Connect with us

Published

on

A Tesla Model Y on a Tesla car lot in Austin, Texas, May 31, 2023.

Brandon Bell | Getty Images

In the fourth quarter of 2021, a Tesla employee and a tech industry researcher jointly filed a whistleblower complaint to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, expressing concerns that Elon Musk’s car company may have violated the law repeatedly, affecting shareholders, employees and customers.

The complaint contained a number of allegations about Tesla’s financials and its business practices, including that it improperly categorized repairs for years and that it had poor control over internal systems used for capturing business data that ultimately rolls up to financial and other company disclosures to shareholders.

In January 2022, the SEC assigned one person to look at one part of the complaint related to accounting firm PricewaterhouseCoopers’ work for Tesla, then closed that ticket a few months later, according to records reviewed by CNBC.

Agency staff have never spoken with the people who filed the complaint, those people say, and have never taken them up on their offer to review about 18,000 files they say they have for review, including internal Tesla emails, spreadsheets, screenshots, recordings and images, along with public records they gathered to support their allegations.

In response to questions from CNBC, the SEC declined to comment on the existence or nonexistence of a possible submission but said the agency evaluates all tips that are submitted. The whistleblowers could earn a financial reward if their complaint leads to the SEC taking some enforcement action and obtaining a monetary settlement or damages.

During the approximately two-year period since the complaint was first filed, Musk sold more than $39 billion of his shares in Tesla, including around $23 billion in 2022, to fund a leveraged buyout of Twitter, the social network he now owns and has rebranded X.

CNBC has reviewed a copy of the complaint — which is known as a TCR, an abbreviation federal agencies use to mean “tips, complaints and referrals” — along with follow-up correspondence to the financial regulator, public records and some of the internal Tesla materials that the whistleblowers wanted the agency to review. The identities of the people who filed the complaint to the SEC are known to CNBC, but they asked to remain unnamed and for their TCR to receive confidential treatment by the agency, citing a fear of retaliation by Musk against employees and critics, especially those who raise issues with government agencies or press. The whistleblower who was a Tesla employee no longer works there.

Tesla's limited product line makes pricing power key to growth, says Bernstein's Toni Sacconaghi

CNBC asked accounting, business and securities law experts to read a version of the complaint with the identities of the whistleblowers redacted to protect their privacy.

Ann Lipton, an experienced corporate and securities law trial attorney who now teaches at Tulane Law School and University of Chicago Law School, told CNBC, “Whistleblowers in general can come off like they have an ax to grind. This complaint contains a long list of concerns and some felt more serious than others — but the people who filed it sound plausible,” in part because they offered so many specific examples and records from within the company. 

Some of the allegations in the redacted complaint, Lipton said, raise questions about whether Tesla has run afoul of federal securities law, including Section 13 of the Securities Exchange Act, Rule 13a-15 and Rule 15d-15, and the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. Broadly, these rules require companies and their management to maintain sufficient internal systems and processes to track and report financial and business information to auditors and shareholders, and to do so accurately and honestly and at regular intervals.

After reviewing the redacted version of the whistleblower complaint, Karen Nelson, a professor of accounting at Texas Christian University who previously served as an advisor to the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, said the allegations about “internal control systems,” or how Tesla captures its financial and business information for eventual presentation to auditors and shareholders, were concerning.

If the information in the complaint is accurate, Nelson said, “Tesla’s information systems don’t seem to be very transparent and robust for internal people, which then leads to questions about how the auditor navigated those systems in their internal control testing, and became comfortable with using the data being produced by it.”

CNBC reached out to Tesla multiple times with detailed inquiries about this and other contentions. The company did not respond.

Here’s a detailed look at some of the more serious allegations about Tesla in the whistleblower complaint — and at the questions they raise about car quality and financial performance and why these would matter to shareholders or regulators, according to experts in the auto industry, securities and business law, and accounting.

Warranty repairs

Unlike traditional automakers, Tesla operates with a “direct-to-consumer” model meaning that it sells and services the cars it manufactures, rather than relying on franchised dealerships to do so. 

Why service is still Tesla's weakness

When Tesla employees complete a repair, they must classify the job within broad pay type categories, including “warranty,” “extended service agreement,” “customer pay,” “rectification,” “goodwill” and others, according to internal communications, guides and policies available to employees via a Tesla intranet and reviewed by CNBC. 

In their complaint, the tipsters included excerpts from Tesla policies, internal emails, customer service records and other documents to show that they believe employees have been miscategorizing repairs for years and that Tesla management has been aware of the problem.

Under standard warranty accounting practices in the automotive and other industries, companies set aside a portion of each sale to cover future repairs that will be conducted under warranty, Nelson explained to CNBC. These warranty reserves show up as liabilities on a company’s balance sheet and show up on the income statement as part of the costs of goods sold. Later, when repairs are recorded as “warranty,” the costs of these repairs are counted against the warranty reserves.

The complaint does not allege that Tesla deviates from this standard industry practice. It instead alleges that Tesla has allowed employees to miscategorize repairs and thereby hide some of its warranty costs.

With a “goodwill” repair, Tesla essentially foots the bill for labor, parts or accessories given to keep a customer happy. According to Tesla’s financial statements, the cost of goodwill repairs is not counted against warranty reserves and shows up on the income statement under sales, general and administrative costs.

Meanwhile, “customer pay” repairs are booked as revenue, specifically under the “services and other” category, according to its financial filings. Here, too, the repairs are not counted against warranty reserves.

By charging customers for repair work or by designating repairs as “goodwill” when they should qualify as “warranty” repairs instead, Tesla could be misstating fundamental financial information, the whistleblowers said, urging the SEC to investigate further.

“Were Tesla to accurately categorize its ‘goodwill’ repairs as warranty repairs, it would likely need to restate earnings for every quarter since at least 2017,” the tipsters wrote in their submission. “It should also be noted that nothing has ever stopped the company from appropriately sizing its warranty reserve even as its service employees handed out too much ‘goodwill’ repair coverage.”

Watch Elon Musk's full interview with CNBC's David Faber on Twitter, Tesla and A.I. advances

Indeed, Tesla’s goodwill expenses were unusually high for the industry, according to automotive industry veteran Nicholas Parks, who has owned and managed car dealerships in three states, including one in California that sold battery electric vehicles.

In just under two months in late 2021, Tesla was spending over $17 million on “goodwill” in the U.S. alone, which translated to about $70 worth of goodwill on the average repair order across approximately 247,000 repairs, according to internal Tesla dashboards referenced in the whistleblower complaint and reviewed by CNBC.

This is easily 10 times more money than traditional auto dealers would spend on goodwill per repair on average in two months, Parks told CNBC.

Nelson, the accounting professor, explained why miscategorization of repairs might be of interest to financial regulators and investors.

“Where you put stuff in a financial statement matters,” she said. “If I’m taking warranty costs out of the cost of automotive sales, and pushing them down into some other line further down the income statement, that will make my gross profit margin look higher. If I’m moving it from up above in cost of sales, and moving into other expenses, it’s also not as transparent about the quality of the product.”

Because Nelson did not review all the documentation the whistleblowers had to offer the SEC nor interview them, she would not give an opinion on whether Tesla may have run afoul of accounting requirements or securities laws. However, she did say she was “surprised” that the agency didn’t indicate more serious interest in the whistleblowers.

Inconsistent communications and policy apparently contributed to employees miscategorizing items as “goodwill” or “customer pay” that should have been billed under warranty, the filers’ complaint to the SEC said. 

Tesla documents read by CNBC show that employees had to navigate a maze of directives available in internal systems, such as WARP (a Tesla-built enterprise resource planning system), intranets and group emails, to figure out how to track and classify billing for each repair.

In one internal “Goodwill Guide,” Tesla told employees that any “repair/replacement necessary to correct defects in the materials/workmanship of any parts manufactured/supplied by Tesla” should be covered by and categorized as “Warranty/Extended Warranty pay type (post-delivery).” That would apply to any customer’s car that was still under a warranty, while out-of-warranty cars would require a customer to pay for repairs.

For a specific issue — “blistering” headrests in car seats manufactured by Tesla — the company gave employees different directions about how to bill customers for service to replace the part. One internal Tesla document seen by CNBC said the blistering headrest “is not a defect, and therefore not covered under warranty” and that repairs should be offered as goodwill. Confusingly, that document linked to another page in the company intranet saying customers should have to pay to get their headrests fixed.

Tesla also treated replacement of defective tail lamps as “customer pay,” after determining that chemicals used in commercial car washes could cause stress cracks in their lenses, according to internal documents read by CNBC. But in a seemingly contradictory note, an internal e-mail in the second quarter of 2021 referencing the issue said, “First repair and replacement of parts can be covered under Goodwill – Vehicle Quality.” 

The whistleblower complaint says that Tesla has been aware of inconsistencies in how employees treat repairs. During the second half of 2021, Tesla was working to improve data accuracy from its service division, according to internal records reviewed by CNBC. It set up score cards for each region to include assessments of pay type data, and goodwill and warranty costs. The company was aiming for better than 90% accuracy in service centers’ pay type data at that time, the internal records said.

Parks, the former automotive dealer, said with traditional dealerships, 99% or higher accuracy would be expected, and dealerships typically employ a number of specialists to ensure accuracy. “If dealership employees do not enter information about a repair correctly, then a claim may not get paid or you may end up having a warranty audit where the automaker comes in and charges back these claims and that’s painful,” he explained.

Questioning disclosures and data

In their 2021 complaint, the whistleblowers alleged that Tesla’s internal software and systems are constantly changing and have been rife with bugs and vulnerabilities throughout the years, and that third-party accountants or auditors may not have been given full access to, or thoroughly vetted, all of them.

The complaint said the whistleblower who had been a Tesla employee was authorized to access a wide array of records — including policies, internal emails, and sales- and service-related data — at Tesla through software and systems used daily by thousands of employees for normal work, including both custom-built and off-the-shelf programs. 

CNBC spoke with one current and two former Tesla employees who corroborated that most people working for Tesla have broad access to apps and information inside the company by default. They also noted the array of apps within Tesla has grown through the years, as would be expected with a growing business in a complex industry. These people requested anonymity as they were not authorized to speak on Tesla’s behalf.

The complaint embedded images of what the whistleblowers said were emails, spreadsheets and screenshots of some of Tesla’s homegrown software and back-end systems. It said these showed that non-administrative and non-executive employees had access to read and edit data points, via a developer tool called MySQL Workbench, that could later feed into Tesla’s shareholder communications and financial statements.

In one example, the tipsters said screenshots showed other Tesla employees changed the status of material used in manufacturing from “scrap” to “work in progress.” Scrap refers to material generated from a manufacturing job that is unusable waste.

In another example, the complaint said screenshots showed Tesla employees had manually changed the status of “used” cars to “new” in a program that tracked vehicle deliveries data. This could affect Tesla’s delivery numbers, they said, though they didn’t try to estimate the overall impact and instead encouraged the SEC to investigate further. 

Tesla's value is dismissing fundamental challenges, says Barclay's Dan Levy

In early 2022, the whistleblowers wrote to the SEC expanding on their initial complaint. They described multiple databases and a separate, paper-based process for auditors that had been used over time at Tesla for tracking vehicle sales and deliveries. The ever-changing systems led to inconsistent measurements and definitions of “deliveries,” they alleged.

CNBC reached out to Tesla for comment on these specific allegations in the complaint and received no response.

Deliveries are the closest approximation of sales reported by Tesla in quarterly disclosures, and one of the numbers Wall Street watches most closely. If they were recorded inaccurately, the company could have met or beat analysts’ expectations for deliveries on the basis of flawed or falsified data.

In the fourth quarter of 2021, just before the whistleblowers sent their followup email, Tesla reported that it had reached 308,000 vehicle deliveries — a number that handily beat analysts’ expectations. 

Issues related to accurate tracking of deliveries would potentially merit an investigation into the reliability and accuracy of Tesla’s disclosures and financial reporting, and analysis of whether Tesla meets the standards and has safeguards in place that would be required under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the whistleblower complaint said.

Under Sarbanes-Oxley, a company’s management is required to disclose the efficacy of its internal controls and identify weaknesses, such as the ability of unauthorized users to access sensitive data. Sarbanes-Oxley also requires auditors to check and report on these controls, so that investors can confidently rely on the financial statements and so that companies can avoid having to restate financials later on.

Business and securities law expert Lipton told CNBC if there are weaknesses in either “disclosure controls” or the “internal controls over financial reporting” at Tesla, there could have been a “potential violation of the substantive requirement that such controls be maintained” under Section 13 of the Exchange Act, and there might have been “false statements by the company, Musk, the CFO, or PwC regarding the effectiveness of internal controls.” 

“To the extent we’re talking about false statements, the kind of bottom-line trouble that might be involved depends on the level of fault,” Lipton said. “If the controls turn out to be faulty, but there was no flaw in the assessment — that is, top management and PwC reviewed everything, but the problems were too far down the chain to detect easily — then they may not be facing penalties for false statements. Obviously, matters become more serious if they intentionally or recklessly or perhaps even negligently misstated the state of the internal controls.”

Going concern

SEC suing Elon Musk to force him to testify in Twitter probe

Accounting expert Nelson told CNBC, in general: “Management should provide an explicit substantial doubt statement in the financial statements if it is probable that the company will not be able to meet its obligations within one year from the date the financial statements are issued. However, if they have plans that will alleviate that doubt, then they should disclose those plans but do not need to make a substantial doubt statement,” following accounting standards of the Financial Accounting Standards Board that have been in effect since mid-December 2016.

Auditors’ work for other Musk companies

Tesla’s auditing firm since 2005, PricewaterhouseCoopers, has also done tax-related consulting work for Musk enterprises SpaceX and The Boring Company, according to internal Tesla materials the whistleblowers offered to the SEC. In correspondence to the agency expanding on their complaint, the whistleblowers alleged this raises questions about the firm’s independence and objectivity in judging Tesla’s financials.

Besides offering internal materials from Tesla, the whistleblowers pointed to obscure public records from the California Alternative Energy and Advanced Transportation Financing Authority that they say also showed PricewaterhouseCoopers did non-audit work for Musk companies while serving as Tesla auditor. 

Although there are only four major auditing firms, there are dozens of reputable firms Musk’s privately held enterprises could have turned to for tax consulting.

Securities law expert Lipton said that generally, auditors are not supposed to do certain kinds of consulting services for their audit clients or for affiliates of their clients if “a reasonable person would question your independence.”

According to records reviewed by CNBC, the SEC assigned an employee to look into possible conflicts of interest in January 2022 but closed that ticket in April without interviewing the whistleblowers or evaluating their documentation.

PricewaterhouseCoopers declined to comment. Tesla did not respond to multiple inquiries for comment.

How the SEC handles whistleblower tips

The people behind the whistleblower complaint have followed up repeatedly with the SEC since late 2021, contacting different attorneys and other appropriate authorities within the agency to ensure they were aware of the tip.

After filing their TCR submission, the whistleblowers said, they emailed and left voicemails for multiple SEC employees, following up on the tip and emphasizing the substantial quantity of records they were making available to the SEC for review. The SEC employees they reached out to included successive San Francisco bureau chiefs for the agency, as well as other SEC attorneys and whistleblower program staff in 2023.

In October 2022, about a year after the whistleblowers submitted their complaint, the Office of the Inspector General publicly voiced concern that the financial regulator, under Chair Gary Gensler, was not properly staffed and that turnover at the senior officer level was abnormally high, over 20%. High attrition in the agency and other factors, the Inspector General’s office wrote, could result in “improper handling of TCRs” and may “impede SEC investor protection efforts.”

According to Alex Platt, a professor at the University of Kansas School of Law, whose SEC whistleblower research was published in the Yale Journal of Regulation, around 30 to 50 SEC staffers have been assigned to the office that screens tips, complaints and referrals. Platt said he believes this office is under-resourced.

Since the agency began offering a bounty for whistleblower tips in 2011, it had received about 52,400 tips and issued 216 awards as of September 2021. From the start of the program through the end of 2020, Platt’s research found, the average SEC whistleblower award amounted to around $6.2 million, with the median around $1.5 million. 

“Generally, you take how much the SEC gets from its enforcement action, and the whistleblowers get between 10% and 30%, based on multiple factors, including how helpful they were,” Platt explained.

Whether a tip gets selected for investigation, enforcement, and awards depends on whether it matches the SEC’s current enforcement priorities, the professor said. Attorneys who are former agency officials have the greatest success in obtaining awards for their clients, using their unique access and insight into the agency’s priorities to pick the “right” clients and shape their submissions, Platt told CNBC.

An SEC spokesperson disputed Platt’s characterization that the agency pays more careful attention to submissions from whistleblowers who have attorneys with prior SEC experience.

The spokesperson said in an email to CNBC: “The priority of the whistleblower program is to incentivize individuals to come forward and report possible violations of the federal securities laws to the SEC. The whistleblower office encourages all individuals with information about fraud or wrongdoing involving potential violations of the federal securities laws to submit their whistleblower tips and any additional information electronically through the Commission’s online TCR portal.”

Continue Reading

Technology

USDC stablecoin issuer Circle files for IPO as public markets open to crypto

Published

on

By

USDC stablecoin issuer Circle files for IPO as public markets open to crypto

Jeremy Allaire, Co-Founder and CEO, Circle 

David A. Grogan | CNBC

Circle, the company behind the USDC stablecoin, has filed for an initial public offering with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The S1 lays the groundwork for Circle’s long-anticipated entry into the public markets.

While the filing does not yet disclose the number of shares or a price range, sources told Fortune that Circle plans to move forward with a public filing in late April and is targeting a market debut as early as June.

JPMorgan Chase and Citi are reportedly serving as lead underwriters, and the company is seeking a valuation between $4 billion and $5 billion, according to Fortune.

This marks Circle’s second attempt at going public. A prior SPAC merger with Concord Acquisition Corp collapsed in late 2022 amid regulatory challenges. Since then, Circle has made strategic moves to position itself closer to the heart of global finance — including the announcement last year that it would relocate its headquarters from Boston to One World Trade Center in New York City.

Read more about tech and crypto from CNBC Pro

Circle is best known as the issuer of USDC, the world’s second-largest stablecoin by market capitalization.

Pegged one-to-one to the U.S. dollar and backed by cash and short-term Treasury securities, USDC has roughly $60 billion in circulation.

Circle is best known as the issuer of USDC, the world’s second-largest stablecoin by market capitalization.

Pegged one-to-one to the U.S. dollar and backed by cash and short-term Treasury securities, USDC has roughly $60 billion in circulation. It makes up about 26% of the total market cap for stablecoins, behind Tether‘s 67% dominance. Its market cap has grown 36% this year, however, compared with Tether’s 5% growth.

Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong said on the company’s most recent earnings call that it has a “stretch goal to make USDC the number 1 stablecoin.” 

The company’s push into public markets reflects a broader moment for the crypto industry, which is navigating renewed political favor under a more crypto-friendly U.S. administration. The stablecoin sector is ramping up as the industry grows increasingly confident that the crypto market will get its first piece of U.S. legislation passed and implemented this year, focusing on stablecoins.

Stablecoins’ growth could have investment implications for crypto exchanges like Robinhood and Coinbase as they integrate more of them into crypto trading and cross-border transfers. Coinbase also has an agreement with Circle to share 50% of the revenue of its USDC stablecoin.

The stablecoin market has grown about 11% so far this year and about 47% in the past year, and has become a “systemically important” part of the crypto market, according to Bernstein. Historically, digital assets in this sector have been used for trading and as collateral in decentralized finance (DeFi), and crypto investors watch them closely for evidence of demand, liquidity and activity in the market.

More recently, however, rhetoric around stablecoins’ ability to help preserve U.S. dollar dominance – by exporting dollar utility internationally and ensuring demand for U.S. government debt, which backs nearly all dollar-denominated stablecoins – has grown louder.

A successful IPO would make Circle one of the most prominent crypto-native firms to list on a U.S. exchange — an important signal for both investors and regulators as digital assets become more entwined with the traditional financial system.

Continue Reading

Technology

Hims & Hers shares rise as company adds new weight-loss medications to platform

Published

on

By

Hims & Hers shares rise as company adds new weight-loss medications to platform

The Hims app arranged on a smartphone in New York on Feb. 12, 2025.

Gabby Jones | Bloomberg | Getty Images

Hims & Hers Health shares closed up 5% on Tuesday after the company announced patients can access Eli Lilly‘s weight loss medication Zepbound and diabetes drug Mounjaro, as well as the generic injection liraglutide, through its platform.

Zepbound, Mounjaro and liraglutide are part of the class of weight loss medications called GLP-1s, which have exploded in popularity in recent years. Hims & Hers launched a weight loss program in late 2023, but its GLP-1 offerings have evolved as the company has contended with a volatile supply and regulatory environment.

Lilly’s weekly injections Zepbound and Mounjaro will cost patients $1,899 a month, according to the Hims & Hers website. The generic liraglutide will cost $299 a month, but it requires a daily injection and can be less effective than other GLP-1 medications.

“As we look ahead, we plan to continue to expand our weight loss offering to deliver an even more holistic, personalized experience,” Dr. Craig Primack, senior vice president of weight loss at Hims & Hers, wrote in a blog post.

A Lilly spokesperson said in a statement that the company has “no affiliation” with Hims & Hers and noted that Zepbound is available at lower costs for people who are insured for the product or for those who buy directly from the company. 

In May, Hims & Hers started prescribing compounded semaglutide, the active ingredient in Novo Nordisk‘s GLP-1 weight loss medications Ozempic and Wegovy. The offering was immensely popular and helped generate more than $225 million in revenue for the company in 2024.

But compounded drugs can traditionally only be mass produced when the branded medications treatments are in shortage. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration announced in February that the shortage of semaglutide injections products had been resolved.

That meant Hims & Hers had to largely stop offering the compounded medications, though some consumers may still be able to access personalized doses if it’s clinically applicable. 

During the company’s quarterly call with investors in February, Hims & Hers said its weight loss offerings will primarily consist of its oral medications and liraglutide. The company said it expects its weight loss offerings to generate at least $725 million in annual revenue, excluding contributions from compounded semaglutide.

But the company is still lobbying for compounded medications. A pop up on Hims & Hers’ website, which was viewed by CNBC, encourages users to “use your voice” and urge Congress and the FDA to preserve access to compounded treatments.

With Tuesday’s rally, Hims and Hers shares are up about 27% in 2025 after soaring 172% last year.

WATCH: Hims & Hers shares tumble over concerns around weight-loss business

Hims & Hers shares tumble over concerns around weight-loss business

Continue Reading

Technology

Meta’s head of AI research announces departure

Published

on

By

Meta's head of AI research announces departure

Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg holds a smartphone as he makes a keynote speech at the Meta Connect annual event at the company’s headquarters in Menlo Park, California, on Sept. 25, 2024.

Manuel Orbegozo | Reuters

Meta’s head of artificial intelligence research announced Tuesday that she will be leaving the company. 

Joelle Pineau, the company’s vice president of AI research, announced her departure in a LinkedIn post, saying her last day at the social media company will be May 30. 

Her departure comes at a challenging time for Meta. CEO Mark Zuckerberg has made AI a top priority, investing billions of dollars in an effort to become the market leader ahead of rivals like OpenAI and Google.

Zuckerberg has said that it is his goal for Meta to build an AI assistant with more than 1 billion users and artificial general intelligence, which is a term used to describe computers that can think and take actions comparable to humans.

“As the world undergoes significant change, as the race for AI accelerates, and as Meta prepares for its next chapter, it is time to create space for others to pursue the work,” Pineau wrote. “I will be cheering from the sidelines, knowing that you have all the ingredients needed to build the best AI systems in the world, and to responsibly bring them into the lives of billions of people.”

Vice President of AI Research and Head of FAIR at Meta Joelle Pineau attends a technology demonstration at the META research laboratory in Paris on February 7, 2025.

Stephane De Sakutin | AFP | Getty Images

Pineau was one of Meta’s top AI researchers and led the company’s fundamental AI research unit, or FAIR, since 2023. There, she oversaw the company’s cutting-edge computer science-related studies, some of which are eventually incorporated into the company’s core apps. 

She joined the company in 2017 to lead Meta’s Montreal AI research lab. Pineau is also a computer science professor at McGill University, where she is a co-director of its reasoning and learning lab.

Some of the projects Pineau helped oversee include Meta’s open-source Llama family of AI models and other technologies like the PyTorch software for AI developers.

Pineau’s departure announcement comes a few weeks ahead of Meta’s LlamaCon AI conference on April 29. There, the company is expected to detail its latest version of Llama. Meta Chief Product Officer Chris Cox, to whom Pineau reported to, said in March that Llama 4 will help power AI agents, the latest craze in generative AI. The company is also expected to announce a standalone app for its Meta AI chatbot, CNBC reported in February

“We thank Joelle for her leadership of FAIR,” a Meta spokesperson said in a statement. “She’s been an important voice for Open Source and helped push breakthroughs to advance our products and the science behind them.” 

Pineau did not reveal her next role but said she “will be taking some time to observe and to reflect, before jumping into a new adventure.”

WATCH: Meta awaits antitrust fine from EU

Meta awaits antitrust fine from EU

Continue Reading

Trending