As new consumer hardware and software capabilities have bumped up against medicine over the last few years, consumers and manufacturers alike have struggled with identifying the line between “wellness” products such as earbuds that can also amplify and clarify surrounding speakers’ voices and regulated medical devices such as conventional hearing aids. On January 6, 2026, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued new guidance documents clarifying how it interprets existing law for the review of wearable and AI-assisted devices.

The first document, for general wellness, specifies that the FDA will interpret noninvasive sensors such as sleep trackers or heart rate monitors as low-risk wellness devices while treating invasive devices under conventional regulations. The other document defines how the FDA will exempt clinical decision support tools from medical device regulations, limiting such software to analyzing existing data rather than extracting data from sensors, and requiring them to enable independent review of their recommendations. The documents do not rewrite any statutes, but they refine interpretation of existing law, compared to the 2019 and 2022 documents they replace. They offer a fresh lens on how regulators see technology that sits at the intersection of consumer electronics, software, and medicine—a category many other countries are choosing to regulate more strictly rather than less.

What the 2026 update changed

The 2026 FDA update clarifies how it distinguishes between “medical information” and systems that measure physiological “signals” or “patterns.” Earlier guidance discussed these concepts more generally, but the new version defines signal-measuring systems as those that collect continuous, near-continuous, or streaming data from the body for medical purposes, such as home devices transmitting blood pressure, oxygen saturation, or heart rate to clinicians. It gives more concrete examples, like a blood glucose lab result as medical information versus continuous glucose monitor readings as signals or patterns.

The updated guidance also sharpens examples of what counts as medical information that software may display, analyze, or print. These include radiology reports or summaries from legally marketed software, ECG reports annotated by clinicians, blood pressure results from cleared devices, and lab results stored in electronic health records.

In addition, the 2026 update softens FDA’s earlier stance on clinical decision tools that offer only one recommendation. While prior guidance suggested tools needed to present multiple options to avoid regulation, FDA now indicates that a single recommendation may be acceptable if only one option is clinically appropriate, though it does not define how that determination will be made.

Separately, updates to the general wellness guidance clarify that some non-invasive wearables—such as optical sensors estimating blood glucose for wellness or nutrition awareness—may qualify as general wellness products, while more invasive technologies would not.

Wellness still requires accuracy

For designers of wearable health devices, the practical implications go well beyond what label you choose. “Calling something ‘wellness’ doesn’t reduce the need for rigorous validation,” says Omer Inan, a medical device technology researcher at the Georgia Tech School of Electrical and Computer Engineering. A wearable that reports blood pressure inaccurately could lead a user to conclude that their values are normal when they are not—potentially influencing decisions about seeking clinical care.

“In my opinion, engineers designing devices to deliver health and wellness information to consumers should not change their approach based on this new guidance,” says Inan. Certain measurements—such as blood pressure or glucose—carry real medical consequences regardless of how they’re branded, Inan notes.

Unless engineers follow robust validation protocols for technology delivering health and wellness information, Inan says, consumers and clinicians alike face the risk of faulty information.

To address that, Inan advocates for transparency: companies should publish their validation results in peer-reviewed journals, and independent third parties without financial ties to the manufacturer should evaluate these systems. That approach, he says, helps the engineering community and the broader public assess the accuracy and reliability of wearable devices.

When wellness meets medicine

The societal and clinical impacts of wearables are already visible, regardless of regulatory labels, says Sharona Hoffman, JD, a law and bioethics professor at Case Western Reserve University.

Medical metrics from devices like the Apple Watch or Fitbit may be framed as “wellness,” but in practice many users treat them like medical data, influencing their behavior or decisions about care, Hoffman points out.

“It could cause anxiety for patients who constantly check their metrics,” she notes. Alternatively, “A person may enter a doctor’s office confident that their wearable has diagnosed their condition, complicating clinical conversations and decision-making.”

Moreover, privacy issues remain unresolved, unmentioned in previous or updated guidance documents. Many companies that design wellness devices fall outside protections like the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), meaning data about health metrics could be collected, shared, or sold without the same constraints as traditional medical data. “We don’t know what they’re collecting information about or whether marketers will get hold of it,” Hoffman says.

International approaches

The European Union’s Artificial Intelligence Act designates systems that process health-related data or influence clinical decisions as “high risk,” subjecting them to stringent requirements around data governance, transparency, and human oversight. China and South Korea have also implemented rules that tighten controls on algorithmic systems that intersect with healthcare or public-facing use cases. South Korea provides very specific categories for regulation for technology makers, such as standards on labeling and description on medical devices and good manufacturing practices.

Across these regions, regulators are not only classifying technology by its intended use but also by its potential impact on individuals and society at large.

“Other countries that emphasize technology are still worrying about data privacy and patients,” Hoffman says. “We’re going in the opposite direction.”

Post-market oversight

“Regardless of whether something is FDA approved, these technologies will need to be monitored in the sites where they’re used,” says Todd R. Johnson, a professor of biomedical informatics at McWilliams School of Biomedical Informatics at UTHealth Houston, who has worked on FDA-regulated products and informatics in clinical settings. “There’s no way the makers can ensure ahead of time that all of the recommendations will be sound.”

Large health systems may have the capacity to audit and monitor tools, but smaller clinics often do not. Monitoring and auditing are not emphasized in the current guidance, raising questions about how reliability and safety will be maintained once devices and software are deployed widely.

Balancing innovation and safety

For engineers and developers, the FDA’s 2026 guidance presents both opportunities and responsibilities. By clarifying what counts as a regulated device, the agency may reduce upfront barriers for some categories of technology. But that shift also places greater weight on design rigor, validation transparency, and post-market scrutiny.

“Device makers do care about safety,” Johnson says. “But regulation can increase barriers to entry while also increasing safety and accuracy. There’s a trade-off.”

Physical media is about ownership. You buy the record, you keep the record, and it lives in your space as something tangible; not a license that can disappear overnight. But once a collection grows beyond a neat stack on a shelf, storage becomes a real issue. Milk crates are a temporary fix, not a long-term solution, and not everyone wants their listening room to look like it was assembled from IKEA leftovers or rescued from behind the local Publix. In 2024, we covered Toneoptic’s RPM Rotating Vinyl Record Storage Unit, a design-driven statement piece built for collectors with the space and commitment to match.

For 2026, Toneoptic is expanding the concept with the new CAN record storage system. It’s a modular, stackable, rollable crate solution for vinyl collectors who want their storage to look intentional, work without drama, and actually belong in a serious listening space.

The Toneoptic CAN is designed for real-world use. Stackable crates with cleverly embedded handles are designed to be easy to grab, and the optional eze dolly lets you roll your vinyl collection instead of deadlifting it. Plus there’s open access from both sides so flipping records doesn’t feel like work. You can even display what’s currently spinning, because if you’ve gone to the trouble of buying physical media, hiding it behind a slab of particle board would be missing the point.

Toneoptic CAN & eze Dolly

The Toneoptic CAN is available directly from Toneoptic, with pricing starting at $195 per unit. The optional eze dolly, which lets you roll your records instead of herniating a disc, is also sold direct for $85. Importantly and increasingly rare in this category—the CAN is made and assembled in Los Angeles, not pulled off a container ship and rebranded.

Dimensions & Weight

• 18.7 in / 475 mm (length)
• 13.25 in / 337 mm depth (aluminum version)
• 14 in / 376 mm depth (wood versions)
• 14.8 in / 376 mm (height)
• 12 lb / 5.4 kg per unit

Materials

The CAN isn’t pretending to be premium—it actually is. Construction includes post-consumer recycled aluminum, stainless steel fasteners, photopolymer components, and hardwoods where applicable, specifically American black walnut and North American white oak.

Record Capacity (Because This Actually Matters)

• Up to 80 records if your collection leans toward original pressings (12-inch or 10-inch)
• Around 60 records if you’re dealing with reissues and the occasional box set
• An additional 1-4 records can be placed in the record showcase sides, which is perfect for what’s currently playing or what you want people to notice first

The Bottom Line

The Toneoptic CAN is for vinyl collectors who want practical modular record storage that looks intentional not improvised. Made and assembled in Los Angeles, it delivers smart capacity, real materials, and thoughtful design without drifting into furniture theater. The $195 starting price is aimed at early adopters and likely won’t stay there once demand catches up.

The CAN is available for $195 at Toneoptic and the eze dolly is an extra $85 in white or $110 in black or silver.

Related Reading:

If you want to buy or sell a used EV right now, what’s the first step you’d take?

A startup called Ever wants to be the answer to that question. The company, which bills itself as the first “AI-native, full-stack auto retail business” for electric vehicles, already has thousands of customers buying and selling their EVs on the platform.

Now it’s looking to scale with help from a $31 million Series A funding round led by Eclipse, with Ibex Investors, Lifeline Ventures, and JIMCO — the investment arm of the Saudi Arabian Jameel family (an early investor in Rivian) — as co-investors.

Over the last decade, companies like Carvana and Carmax helped usher in the digital car-buying experience. More recently, myriad startups have tried to improve the car-buying experience with AI, pitching ideas like voice agents or smarter scheduling software. Eclipse’s Jiten Behl thinks this is the wrong approach if you want to really modernize the automotive retail experience, though.

“These bolt-on AI tools are band-aids,” he said in an interview with TechCrunch. He likened it to how many major automakers’ first EVs were essentially combustion vehicles that were repackaged to fit electric drivetrains. That approach came with major tradeoffs compared to designing a new EV from the ground up, which was the approach companies like Tesla and Rivian took.

“Auto retail is a perfect candidate for disrupting with AI, you know? It’s a lot of process, lot of labor, [very] rules-based,” he said.

Lasse-Mathias Nyberg, Ever co-founder and CEO, said in an interview that buying or selling a car typically triggers “hundreds or thousands of different actions” that a retailer needs to perform in order to complete the transaction. “There’s massive complexities or frictions on both sides.”

In 2022, he and his team set out to reduce or remove those complexities. What they settled on after a year of research was a digital-first auto retailer. The core tech is an orchestration layer or “operating system” that can handle all the different workflows behind a transaction, whether it’s processing information submitted by a prospective buyer or seller, or managing the vehicle inventory.

“When you do appraisals, or pricing, or titling, it’s very deterministic in terms of what steps need to be taken. And today, there are lots of single point solution tools that are used,” he said. Most companies “use these tools together in a very inefficient manner, and you think that you are on a digital journey — but if you actually could clean-sheet it, and if you actually could use the power of agentic AI, and you can create one unified customer experience and remove all these micro-frictions.”

Nyberg claimed that building the company this way has allowed Ever’s sales team to be two to three times more productive than they would be otherwise, and he expects that to scale as the company grows. He said this extra efficiency and productivity beefs up their margins, which can be booked as profit or passed along to the customer by offering lower prices.

Ever applies this fresh approach to both its online marketplace and physical locations. Nyberg said the hybrid model is important because seeing and trying a car in person remains crucial to the shopping experience for a lot of buyers — especially those who might be assessing EVs for the first time.

Early reviews of Ever’s product have been mixed. Users on one particular Reddit thread from last year were split, with some drawn to how Ever is making EVs easier to buy, while others detailed struggles getting in touch with the startup’s team. Ever was just getting off the ground and was more or less operating in stealth, and so Nyberg chalks that up to a learning experience. He said his team is working hard to make sure its system can be flexible enough to accomplish everything the company has set out to do.

The bigger challenge may be overall interest in EVs, which has cooled a bit in the United States. Nyberg said he hasn’t ruled out Ever buying or selling used combustion cars in the future, but wants to stick to EVs in the near-term since there isn’t a retailer that is laser-focused on these vehicles.

Behl, who spent eight years on Rivian’s leadership team, admitted he’s a “hopeless romantic when it comes to EVs,” and said he still believes the industry is moving towards electric propulsion because of the inherent benefits. And he said his “first thought” when started doing diligence on Ever was: “I wish Rivian was doing this.”

More broadly, Behl said, companies like Carvana are still in the single digits of market share when it comes to automotive retail. That’s why he sees so much upside in Ever.

“Customers are going to continue to gravitate towards better experience when it comes to buying cars, which means it is going to be a digitally-led customer experience which takes away all the friction of buying and selling a car,” he said.

Other MagSafe Power Banks to Consider

We like a few other MagSafe power banks that didn’t make it into our top picks.

Apple MagSafe Battery for iPhone Air.

Photograph: Julian Chokkattu

Apple’s MagSafe Battery for iPhone Air for $99: The super svelte iPhone Air doesn’t have room for a big battery, so Apple offers this perfectly sized MagSafe add-on, capable of charging wirelessly at 12 watts. But, with just 3,149 mAh of power (it charged the iPhone Air to 68 percent), it’s awfully pricey. Still, it’s one of the few perfectly designed for the iPhone Air. You can technically use it with other iPhones, but you’ll have to rotate the power bank so that it hangs horizontally.

Statik State Power Bank for $60: This pack uses semisolid battery tech, meaning there’s less liquid inside, so it’s safer (won’t catch fire, even if damaged), and it should last longer. Statik suggests double the lifespan. It certainly keeps its cool, offering 5,000 mAh at up to 15 watts or 20-watt USB-C charging. I like it, but the similar Kuxiu power bank recommended above is slightly more compact and cheaper.

Ecoflow Rapid Qi2 Power Bank for $90: Slim and speedy, this power bank is an impressive gadget for a company we usually associate with portable power stations. It is Qi2 certified for up to 15-watt wireless charging, but there’s also a USB-C port that can deliver up to 36 watts, and it supports a bunch of charging protocols (PD 3.0, PPS, and QC 3.0). To sweeten the deal further, it has a wee kickstand.

Photograph: Simon Hill

Anker Nano Power Bank for $55: Anker has almost managed to match the slimmest power bank above with its new Nano Qi2 power bank, measuring just 0.34 inches thick. It keeps its cool, charges at up to 15 watts, and fills most compatible phones to just over the 50-percent mark. If you want a slim Qi2-certified power bank, pick this.

Mous MagSafe Compatible Wireless Power Bank for $40: I don’t have any major complaints about this MagSafe power bank. The 6,000-mAh capacity is good for a 70-to-80 percent refill for most iPhones, and the design is rounded with a soft finish, though it is a little thick. It maxes out at 15 watts for charging, with a USB-C port that can hit 20 watts.

Vonmählen Evergreen Mag Magnetic Power Bank for £60: The real attraction of this magnetic wireless power bank is Vonmählen’s eco credentials. The German manufacturer uses recycled cobalt (27 percent), aluminum (90 percent), and plastics (100 percent) in its power banks. There are no compromises on design or functionality. This MagSafe battery pack is sleek and slim (8.6 mm), boasts Qi2 certification, and offers 15-watt wireless and 20-watt wired charging via USB-C. It’s only available in the UK and Europe now, but it will hopefully land in the US soon.

Photograph: Simon Hill

Scosche PBQ5MS2 Portable MagSafe Phone Charger for $40: Slim, decent magnets, four LEDs to show remaining power, and a wee USB-C cable in the box—so far, so familiar. There’s nothing really wrong with this 5,000-mAh MagSafe power bank, but charging (wireless and wired) maxes out at 10 watts, and you can get better performers for the same money above.

Burga Magnetic Power Bank for $100: If you are appalled at the idea of attaching an ugly limpet to your iPhone, consider splashing out for one of Burga’s stylish MagSafe power banks. A mix of tempered glass and anodized steel, these pretty power banks come in a wide range of eye-catching designs. The camo model I tested had strong magnets and charged my iPhone 14 Pro wirelessly (7.5 watts) to around 70 percent from dead. The USB-C port can also supply 20 watts. The catch is the relatively high price for the relatively low 5,000-mAh capacity.

Groov-e Power Bank for £29: This affordable MagSafe charger is only available in the UK, but it offers a decent 10,000-mAh capacity with a display that shows the precise percentage remaining. You can get 15-watt wireless charging (7.5 watts for iPhones), and the USB-C port can charge devices at up to 20 watts. It’s a little bulky, but the magnets are strong, and it worked well when tested, offering a full charge for my iPhone 14 Pro with around 30 percent left.

Belkin BoostCharge Wireless Power Bank for $33: With a 5,000-mAh capacity and a handy kickstand, this MagSafe power bank is decent. I like the choice of colors (especially purple), but the magnets feel a bit weak, and the kickstand works best in landscape (it feels unstable in portrait). It fell well short of a full charge for my iPhone 14 Pro.

Bezalel Prelude XR Wireless Power Bank for $120: The clever X-range from Bezalel includes two MagSafe power banks and a wireless charging plug. The XR, which I tested, has a 10,000-mAh capacity, while the smaller X ($80) makes do with 5,000 mAh. The XR is bulky, and the kickstand feels flimsy, but it offers more than enough power to fully charge an iPhone 14 Pro. Both power banks charge iPhones at 7.5 watts, and other Qi wireless phones at up to 15 watts, plus you can pop your AirPods on the other side to charge at 3 watts. They also have USB-C ports that can deliver 20 watts.

Mophie Snap+ Juice Pack Mini for $45: This 5,000-mAh-capacity power bank works well, but it’s a little bigger than it should be. It works with MagSafe iPhones but comes with an optional attachment for non-MagSafe phones. Mophie’s Snap+ Powerstation Stand ($70) offers double the capacity and a kickstand, but it’s chunky.

Avoid These MagSafe Power Banks

Photograph: Simon Hill

Some of the MagSafe portable chargers we tested aren’t worth your time.

Alogic Matrix Universal Magnetic Power Bank: This lightweight, 5,000-mAh-capacity magnetic power bank has an awkward angular look, but that’s because it’s designed to slide into a 2-in-1 dock, a 3-in-1 dock, and a couple of car docks, much like Anker’s 633 above. Unfortunately, one of the Alogic batteries I tested failed and refused to charge. The one that worked managed to add 74 percent to my iPhone 14 Pro’s battery.

HyperJuice Magnetic Wireless Battery Pack: Yet another 5,000-mAh MagSafe power bank, the HyperJuice looks quite nice with four LEDs and a round power button on the back, but the USB-C port is limited to 12 watts, and it only managed to take my iPhone 14 Pro up to 71 percent.

UAG Lucent Power Kickstand: This MagSafe power bank has a curved design with a soft-touch coating and a tough metal kickstand. Unfortunately, the capacity is only 4,000 mAh, yet it’s as big as some higher-capacity options—or even bigger. It added just shy of 60 percent to my iPhone 14 Pro, charging wirelessly at 7.5 watts. The USB-C goes up to 18 watts, but you can get better power and performance for the money.

Moft Snap Stand Power Set: I like the soft faux-leather finish, and this power bank is comfy in the hand and looks great, but the 3,400-mAh capacity only added 41 percent to my iPhone 14 Pro. It comes with a magnetically attached folding stand and wallet, with perhaps enough room for a couple of cards or emergency cash. I like that it attaches separately so you can ditch the power bank when it’s dead, but keep the stand; it just doesn’t offer enough power.

Power up with unlimited access to WIRED. Get best-in-class reporting and exclusive subscriber content that’s too important to ignore. Subscribe Today.

Uber Eats is testing a new feature that tries to remove the most annoying part of ordering groceries, the endless searching and tapping. It’s called Cart Assistant, and it can take a typed list or an image and draft a basket for you inside the app.

It’s rolling out as a beta. You’ll see it as a purple icon on a grocery store storefront after you search for the store from the home screen.

Uber hasn’t said exactly which stores and cities get it first, or whether any devices are excluded. It frames the launch as a US release and an early step toward more agent-style help in Uber Eats, where the app handles setup and you handle decisions.

It turns notes into a basket

Cart Assistant is built for the moment you already know what you need. Paste in your grocery notes, or upload an image, including a photo of handwritten items or a screenshot of recipe ingredients, and the app translates that into shoppable picks.

As it drafts the basket, Uber says it checks store availability and surfaces store-level details like pricing and promotions. Then you can edit normally. Swap brands, adjust sizes, remove extras, or keep browsing before checkout.

Repeat orders get smarter

Uber says Cart Assistant uses your past orders to prioritize familiar staples, which should cut down the time it takes to restock the same basics each week. That’s the kind of AI that earns its keep, because it saves effort without changing how you shop.

It also hints at where Uber wants to go next. The company positions this beta as part of a broader move toward agentic AI, meaning the app can take on multi-step tasks and hand you a result you can still tweak.

Where it helps, and where it may not

You’ll notice Cart Assistant most on routine grocery runs, when you want a solid first draft and you’re happy to fine-tune the last details. It’s less about discovery and more about getting the boring part done.

There’s one catch Uber hasn’t addressed yet, image accuracy. How well it handles low light, cramped handwriting, or very specific branded ingredients will decide whether it feels like magic or like extra cleanup.

Treat it like a draft, not autopilot. If you spot the purple icon, try a short list first, then scale up once you trust its picks on sizes and brands.

Nothing has begun teasing the upcoming Phone 4a with its colour options as a standout feature.

A recent post on X showed coloured dots forming the ‘a’ logo in Nothing’s signature dot‑matrix style. The dots appeared in blue, yellow, pink, white, and black, strongly suggesting these will be the launch colours.

The ‘a’ series remains Nothing’s best‑selling line, so expanding its finishes makes sense. Offering multiple colours could broaden appeal, especially as the Phone 4a edges closer to the flagship experience.

Co‑founder Carl Pei has already confirmed plans to push the device toward higher‑end territory, while still keeping the ‘a’ line affordable compared to the main flagship.

On Wednesday, former OpenAI researcher Zoë Hitzig published a guest essay in The New York Times announcing that she resigned from the company on Monday, the same day OpenAI began testing advertisements inside ChatGPT. Hitzig, an economist and published poet who holds a junior fellowship at the Harvard Society of Fellows, spent two years at OpenAI helping shape how its AI models were built and priced. She wrote that OpenAI’s advertising strategy risks repeating the same mistakes that Facebook made a decade ago.

“I once believed I could help the people building A.I. get ahead of the problems it would create,” Hitzig wrote. “This week confirmed my slow realization that OpenAI seems to have stopped asking the questions I’d joined to help answer.”

Hitzig did not call advertising itself immoral. Instead, she argued that the nature of the data at stake makes ChatGPT ads especially risky. Users have shared medical fears, relationship problems, and religious beliefs with the chatbot, she wrote, often “because people believed they were talking to something that had no ulterior agenda.” She called this accumulated record of personal disclosures “an archive of human candor that has no precedent.”

She also drew a direct parallel to Facebook’s early history, noting that the social media company once promised users control over their data and the ability to vote on policy changes. Those pledges eroded over time, Hitzig wrote, and the Federal Trade Commission found that privacy changes Facebook marketed as giving users more control actually did the opposite.

She warned that a similar trajectory could play out with ChatGPT: “I believe the first iteration of ads will probably follow those principles. But I’m worried subsequent iterations won’t, because the company is building an economic engine that creates strong incentives to override its own rules.”

Ads arrive after a week of AI industry sparring

Hitzig’s resignation adds another voice to a growing debate over advertising in AI chatbots. OpenAI announced in January that it would begin testing ads in the US for users on its free and $8-per-month “Go” subscription tiers, while paid Plus, Pro, Business, Enterprise, and Education subscribers would not see ads. The company said ads would appear at the bottom of ChatGPT responses, be clearly labeled, and would not influence the chatbot’s answers.