Connect with us

Published

on

The Supreme Court heard arguments Wednesday in a case that will help determine whether social media platforms can be held liable for aiding and abetting terrorism for failing to remove content and accounts promoting it.

The arguments in Twitter v. Taamneh follow those in a case with similar facts, Gonzalez v. Google, that explores whether tech platforms can be held responsible for promoting terrorist posts through their recommendation algorithms. In that case, the justices seemed reluctant to overhaul the key legal liability shield in question, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which protects platforms from being held accountable for hosting their users’ posts. While many appeared sympathetic to a narrower reading of the law, several also seemed to prefer kicking the responsibility over to Congress.

In Wednesday’s case, such a consensus was more elusive, as justices tested a variety of hypotheticals on lawyers for either side as well as a representative for the U.S. government, which generally argued in favor of Twitter. U.S. Deputy Solicitor General Edwin Kneedler represented the U.S. government.

The question in the case is whether Twitter can be held accountable for aiding and abetting a specific international terrorist act because it did not take more aggressive action against terrorist content on its service, given that it generally works to moderate and remove terrorist content under its policies.

Twitter’s lawyer Seth Waxman argued that the company should not be held responsible for aiding and abetting terrorism in instances where it is not directly aware of the specific post or account in question. He said that to satisfy the anti-terrorism law’s standard for liability, Twitter would have had to provide substantial assistance to the act of terrorism and know their actions would provide such assistance.

Waxman tried to draw a distinction between an open and widely used service like Twitter and a bank that provides money to a terrorist, given Know Your Customer laws that would require a bank to collect more information before providing its services, creating a greater level of knowledge than Twitter would have.

Justice Samuel Alito said he could see two different arguments for how Twitter could win, but it’s difficult to say in each where to draw the line. The first argument would be that Twitter did not know its services would be used to carry out a specific attack and the second would be that Twitter didn’t substantially assist in the attack.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor noted that basing a win for Twitter on the knowing standard would be difficult “because willful blindness is something we have said can constitute knowledge.”

Justice Elena Kagan at one point asked Waxman whether Twitter could be held liable if it actually didn’t enforce any policy against terrorist content on its site. Waxman said he doesn’t think it could unless it also provided “affirmative assistance” to the terrorists.

Kagan seemed to disagree with that interpretation, saying it would be obvious in that scenario that Twitter was providing substantial assistance to terrorist activity, asking, “how could it be otherwise?”

Justice Amy Coney Barrett laid out a possible framework for a ruling in favor of Twitter in her questioning of Kneedler. Coney Barrett said such an opinion might say that in order to find Twitter liable for aiding and abetting the terrorist act, the complaint would have to prove that Twitter’s service was directly used toward the terrorist attack, not just general recruitment or radicalizing.

Coney Barrett also hypothesized that the justices could say there needs to be an allegation of specific knowledge of a terrorist act in order to find a service that’s “open to all comers” liable.

Kneedler said it would be important to clarify that some businesses that are theoretically open to all, like banks, would have a more “individualized encounter” with their consumers in the course of doing business, granting them more knowledge than a platform like Twitter.

Eric Schnapper, the attorney for Taamneh, conceded that they were not alleging specific ways Twitter was used to carry out the terrorist attack, but rather general recruitment. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson asked if it would be illegal to sell Osama bin Laden a phone without knowing it would be used for a terrorist specific terrorist act.

Schnapper said it would not be necessary to prove the phone was used for a specific terrorist act, because it “aids the terrorist enterprise.” He later conceded that alleging bin Laden did in fact use the phone to further his terrorist activity “would be the better way to plea it.” Still, he said, the potential terrorist actions “would be fairly implicit in his name,” he said.

The Supreme Court is expected to make a decision on the case by June.

Subscribe to CNBC on YouTube.

WATCH: Why the Supreme Court’s Section 230 case could reshape the internet

Continue Reading

Technology

Tesla Optimus robotics vice president Milan Kovac is leaving the company

Published

on

By

Tesla Optimus robotics vice president Milan Kovac is leaving the company

Tesla displays Optimus next to two of its vehicles at the World Robot Conference in Beijing on Aug. 22, 2024.

CNBC | Evelyn

Tesla’s vice president of Optimus robotics, Milan Kovac, said on Friday that he’s leaving the company.

In a post on X, Kovac thanked Tesla CEO Elon Musk and reminisced about his tenure, which began in 2016.

“I want to thank @elonmusk from the bottom of my heart for his trust and teachings over the decade we’ve worked together,” Kovac wrote. “Elon, you’ve taught me to discern signal from noise, hardcore resilience, and many fundamental principles of engineering. I am forever grateful. Tesla will win, I guarantee you that.”

Tesla is developing Optimus with the aim of someday selling it as a bipedal, intelligent robot capable of everything from factory work to babysitting.

In a first-quarter shareholder deck, Tesla said it was on target for “builds of Optimus on our Fremont pilot production line in 2025, with wider deployment of bots doing useful work across our factories.”

During Tesla’s 2024 annual shareholder meeting, Musk characterized himself as “pathologically optimistic,” then claimed the humanoid robots would lift the company’s market cap to $25 trillion at an unspecified future date.

In recent weeks, Musk told CNBC’s David Faber that Tesla is now training its Optimus systems to do “primitive tasks,” like picking up objects, open a door or throw a ball.

Competitors in the space include Boston Dynamics, Agility Robotics, Apptronik, 1X and Figure.

Kovac had previously served as the company’s director of Autopilot software engineering. He rose to lead the company’s Optimus unit as vice president in 2022.

Musk personally thanked Kovac for his “outstanding contributions” to the business.

Tesla didn’t respond to a request for comment.

WATCH: Tesla panel talks impact of Musk’s feud with Trump

'Closing Bell Overtime' Tesla panel talks impact of Elon Musk's feud with Pres. Trump

Continue Reading

Technology

Tesla already had big problems. Then Musk went to battle with Trump

Published

on

By

Tesla already had big problems. Then Musk went to battle with Trump

President Donald Trump holds a news conference with Elon Musk to mark the end of the Tesla CEO’s tenure as a special government employee overseeing the U.S. DOGE Service on Friday May 30, 2025 in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington.

Tom Brenner | The Washington Post | Getty Images

Tesla has been facing massive challenges trying to get back on track after a disastrous first quarter. Those headwinds strengthened considerably this week.

CEO Elon Musk officially concluded his term with the Trump administration at the end of May, hitting the 130-day mark, the maximum time allowed for a “special government employee.” On his way out the door, Musk expressed sharp criticism of the Trump’s signature spending bill that’s being debated in Congress due to its expected impact on the national debt.

What started off as a policy disagreement quickly escalated into an all-out online brawl, with Musk and President Donald Trump hurling insults at one other from their respective social media platforms. After Musk called the “one, big beautiful bill” an “abomination” and rallied his followers on X to “kill the bill,” Trump said Musk had gone “CRAZY” and threatened to end government contracts and cut off subsidies for Musk’s companies. Musk responded, “Go ahead, make my day.”

The rift sent Tesla shares plummeting 14% on Thursday, wiping out roughly $152 billion in value, the most for any day in the company’s 15 year-history on the public market. While Musk is still the richest person in the world on paper, his net worth plunged by $34 billion, according to Bloomberg’s Billionaires Index.

More importantly, the spat brought about the collapse to a relationship that blended business, politics and power in a manner virtually unprecedented in U.S. history. The ramifications to Tesla, which fell out of the trillion-dollar club on Thursday, could be severe, and not just because Trump is reportedly considering selling or giving away the red Model S he purchased in March after turning the White House lawn into a Tesla showroom.

A senior White House official told NBC News on Friday that the president was “not interested” in having a call with Musk to resolve their feud.

Trump-Musk feud: Here's what's at stake for the Tesla CEO

Ire from the Trump administration could influence everything from future regulation, investigations and government support for Tesla, to decisions on tariff exemptions the company has been seeking in order to purchase Chinese-made manufacturing equipment.

Tesla shares were badly underperforming the broader market before the Musk-Trump breakup. Revenue slid 9% in the first quarter from a year earlier, with auto revenue plummeting 20%, due to the combination of increased competition from lower-cost EV makers in China and a consumer backlash to Trump’s political activities and rhetoric.

It’s certainly not what Tesla shareholders were expecting, when they sent the stock up about 30% in the days following Trump’s election victory in November. After spending close to $300 million to return Trump to the White House, Musk was poised to have a major role in the administration and be in position to push through regulatory changes in ways that benefited his companies.

Instead, his company has suffered, and Musk’s behavior is largely to blame.

One of his most divisive actions in leading the Trump administration’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) was the dismantling of USAID, which previously delivered billions of dollars of food and medicine to more than 100 countries.

Beyond the U.S., Musk has endorsed Germany’s far-right extremist party AfD, and gave a gesture that many viewed as a Nazi salute at an inauguration rally.

In response, in recent months, there were numerous cases of vandalism or arson of Tesla facilities or vehicles in the U.S., as well as waves of peaceful protests at Tesla stores and service centers in North America and Europe.

Advertisements in protest of Musk have appeared in New York’s Times Square, and at bus shelters in London, urging people to boycott Tesla, some labeling the company’s EVs as “swasticars.” The Vancouver International Auto Show even removed Tesla from its exhibitors’ list fearing the company’s presence would cause safety problems.

On top all that are President Trump’s sweeping tariffs, which have led to concerns that costs will increase for parts and materials crucial for EV production. In its first-quarter earnings report in April, Tesla refrained from promising growth this year and said it will “revisit our 2025 guidance in our Q2 update.”

Board is mum

Pension funds that invest in Tesla have said the “crisis” at the company requires a leader to work a minimum of 40 hours per week to focus on solving its problems.

Public officials are echoing that sentiment, and calling on Tesla’s board to take action.

New York City Comptroller Brad Lander said on Thursday in s statement to CNBC that the “schoolyard fight” between Trump and Musk highlights how “Tesla’s weak accountability measures and poor governance threaten not only the company’s financial stability and shareholder value, but also the future of homegrown EV production.”

Brooke Lierman, comptroller of Maryland, told CNBC in an email that the company’s board “is not doing its job to ensure that there is a CEO at Tesla who is putting the company’s interests first.”

Since Musk’s name is synonymous with Tesla, the board needs to ensure that Tesla can stand on its own regardless of who’s leading the company, she added.

“Musk’s behavior continues to threaten the future of Tesla,” Lierman said. “As long as Tesla is identified with Elon Musk and he continues to be a polarizing figure, he will continue to damage the brand which is a huge part of Tesla’s value.”

Musk didn’t respond to a request for comment. CNBC also reached out for comment to board chair Robyn Denholm and directors and executives who work in government relations and in the office of the CEO. None of them responded as of the time of publication.

Elon Musk interviews on CNBC from the Tesla Headquarters in Texas.

CNBC

Tesla investors focused on business fundamentals are justified in their skepticism.

The company has failed to roll out innovative and affordable new model EVs, while Chinese competitors like BYD have flooded the market, particularly in Europe.

Analysts at Goldman Sachs on Thursday lowered their price target on Tesla mostly due to the outlook for 2025. Deliveries this quarter are tracking lower for the U.S., the analysts noted, while European sales saw a 50% year-over-year decline in April and another double-digit drop in May. China sales from those two months were down about 20% from a year earlier.

Quality is also a problem. Tesla has announced eight voluntary recalls of the Cybertruck in 15 months due to a range of issues including software bugs and sticking accelerator pedals.

Robotaxi ready?

Musk is urging investors to largely ignore the core business and look to the future, which he says is all about autonomous vehicles and humanoid robots.

But even there, Tesla is behind. In AVs the company has ceded ground to Alphabet’s Waymo, which is operating commercial robotaxi services in several U.S. markets. After a decade of missed deadlines, Musk has promised a small launch of a Tesla driverless ride-hailing service in Austin this month.

The Austin robotaxi service will operate in a geofenced area, Musk said in a recent interview with CNBC’s David Faber, and will begin with a small fleet of just 10 to 20 Model Y vehicles with Full Self-Driving (FSD) Unsupervised technology installed. If all goes well, Musk has said, Tesla will try to rapidly expand its driverless offerings to other markets like San Francisco and Los Angeles.

Watch part 1 of CNBC's interview with Tesla CEO Elon Musk

What consumers won’t be seeing anytime soon are the Cybercab and Robovan vehicles that Tesla touted at its “We, Robot” event last year to drum up customer and investor enthusiasm.

On Friday, Milan Kovac, Tesla’s vice president of Optimus robotics, announced he was leaving after joining the company in 2016. Musk thanked him for his “outstanding contribution” in a post on X.

Still, there are plenty Tesla bulls and Musk fanboys who are believers in the CEO’s vision. The stock’s 4% rebound on Friday is a sign that some saw an opportunity to buy the dip.

“I think the real story here is the investor base of Tesla literally doesn’t care about anything,” Josh Brown, CEO of Ritholtz Wealth Management and CNBC PRO contributor, told CNBC’s “Halftime Report” Friday. “This is still a nothing matters stock.”

FundStrat’s Tom Lee said the Tesla selloff was “overdone.”

Tesla’s market cap, which is dramatically inflated relative to every other U.S. car maker, is built on Musk’s vision of Tesla’s Optimus humanoid robots doing factory work and babysitting our children, while self-driving Cybercabs and Robovans make money carting around passengers.

Morgan Stanley’s Adam Jonas wrote in a note this week that, “Tesla still holds so many valuable cards that are largely apolitical,” pointing to what he sees as the company’s “AI leadership, autonomy/robotics, manufacturing, supply chain re-architecture, renewable power, [and] critical infrastructure.”

In terms of Tesla’s existing business, the most immediate impact from what’s happening in Washington D.C., is the rollback of EV credits in the current budget bill that Musk loudly opposes and that’s struggling to find sufficient support in the Senate. There’s also the matter of the tariffs and whether Tesla is able to get preferred treatment, a proposition that seems increasingly unlikely with the Musk-Trump fallout.

Matthew LaBrot, a former Tesla staff program manager, told CNBC that he’s not surprised that Musk blew up his relationship with the president. LaBrot was terminated earlier this year after sending an open letter in protest of Musk’s divisive political activity.

“I am devastated for the country and the climate, though Elon only has himself to blame,” LaBrot said in an interview. “Back a loose canon, expect stray canon fire.”

Tesla investors can’t know at the moment how much of Musk’s energy and time will now return to his lone public company, and the business responsible for the vast majority of his wealth. Even without politics, he still has SpaceX, AI startup xAI and brain tech startup Neuralink, among other businesses.

As of Thursday, Musk still had a West Wing office that hadn’t been cleaned out, two administration officials told NBC News. The space will likely be packed up in the coming days, one of the officials said.

And while his time in the Trump camp may be over, Musk has called on his followers to form a new party in the U.S.

“Is it time to create a new political party in America that actually represents the 80% in the middle?” he wrote on X on Thursday, in a post that’s now pinned at the top of his page. According to the post, 80% of 5.6 million respondents to the unofficial poll said “yes.”

Musk’s actions this week may have caused a permanent rift with the president. But one thing is clear — his company can’t get away from the White House.

WATCH: Impact of Musk’s feud with Trump

'Closing Bell Overtime' Tesla panel talks impact of Elon Musk's feud with Pres. Trump

Continue Reading

Technology

DocuSign stock tanks 18% after company cuts billings outlook

Published

on

By

DocuSign stock tanks 18% after company cuts billings outlook

The Docusign Inc. application for download in the Apple App Store on a smartphone arranged in Dobbs Ferry, New York, U.S., on Thursday, April 1, 2021.

Tiffany Hagler-Geard | Bloomberg | Getty Images

Shares of DocuSign tanked 18% in trading on Friday, a day after the e-signature provider reported stronger-than-expected earnings but slashed its full-year billings outlook.

Here’s how the company performed in the fiscal first quarter, compared with estimates from analysts polled by LSEG:

  • Earnings per share: 90 cents, adjusted, vs. 81 cents expected
  • Revenue: $764 million vs. $748 million expected

Billings, a closely-watched sales metric, came in at $739.6 million in the fiscal first quarter, which ended April 30. That was lower than the $746 million expected by analysts, according to StreetAccount. It also fell short of the company’s own forecast, which guided for billings between $741 million and $751 million.

For the current fiscal year, DocuSign said it expects billings of $3.28 billion to $3.34 billion, down from a range of $3.3 billion to $3.35 billion.

Read more CNBC tech news

In the first quarter of DocuSign’s 2026 fiscal year, revenue jumped 8% year over year to $764 million. Subscription revenue increased 8% from the same period a year ago to $746.2 million.

DocuSign reported net income of $72.1 million, or 34 cents per share, compared to net income of $33.8 million, or 16 cents per share, a year earlier.

For the fiscal second quarter, the company expects revenue to be between $777 million and $781 million, compared to consensus estimates of $775 million, according to LSEG. For the full fiscal year, DocuSign projected revenue of $3.15 billion to $3.16 billion. Analysts were expecting $3.14 billion, according to LSEG.

The company also announced an additional $1 billion stock buyback, taking its share repurchase plan to $1.4 billion.

DocuSign shares are down more than 16% year to date.

WATCH: AI-efficient and flush with capital: 2025 startups and a VC’s advice to founders

AI-efficient and flush with capital: 2025 startups and a VC’s advice to founders

Continue Reading

Trending