Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

The trial in San Francisco centers on a class-action lawsuit filed against Elon Musk, who is accused of engaging in a pattern of deceptive behavior that misled investors as he attempted to back out of his $44bn deal to buy Twitter, now known as X, in 2022.Musk's claims about the number of bots on Twitter were a key part of his argument for backing out of the deal. He testified that Twitter had a much higher number of fake and spam accounts than the 5 percent it disclosed in regulatory filings, claiming it was actually around 20 percent. However, Twitter's former CFO Ned Segal disputed this claim, saying the number was closer to 1 percent.The trial has significant implications for Musk, whose fortune is now estimated at $839bn. If the court rules in favor of the shareholders, Musk could be liable for damages. The case highlights the challenges of navigating complex financial deals and the importance of transparency in corporate transactions.Closing arguments are set to begin on Tuesday, with the jury instructed to consider the evidence presented during the trial. The case has been closely watched by investors and observers, who are eager to see how the court will rule on the matter.

The Trump administration has formally opposed Anthropic's legal challenge, arguing that the Pentagon's decision to blacklist the AI firm was both lawful and necessary for national security. In a court filing submitted on Tuesday, the Justice Department contended that Anthropic’s refusal to remove guardrails preventing its technology from being used in autonomous weapons and domestic surveillance constituted conduct rather than protected speech.Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth designated Anthropic, the creator of the Claude AI assistant, a "national security supply chain risk" on March 3. This move effectively excludes the company from a limited set of military contracts. The administration’s legal team asserts that the dispute is rooted in contract negotiations and national security imperatives, not retaliation. They argue that no constitutional rights were violated because the government did not restrict the company's expressive activities.However, legal experts suggest Anthropic may have a strong case regarding potential overreach. The company is currently challenging the Pentagon's decision in California federal court. The implications of this conflict extend beyond the courtroom; Anthropic executives have warned that the blacklisting could cause billions of dollars in losses this year and severely damage the company's reputation.In a statement, Anthropic emphasized its commitment to national security while acknowledging the necessity of the lawsuit to protect its business interests and partners. The company is also pursuing a separate legal challenge in a Washington, DC, appeals court regarding a broader supply chain risk designation.

Palantir, one of the world's biggest tech companies, has been accused of launching an intimidation campaign against a small Swiss magazine, Republik, after it published an investigative report on the company's activities in Switzerland.The report, which was a collaboration between Republik and the independent Swiss research collective WAV, alleged that Palantir had persistently courted Switzerland but had been rejected. The investigation found that Palantir had pitched itself to Switzerland's chancellor during the Covid-19 pandemic to help with data tracking, approached the Swiss army, and met Switzerland's then finance minister, Ueli Maurer.Palantir was not happy with the report and filed a lawsuit in a Swiss commercial court demanding that Republik print a detailed rebuttal. The company claims that the report paints a false and misleading narrative about Palantir and sets back important discourse on European software modernisation.The journalists behind the report say they had interviewed company executives and sent a full list of questions before publication, but that Palantir demanded they print a detailed rebuttal that went beyond the scope of their investigation. The lawsuit has sparked concerns about Palantir's tactics and the impact on journalism, with the European Federation of Journalists claiming that the legal action is an attempt at intimidation aimed at discouraging critical analysis of Palantir's activities."It does feel like an intimidation campaign," says Marguerite Meyer, a journalist who works with WAV. "However, we adhered to all journalistic standards, and had a thorough factcheck done. They are suing for an absurd list of changes."The investigation, which was published in December, gave an account of Palantir's years-long efforts to try to sell itself to the Swiss government. The journalists found that despite Palantir's efforts, no government contracts had been reported."We tried to find out, is there any kind of government agency that uses this software? I mean, they are in Switzerland, eventually some government official maybe thought they could use this Palantir," says Balz Oertli, who is also with WAV.The lawsuit has raised questions about Palantir's influence and the limits of journalistic scrutiny. Swiss law allows the subjects of a story to request a right of reply, but this has caveats: the right of reply has to be concise and stick to the facts of the story."This lawsuit for a right of reply is not about whether Republik was technically inaccurate or not. It is only about whether Palantir is allowed to place its view of the facts alongside that of Republik and whether Republik must publish it," says Dominique Strebel, an expert in media law and the editor-in-chief of Beobachter, another Swiss magazine.