer’s largest pension fund.
Increased oversight
An increase in trustee oversight, with TPR suggesting that trustees who fail to comply with rules on scheme loans risk regulatory sanctions. The changes reinforce the expectation that trustees must remain up to date with legal and technical knowledge.
Being able to provide evidence that a trustee has engaged with the updated toolkit, recorded their learnings, and taken steps to apply it in practice, is invaluable in rebutting allegations of inadequate knowledge or failure to discharge their statutory duties.
Not all the changes have been welcomed – the suggestion that schemes will be required to invest part of their funds in private markets has raised concerns about embracing too much risk. For advisers and investment managers, closer scrutiny of portfolio choices will be needed, to ensure that markets are performing as expected.
The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has also called for a more proactive approach from the pension industry to provide more targeted retirement advice. The suggestion, which has been supported by TPR, indicates that a greater level of understanding is required from advisers, to ensure that the diverse needs of consumers is being met.
Meanwhile, it has been a long-held view that TPO does not have the resource to deal with the number of complaints received. Consequently, much of TPO’s recent focus has been on improving the service offered. This has resulted in faster determinations and the use of “lead cases” – where industry-wide issues are spotted, and one case is used to determine the outcome for all linked cases.
The ombudsman’s next areas of priority include increasing awareness of its early dispute resolution service; improving its current image (to show that it is fit for purpose); and improving the capabilities of its staff.
Compliance burden
As a result of the changes, advisers should expect increased compliance burdens, with more reporting and governance checks required. There will be a requirement for more careful planning, where larger funds are merged, while a less relaxed TPO could result in more demanding requirements to respond. Better record-keeping and clearer communications will be vital.
The Government has revived the Pensions Commission, which will explore long-term reforms such as wider auto-enrolment and higher contribution rates. Its findings, expected in 2027, could reshape the retirement savings landscape even further.
For pensions professionals and their insurers, the message is clear: regulation is becoming tougher; oversight is increasing, and expectations are rising.
The changes that have taken place – and those anticipated – mean the pensions advisory landscape is shifting perhaps more rapidly than anticipated. Advisers will find themselves faced with new opportunities to expand their offerings and products available to clients but must be conscious not to go too far – or risk facing claims for inappropriate advice.
Pension trustees and advisers must prepare for deeper scrutiny and faster dispute resolution. Those who adapt early will be best placed to navigate the challenges and benefit from the changes ahead.
Pew Research Center conducted this study to understand how parents of kids ages 12 and younger approach their children’s technology use and screen time.
For this analysis, we surveyed 3,054 parents who have children ages 12 and under from May 13 to 26, 2025. The sample for this survey includes respondents from two different sources: Pew Research Center’s American Trends Panel (ATP) and SSRS’s Opinion Panel (OP). The ATP and OP are both groups of people recruited through national, random sampling of residential addresses who have agreed to take surveys regularly. This kind of recruitment gives nearly all U.S. adults a chance of selection.
Interviews were conducted either online or by telephone with a live interviewer. The survey is weighted to be representative of parents or guardians of children ages 12 and under by gender, race, ethnicity, partisan affiliation, education and other factors. Read more about the ATP’s methodology.
Separately, four online focus groups were also conducted from March 4 to 6, 2025, with a total of 20 U.S. parents or guardians of at least one child age 1 to 12. The goal of these discussions was to explore parents’ views on topics covered in the survey in more depth. They are not representative of all parents, nor do quotes selected represent the views of all group participants. Quotes are pulled from larger discussion, and some have been edited for concision and clarity.
Here are the questions used for this report, the topline and the methodology.
Terminology
“Parents of a child age 12 or younger” and “parents” refer to U.S. adults who are parents or guardians of at least one child age 12 or younger.
Parents with more than one child age 12 or younger were asked to answer about one randomly selected child and may have children in other age groups. Child age groups throughout the report refer to the randomly selected child.
Throughout this report, “older child” generally refers to a child age 5 or older.
Parenting today means making tough choices about technology. Screens can educate and entertain, but managing what kids watch – and how much – can leave parents feeling judged or like they should be doing more. Setting limits can be a challenge even for those with the youngest kids.
A Pew Research Center survey of U.S. parents reveals how widespread technology is for kids ages 12 and younger – and the day-to-day reality of managing screen time as a parent. Among the takeaways:
Tablets and smartphones are common – TV even more so.
Nine-in-ten parents of kids ages 12 and younger say their child ever watches TV, 68% say they use a tablet and 61% say they use a smartphone.
Half say their child uses gaming devices. About four-in-ten say they use desktops or laptops.
AI is part of the mix.
About one-in-ten parents say their 5- to 12-year-old ever uses artificial intelligence chatbots like ChatGPT or Gemini.
Roughly four-in-ten parents with a kid 12 or younger say their child uses a voice assistant like Siri or Alexa. And 11% say their child uses a smartwatch.
Screens start young.
Some of the biggest debates around screen time center on the question: How young is too young?
It’s not just older kids on screens: Vast majorities of parents say their kids ever watch TV – including 82% who say so about a child under 2.
Smartphone use also starts young for some, but how common this is varies by age. About three-quarters of parents say their 11- or 12-year-old ever uses one. A slightly smaller share, roughly two-thirds, say their child age 8 to 10 does so. Majorities say so for kids ages 5 to 7 and ages 2 to 4.
And fewer – but still about four-in-ten – say their child under 2 ever uses or interacts with one.
It’s common for children to use smartphones. But at what age do they typically start owning their own devices?
In our survey, about one-in-four parents say their child has a smartphone of their own.
This depends heavily on the child’s age. Roughly six-in-ten parents of an 11- or 12-year-old say their child has their own smartphone, compared with 29% of parents of an 8- to 10-year-old and about one-in-ten who say so about a younger kid.
Kids’ smartphone ownership also varies by household income, with 31% of parents with lower incomes reporting that their child has their own smartphone. Smaller shares of those with middle (20%) and upper incomes (16%) say the same.
Regardless of whether a child has their own phone, we asked parents what they consider to be an appropriate age for kids in general to have one. Most parents (68%) think kids generally should be at least 12 before getting a smartphone of their own.
Even for the youngest kids, YouTube is widely used.
YouTube has played a major role in kids’ tech use over the years. It’s not without criticism; lawmakers and advocates have called out the advertising shown to kids and the quality of the content they see. Still, even as parents have voiced similar concerns in our past surveys, they have also noted its role in kids’ entertainment and learning.
Today, 85% of parents say their child ever watches YouTube; this includes about half who say this happens daily. And the platform is widely used by kids of all ages.
About six-in-ten parents report that their child under 2 watches YouTube. This rises to 84% for ages 2 to 4 and is slightly higher for ages 5 to 12.
YouTube use is ticking up overall – and has risen sharply for kids under 2.
YouTube use overall has inched up from 2020, when 80% of parents said their child 11 or younger ever watched it, to 85% of parents who say their child 12 or younger ever does so today.
That includes a jump from 45% to 62% among parents of a child under 2. The shares of parents who say their kid 2 and up ever watches YouTube are statistically unchanged.
Daily use also rose from 43% in the 2020 survey to 51% today. This change is driven by more parents saying their younger kid watches YouTube daily. From 2020 to 2025, daily use rose from:
24% to 35% according to parents of a child under 2
38% to 51% for parents of kids ages 2 to 4
Some parents say their kids are on TikTok and other social media platforms.
Social media companies have been accused of being too lax with kids’ data, harming youth mental health and not doing enough to keep children from seeing inappropriate content.
Though companies have put age restrictions in place, some kids are still on these platforms. As in 2020, TikTok stands out from the other platforms we asked about – with 15% of parents saying their child uses it, as far as they know.
Smaller shares report their child uses Snapchat (8%), Instagram or Facebook (5% each).
It’s most common for parents of the oldest kids to say their child uses these four platforms. For example, 37% of parents say their 11- to 12-year-old uses TikTok. By comparison:
16% say their 8- to 10-year-old uses TikTok.
10% say their 5- to 7-year-old does.
6% say so about their child under 5.
At the same time, parents view social media as uniquely harmful. Eight-in-ten say the harms of social media outweigh the benefits.
Fewer, though still nearly half, say smartphones are more harmful than beneficial to their children.
And a smaller share – about three-in-ten – say the same about tablets.
How parents navigate decisions about screens
Parents can face tough calls daily on screen time. When and why kids are allowed to use a smartphone can be among the most fraught.
Ease of contact is a big reason for allowing kids to have their own smartphones. Nearly all parents whose child has theirown smartphone say this is a major or minor reason they let them use one.
Most parents who let their kids use smartphones at all say entertainment and learning are reasons they do so. Smaller but notable shares of parents say they let kids use smartphones to calm them down or so that they don’t feel left out.
Among parents whose kids use smartphones, those whose child is under 5 are far more likely than those with older kids to say calming their child is a reason they allow smartphone use. And those with lower household incomes are more likely than those with middle or upper incomes to let their child use a smartphone to help them learn, to avoid them feeling left out or to calm them.
Most parents who don’t allow smartphones say inappropriate content is a reason why. Safety, developmental concerns and excessive screen time are also commonly cited.
In addition to surveying parents, we also conducted four separate focus groups in March to dive deeper into parents’ views and experiences on topics related to screen time. In the discussions, we asked them how they felt about their kids using – or not using – phones in general.
One parent highlighted safety as a reason their child has one, explaining:
“[My son’s] in kinder[garten], and he owns his phone already. It is for safety reasons only … so he takes it every day to school, brings it back, but he never uses it.”
Asked about giving kids phones in the future, another parent said:
“I think eventually we will give it to them, but now … she’s not ready. Even … we [parents] spend too much time on phones. … How can we expect a 9-year-old to control and have a balance between their screen time?”
Most parents say managing their child’s screen time is a priority. Fewer than half say it’s one of their biggest ones.
Our survey findings show that they’re juggling other things: Larger shares say making sure their child has good manners, gets enough sleep, stays active, and reads or is read to are some of their biggest day-to-day priorities.
About nine-in-ten parents with upper (90%) and middle incomes (87%) say screen time is a priority overall, higher than the 82% with lower incomes who say so. But the shares who say it’s one of their biggest priorities are similar across these groups.
Some of the other key priorities parents cite vary by income, though. For example, 84% of parents with lower incomes say ensuring good manners is one of their key priorities, versus 74% of those with middle incomes and a slightly smaller share of those with upper incomes (69%).
About four-in-ten parents (39%) think they’re stricter about their child’s screen time than other parents they know.
By comparison, about a quarter each think they’re less strict than other parents (26%) or about as strict (28%).
Many parents say they’re doing their best; some think they can do more.
About four-in-ten (42%) say they could be doing better at managing their kid’s screen time. A larger share – 58% – say they’re doing the best they can.
Moms and dads are similarly likely to say they’re doing their best (59% vs. 55%). Parents with lower household incomes, though, are more likely than their middle-income peers to say this (63% vs. 54%). (Those with upper incomes do not differ from either group, at 57%.)
In our March focus groups, we heard from parents about competing pressures that can weigh heavily on them. As one parent said:
“I also have three other children in the house, and I work full time. … To just keep some of my sanity, the first thing I do is turn the TV on. … Being the wintertime, it’s hard for them to go outside. … I want to work on the screen time for the summertime.”
And parents want tech companies and lawmakers to take more action to protect kids.
Two-thirds of parents (67%) say tech companies should do more to set rules around what kids can do or see online, according to our May survey. And a 55% majority say that lawmakers should do more.
Parental support for action on kids’ online lives crosses partisan lines. There are only slight differences in views for Republican and Democratic parents, including parents who lean toward each party.
