A social media influencer known for posting viral videos of pranks has pleaded guilty to criminal impersonation in Arizona for posing as an employee of businesses in a Phoenix suburb and orchestrating brief but chaotic takeover attempts.

The outcome was welcomed by observers who said it could serve as a reminder to seekers of viral fame that stunts that cross the line legally can lead to serious ramifications.

Heston James Cobb, who posts as “Heston James,” was arrested in July 2025 after police in Tempe say he and others went into businesses posing as workers, entered employee-only areas and refused to leave when asked to do so. He entered his plea Friday.

In one video Cobb, wearing a Chipotle Mexican Grill shirt, told restaurant staff he was going to “clean house” before a group of men wearing dark shirts flooded into the eatery and ignored requests to leave. One man posing as an employee cleaned a tabletop with a mop.

Investigators said the videos had millions of views and potentially generated large amounts of income.

Vicki Lopez, an attorney representing Cobb, declined to comment Saturday. The Associated Press left a message with Cobb's TikTok account seeking comment.

Steve Chucri, president of the Arizona Restaurant Association, said he hopes Cobb's punishment is “severe” to deter copycats.

“There's no place for it,” Chucri said. “That's the last thing we need to put up with in the restaurant industry. The amount of money it takes to operate today is expensive.”

Chucri said the association does not offer any formal training or advice to restaurants on dealing with social media pranksters, and he hopes it does not come to that.

“We're a society of civility,” Chucri said. “We shouldn't have to.”

Matthew Pittman, a social media professor at the University of Tennessee in Knoxville, hopes the arrest will be a warning to influencers about boundaries when creating prank or satirical content.

Pittman said he and others who teach aspiring content creators generally stress that “real world norms and laws” extend into the digital world.

“So doing something that is illegal in real life would also be illegal on social, even if you are doing it for content,” he said. “This is a clear case of going beyond what the law allows.”

Among the recent cases he cited was an influencer in Long Island, New York, who was arrested last year after a series of pranks. They included videos of him going to eateries; pouring food such as raw eggs or beans over his head; and then running off, leaving the mess to be cleaned by others.

“Every few years a YouTuber, influencer or prank content creator goes a little too far, gets in trouble, and reminds the rest of us creators that digital actions can have real world consequences,” Pittman said.

Cara Hawkins-Jedlicka, a communications professor at Washington State University who teaches about content creation, said it's not enough for influencers to stay within the law. They also need to have basic empathy.

“When is it pulling a prank, and when it is being cruel?” Hawkins-Jedlicka said. “Before anything else, this is truly kind of unkind. This influencer was really only thinking about himself and how can I take advantage of this community.”

A man accused of arranging the fatal shooting of a Microsoft design manager on a Florida road was convicted Wednesday in a murder-for-hire scheme that followed years of a stormy child custody arrangement between the victim and his wealthy ex-wife.

Jared Bridegan was shot in 2022 after he got out of his SUV to remove a tire from a road in Jacksonville Beach. The attack stumped police for months as they struggled to understand why someone with no apparent enemies would be killed while his daughter sat nearby in her car seat.

Prosecutors believe he was killed because of ongoing strife with his former wife, Shanna Gardner, over the parenting of their twins.

Mario Fernandez Saldana, 38, was convicted of first-degree murder and solicitation of murder and faces an automatic sentence of life in prison. He's married to Gardner, 39, whose trial is set to start in September.

“They wanted a majority of the decision making. They wanted more custody, even 60-40,” Assistant State Attorney Christina Stifler said during closing arguments Tuesday in Duval County court.

“It doesn't matter if they were completely right about the situation or completely wrong. What matters is how they fixed it,” Stifler said. “They fixed it by executing a man when they had other alternatives available to them. That's why we're here.”

Prosecutors said Fernandez Saldana hired Henry Tenon to carry out the fatal ambush. He had no personal connection to Bridegan, but was a former tenant at Fernandez Saldana's rental property in Jacksonville. The prosecutor described him as “basically homeless, squatting on people's couches with overdrawn bank accounts.”

Jurors saw three checks totaling $10,000 written to Tenon after the homicide, marked as payments by Fernandez Saldana for handyman work and a business idea — “good luck!!”

Tenon's DNA was identified on the rim of the tire that was intentionally placed in the road, police said.

He initially pleaded guilty and agreed to testify against Fernandez Saldana but backed out and will stand trial in 2027.

Defense attorney Jesse Dreicer told jurors that Fernandez Saldana had no motive to have Bridegan killed. Fernandez Saldana and Gardner are estranged, and Gardner moved to Washington state after the killing. She was arrested in 2023.

“He certainly gained no benefit from the death of Jared Bridegan,” Dreicer said, noting there was no testimony that Fernandez Saldana told anyone that Bridegan “deserves to die.”

Gardner is the daughter of the co-founder of Stampin' Up!, an arts-and-crafts company based in Utah.

Bridegan was shot twice when he stopped his Volkswagen Atlas to move the tire out of the way. He had just returned two children to Gardner's home after a meal with the twins. At the time of his death, he was married to Kirsten Bridegan and they had two children.

Kirsten Bridegan told the jury that the post-divorce relationship between her husband and Gardner was “pretty terrible,” adding there was “absolutely no trust.” She said it interfered with the kids' medical appointments and even routine meetings at school.

Bridegan was chief technology officer at Utah-based Clean Simple Eats before working at Microsoft for less than a year before his death, his wife said.

The Supreme Court opened a path Monday for possible implementation of President Donald Trump's executive order restricting mail-in voting, though it remains unclear how much can be put in place before the fast-approaching midterm elections.

The decision leaves room for additional court challenges that could further slow Trump's order, and other similar cases have already been filed. The U.S. Postal Service laid out how it would implement the order last week, but time is running short to impose major changes. North Carolina is sending out ballots Sept. 4 overseas and to military voters, and other states will quickly follow suit in just a few weeks.

The Supreme Court's conservative majority didn't decide the legality of Trump's order, instead ruling that states who sued did not have the legal right to challenge it.

While the emergency order is not final, it does have the potential to create chaos around voting across the country, with Trump often questioning the integrity of elections and the nation's highest court again the possible arbiter of a political controversy.

“The Court's disposition of this application does not mean that any measure taken by the Government to implement the Order will necessarily be lawful. On that score, time will tell,” the majority wrote in an unsigned order.

The three liberal-leaning justices publicly dissented, with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson writing that the rule “lets another shoe drop in the Kafkaesque nightmare that our precedents have been steadily creating for certain plaintiffs who seek to bring election-related challenges.”

New York Attorney General Letitia James foreshadowed more legal fights ahead, calling the decision a “painful setback” but vowing it would “not be the final word.”

The court's order opens a path for the administration to begin action to restrict mail voting, but it also could lead to further litigation that could freeze the federal government again.

“This is just the first inning of a very fast nine-inning game,” said Derek Muller, a law professor at Notre Dame University.

Mail balloting has long been a favorite target for Trump, who has claimed that it breeds fraud despite strong evidence to the contrary and his own use of the voting method.

Trump's executive order, signed in March, calls on his administration to create lists of eligible voters and orders the U.S. Postal Service to deliver mail ballots only to people on those lists. New requirements released Friday would forbid the Postal Service from sending mail ballots from any state that does not comply with Trump's order.

A Postal Service spokesperson did not immediately respond messages seeking comment. The White House did not immediately respond to a message seeking comment.