Connect with us

Published

on

The howls will begin the minute the FTC’s lawsuit against Amazon hits the clerk’s desk. “The FTC hates business!” “Lina Khan is a communist!” “This government is controlled by the far left!”

Of course that’s what most in the business community will say. It would be novel if they didn’t.

But they’re wrong.

I’m an early stage venture capitalist. My fund, Tusk Venture Partners, invests in seed and Series A startups, typically in highly regulated industries – think companies like FanDuel, Coinbase, and Lemonade, Ro, Bird, Wheel, Alma, Circle, Sunday and so on.

What you don’t see on that list is anything that could attempt to compete with Amazon or Meta or Apple or Microsoft or Google. Why? Because there is no way to compete if the incumbents’ dominance over their respective markets is allowed to grow, completely unchecked.

When we invest, we’re ultimately solving for the company’s exit. Typically, that comes from an IPO or an acquisition. While IPOs generate most of the attention, acquisitions are more common. When we think through our possible exit, the first question is “Would x (the larger competitor) be more likely to buy this company or build their own version?” The second question is, “Can x squash our startup before they even get off the ground?”

Whenever we look at a startup that would directly compete with a company like Amazon, the answer to the second question is always, “yes, definitely.” And we don’t invest. 

I don’t have any animus towards Amazon. I order stuff from them all the time. I probably buy 75 books each year on Kindle even though I own an independent bookstore in Manhattan. I think Amazon is a great company. But I also think that allowing them to continue to dominate the entire retail market unimpeded is a death knell for the economy in 10 to 20 years.

Ultimately, every company, now matter how insurgent they once were, grows stagnant. They become a bureaucracy beset by internal politics and a CYA mentality. That’s why the behemoths of my childhood, companies like IBM and GE, are a second thought today. Luckily, as these earlier giants started to falter, companies like Apple and Microsoft took off, and companies like Google, Amazon and Meta came along. 

The results have been staggering.  Apple has increased its US employees by 1,500% since 1998.  Between 2001 and 2018, Alphabet (Google’s parent company) grew its job count 347 times over. 

But would Google, for example, have gotten as far had the Department of Justice not pursued antitrust litigation against Microsoft in the late 1990s? Unlikely. Microsoft’s overwhelmingly dominant market power and position would have allowed them to force computer manufacturers to use Internet Explorer instead of Google. 

The same problem holds true today. Amazon, great as they are, will ultimately falter. They’re subject to gravity just like everyone else. And then either one of two things will have happened: it will have been feasible to invest in potential competitors to Amazon, dozens will have emerged, a few will succeed and they’re ready to replace Amazon as a major employer. Or, Amazon continued to amass so much power by controlling pricing, controlling the entire marketplace, that investors like me never felt comfortable backing a competitor and when Amazon lags, no one can fill the void. 

That’s where the FTC comes in. Their job isn’t to wag their finger at big businesses and tell them that making money is evil (We already have AOC and Bernie Sanders for that). Their job is, yes, to protect current businesses who are forced to both advertise on Amazon and to accept far worse placement in each product search because they can’t afford not to be on the platform. But it’s also to look ten, twenty years into the future and see which industries may not have the openings for incredible new companies to emerge simply because the incumbents are too big to ever challenge. 

When the case goes to court, Amazon will argue that none of their practices violate existing regulations. If they manage to make that case successfully, good for them. But as an early stage investor, I need to at least see that the government recognizes that new market entrants can’t compete if the existing giants are allowed to deploy whatever competitive practices they want. If there’s no rule of law, there’s no future market worth betting on. 

Whether or not FTC succeeds in court, the lawsuit’s very filing shows that the agency at least recognizes that what’s good for tech giants and their current investors is not necessarily what’s good for tech startups and the economy’s long-term needs. That’s exactly the kind of regulation – and regulators – we both want and need. 

Bradley Tusk is an early-stage venture capitalist.

Continue Reading

Technology

Tesla must pay portion of $329 million in damages after fatal Autopilot crash, jury says

Published

on

By

Tesla must pay portion of 9 million in damages after fatal Autopilot crash, jury says

A jury in Miami has determined that Tesla should be held partly liable for a fatal 2019 Autopilot crash, and must compensate the family of the deceased and an injured survivor a portion of $329 million in damages.

Tesla’s payout is based on $129 million in compensatory damages, and $200 million in punitive damages against the company.

The jury determined Tesla should be held 33% responsible for the fatal crash. That means the automaker would be responsible for about $42.5 million in compensatory damages. In cases like these, punitive damages are typically capped at three times compensatory damages.

The plaintiffs’ attorneys told CNBC on Friday that because punitive damages were only assessed against Tesla, they expect the automaker to pay the full $200 million, bringing total payments to around $242.5 million.

Tesla said it plans to appeal the decision.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs had asked the jury to award damages based on $345 million in total damages. The trial in the Southern District of Florida started on July 14.

The suit centered around who shouldered the blame for the deadly crash in Key Largo, Florida. A Tesla owner named George McGee was driving his Model S electric sedan while using the company’s Enhanced Autopilot, a partially automated driving system.

While driving, McGee dropped his mobile phone that he was using and scrambled to pick it up. He said during the trial that he believed Enhanced Autopilot would brake if an obstacle was in the way. His Model S accelerated through an intersection at just over 60 miles per hour, hitting a nearby empty parked car and its owners, who were standing on the other side of their vehicle.

Naibel Benavides, who was 22, died on the scene from injuries sustained in the crash. Her body was discovered about 75 feet away from the point of impact. Her boyfriend, Dillon Angulo, survived but suffered multiple broken bones, a traumatic brain injury and psychological effects.

“Tesla designed Autopilot only for controlled access highways yet deliberately chose not to restrict drivers from using it elsewhere, alongside Elon Musk telling the world Autopilot drove better than humans,” Brett Schreiber, counsel for the plaintiffs, said in an e-mailed statement on Friday. “Tesla’s lies turned our roads into test tracks for their fundamentally flawed technology, putting everyday Americans like Naibel Benavides and Dillon Angulo in harm’s way.”

Following the verdict, the plaintiffs’ families hugged each other and their lawyers, and Angulo was “visibly emotional” as he embraced his mother, according to NBC.

Here is Tesla’s response to CNBC:

“Today’s verdict is wrong and only works to set back automotive safety and jeopardize Tesla’s and the entire industry’s efforts to develop and implement life-saving technology. We plan to appeal given the substantial errors of law and irregularities at trial.

Even though this jury found that the driver was overwhelmingly responsible for this tragic accident in 2019, the evidence has always shown that this driver was solely at fault because he was speeding, with his foot on the accelerator – which overrode Autopilot – as he rummaged for his dropped phone without his eyes on the road. To be clear, no car in 2019, and none today, would have prevented this crash.

This was never about Autopilot; it was a fiction concocted by plaintiffs’ lawyers blaming the car when the driver – from day one – admitted and accepted responsibility.”

The verdict comes as Musk, Tesla’s CEO, is trying to persuade investors that his company can pivot into a leader in autonomous vehicles, and that its self-driving systems are safe enough to operate fleets of robotaxis on public roads in the U.S.

Tesla shares dipped 1.8% on Friday and are now down 25% for the year, the biggest drop among tech’s megacap companies.

The verdict could set a precedent for Autopilot-related suits against Tesla. About a dozen active cases are underway focused on similar claims involving incidents where Autopilot or Tesla’s FSD— Full Self-Driving (Supervised) — had been in use just before a fatal or injurious crash.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration initiated a probe in 2021 into possible safety defects in Tesla’s Autopilot systems. During the course of that investigation, Tesla made changes, including a number of over-the-air software updates.

The agency then opened a second probe, which is ongoing, evaluating whether Tesla’s “recall remedy” to resolve issues with the behavior of its Autopilot, especially around stationary first responder vehicles, had been effective.

The NHTSA has also warned Tesla that its social media posts may mislead drivers into thinking its cars are capable of functioning as robotaxis, even though owners manuals say the cars require hands-on steering and a driver attentive to steering and braking at all times.

A site that tracks Tesla-involved collisions, TeslaDeaths.com, has reported at least 58 deaths resulting from incidents where Tesla drivers had Autopilot engaged just before impact.

Read the jury’s verdict below.

Continue Reading

Technology

Crypto wobbles into August as Trump’s new tariffs trigger risk-off sentiment

Published

on

By

Crypto wobbles into August as Trump's new tariffs trigger risk-off sentiment

A screen showing the price of various cryptocurrencies against the US dollar displayed at a Crypto Panda cryptocurrency store in Hong Kong, China, on Monday, Feb. 3, 2025. 

Lam Yik | Bloomberg | Getty Images

The crypto market slid Friday after President Donald Trump unveiled his modified “reciprocal” tariffs on dozens of countries.

The price of bitcoin showed relative strength, hovering at the flat line while ether, XRP and Binance Coin fell 2% each. Overnight, bitcoin dropped to a low of $114,110.73.

The descent triggered a wave of long liquidations, which forces traders to sell their assets at market price to settle their debts, pushing prices lower. Bitcoin saw $172 million in liquidations across centralized exchanges in the past 24 hours, according to CoinGlass, and ether saw $210 million.

Crypto-linked stocks suffered deeper losses. Coinbase led the way, down 15% following its disappointing second-quarter earnings report. Circle fell 4%, Galaxy Digital lost 2%, and ether treasury company Bitmine Immersion was down 8%. Bitcoin proxy MicroStrategy was down by 5%.

Stock Chart IconStock chart icon

hide content

Bitcoin falls below $115,000

The stock moves came amid a new wave of risk off sentiment after President Trump issued new tariffs ranging between 10% and 41%, triggering worries about increasing inflation and the Federal Reserve’s ability to cut interest rates. In periods of broad based derisking, crypto tends to get hit as investors pull out of the most speculative and volatile assets. Technical resilience and institutional demand for bitcoin and ether are helping support their prices.

“After running red hot in July, this is a healthy strategic cooldown. Markets aren’t reacting to a crisis, they’re responding to the lack of one,” said Ben Kurland, CEO at crypto research platform DYOR. “With no new macro catalyst on the horizon, capital is rotating out of speculative assets and into safer ground … it’s a calculated pause.”

Crypto is coming off a winning month but could soon hit the brakes amid the new macro uncertainty, and in a month usually characterized by lower trading volumes and increased volatility. Bitcoin gained 8% in July, according to Coin Metrics, while ether surged more than 49%.

Ether ETFs saw more than $5 billion in inflows in July alone (with just a single day of outflows of $1.8 million on July 2), bringing it’s total cumulative inflows to $9.64 to date. Bitcoin ETFs saw $114 million in outflows in the final trading session of July, bringing its monthly inflows to about $6 billion out of a cumulative $55 billion.

Don’t miss these cryptocurrency insights from CNBC Pro:

Continue Reading

Technology

Google has dropped more than 50 DEI-related organizations from its funding list

Published

on

By

Google has dropped more than 50 DEI-related organizations from its funding list

Google CEO Sundar Pichai gestures to the crowd during Google’s annual I/O developers conference in Mountain View, California, on May 20, 2025.

David Paul Morris | Bloomberg | Getty Images

Google has purged more than 50 organizations related to diversity, equity and inclusion, or DEI, from a list of organizations that the tech company provides funding to, according to a new report.

The company has removed a total of 214 groups from its funding list while adding 101, according to a new report from tech watchdog organization The Tech Transparency Project. The watchdog group cites the most recent public list of organizations that receive the most substantial contributions from Google’s U.S. Government Affairs and Public Policy team.

The largest category of purged groups were DEI-related, with a total of 58 groups removed from Google’s funding list, TTP found. The dropped groups had mission statements that included the words “diversity, “equity,” “inclusion,” or “race,” “activism,” and “women.” Those are also terms the Trump administration officials have reportedly told federal agencies to limit or avoid.

In response to the report, Google spokesperson José Castañeda told CNBC that the list reflects contributions made in 2024 and that it does not reflect all contributions made by other teams within the company.

“We contribute to hundreds of groups from across the political spectrum that advocate for pro-innovation policies, and those groups change from year to year based on where our contributions will have the most impact,” Castañeda said in an email.

Organizations that were removed from Google’s list include the African American Community Service Agency, which seeks to “empower all Black and historically excluded communities”; the Latino Leadership Alliance, which is dedicated to “race equity affecting the Latino community”; and Enroot, which creates out-of-school experiences for immigrant kids. 

The organization funding purge is the latest to come as Google began backtracking some of its commitments to DEI over the last couple of years. That pull back came due to cost cutting to prioritize investments into artificial intelligence technology as well as the changing political and legal landscape amid increasing national anti-DEI policies.

Over the past decade, Silicon Valley and other industries used DEI programs to root out bias in hiring, promote fairness in the workplace and advance the careers of women and people of color — demographics that have historically been overlooked in the workplace.

However, the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2023 decision to end affirmative action at colleges led to additional backlash against DEI programs in conservative circles.

President Donald Trump signed an executive order upon taking office in January to end the government’s DEI programs and directed federal agencies to combat what the administration considers “illegal” private-sector DEI mandates, policies and programs. Shortly after, Google’s Chief People Officer Fiona Cicconi told employees that the company would end DEI-related hiring “aspirational goals” due to new federal requirements and Google’s categorization as a federal contractor.

Despite DEI becoming such a divisive term, many companies are continuing the work but using different language or rolling the efforts under less-charged terminology, like “learning” or “hiring.”

Even Google CEO Sundar Pichai maintained the importance diversity plays in its workforce at an all-hands meeting in March.

“We’re a global company, we have users around the world, and we think the best way to serve them well is by having a workforce that represents that diversity,” Pichai said at the time.

One of the groups dropped from Google’s contributions list is the National Network to End Domestic Violence, which provides training, assistance, and public awareness campaigns on the issue of violence against women, the TTP report found. The group had been on Google’s list of funded organizations for at least nine years and continues to name the company as one of its corporate partners.

Google said it still gave $75,000 to the National Network to End Domestic Violence in 2024 but did not say why the group was removed from the public contributions list.

WATCH: Alphabet’s valuation remains highly attractive, says Evercore ISI’s Mark Mahaney

Alphabet's valuation remains highly attractive, says Evercore ISI's Mark Mahaney

Continue Reading

Trending