Software developer at a big library, cyclist, photographer, hiker, reader. Email: chris@improbable.org
24163 stories
·
216 followers

'No doubt' Netanyahu preventing hostage deal, charges ex-spokesman of Families Forum | The Times of Israel

1 Share

On the morning of Saturday, October 7, Haim Rubinstein heard the sirens go off at his home in Tel Aviv. He turned the television on and saw Hamas terrorists getting off a white pickup truck in Sderot and then watched social media footage of Israelis being kidnapped to the Gaza Strip.

Rubinstein understood instantly that these events were unprecedented, and that immediate action was needed.

He saw the first hostages being dragged away on foot, in pickup trucks and on motorcycles — including Noa Argamani, who was kidnapped from the Supernova music festival near Kibbutz Re’im aboard a motorcycle while crying for help, with her boyfriend Avinatan Or led away on foot by terrorists.

Rubinstein, 35 — an experienced media adviser who had previously served as spokesman for former Yesh Atid MK Ofer Shelah and as a member of the party’s media team in four election campaigns — told his partner Roni: “I can no longer sit around.”

“The first thing I did was pick up the phone a few minutes after 8 a.m. and tell my clients that I had decided to take time off to help the hostages’ families,” Rubinstein told Zman Yisrael, The Times of Israel’s Hebrew-language sister site, in an interview this week.

On the same day that Hamas-led terrorists killed some 1,200 people in Israel and took 253 people hostage into Gaza, Rubinstein and his partner began collecting names of hostages who were identified in news reports and on social media. By the end of that bloody Saturday, he had already gathered 70 names.

Haim Rubinstein (Courtesy)

On Sunday, Rubinstein began meeting with relatives of the abductees. One of those he met was Moshe Or, Avinatan Or’s brother.

“Moshe told me something that still echoes in my ears, to this day,” Rubinstein recalls. “He told me, ‘We don’t need anything. They’ll be back within two days.’ I said I didn’t believe that would be the case.”

By the end of that day, Rubinstein had an initial list of some 250 hostages and missing people, and he put together a list of their relatives so that he could stay in touch with them.

Within days, this private initiative expanded to what became known as the Hostages and Missing Families Forum. Rubinstein assumed the role of the Forum’s spokesperson.

“In the first meeting with the family members, some of them were in shock and had a hard time stomaching the fact that their kids had been kidnapped,” Rubinstein recalls. “I promised to get them anything they needed from an organizational perspective so that they could focus on the fight to get their children released quickly.

Composite of hostages held in Gaza by Hamas after the invasion of 3,000 terrorists into Israel on October 7, 2023, in which 1,200 people were slaughtered and some 250 taken captive. (Courtesy the Kidnapped From Israel campaign website/ Dede Bandaid, Nitzan Mintz & Tal Huber. Designed by Shira Gershoni & Yotam Kellner)

“People asked me all sorts of questions. For instance, one of the parents showed me a Hamas-issued video showing one of the hostages, but it was blurry and they had a hard time determining whether it was their daughter, so they wanted a professional to clean up the picture.”

Rubinstein resigned last month as the Forum’s spokesman. This is the first time since that he’s agreed to share his almost six-month-long experience – and to explain why he felt he had to leave the Forum that he had co-founded.

The following interview has been translated and edited from Hebrew.

Did the families whose sons and daughters were taken hostage while serving in the IDF get updates from the army?

“In the first few days, these families didn’t know who to turn to. The IDF was unprepared, and some families didn’t get information from a government-authorized party for two weeks.

“We started to independently collect information about each hostage and set up a website.”

Noa Argamani is seen being kidnapped by Hamas terrorists during the massacre at the Supernova desert rave in the south on October 7, 2023. (Screenshot used in accordance with clause 27a of the copyright law)

Did you work with Gal Hirsch or with the Prime Minister’s Office? (On October 8, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu appointed Hirsch to act as the coordinator between the families and the government. Rubinstein contends that, at the time, Hirsch’s team didn’t have comprehensive information regarding the number of hostages.)

“Gal Hirsch only began functioning after two or three weeks. Until then, there was no one to talk to. I don’t know what his contribution was. As far as I can tell, he just held the microphone in meetings with the families. He told them they shouldn’t hold protests [to push for their loved ones’ release].

“You need to understand that Netanyahu set up Hirsch’s team because the Prime Minister’s Office didn’t want there to be an external body criticizing the government for its conduct surrounding the hostages.”

Who did you meet with to advance the hostages’ return?

“The first official we met was President Isaac Herzog. It was on October 10. At the time, the reported death toll from the attack was only 400. We asked him to use his influence so that there would be someone in the government taking care of the families.”

Gal Hirsch, the government’s point man on missing and kidnapped citizens, left, speaks to a relative of a captive Israeli ahead of a meeting with families of Israelis held hostage by Hamas terrorists in Gaza and Israelis who were released from Hamas captivity in Herzliya, December 5, 2023. (Avshalom Sassoni/Flash90)

When did the prime minister meet the hostages’ families for the first time?

“On October 15. Until then, there had been no meeting with him or anyone on his behalf.”

Did you feel like the government was ignoring you?

“Absolutely. No representative of the government or the IDF had updated the families of the hostages that the IDF was beginning its ground offensive in the Gaza Strip. We couldn’t understand how it could be that the families weren’t getting updated on the ramifications this could have for them.”

How did you deal with this?

“On that day, October 26, I called on the families to come to Hostages Square in Tel Aviv. At the assembly, we announced that the prime minister and the defense minister must meet the families, but there was no response to that from Netanyahu’s or Yoav Gallant’s offices.

“So we said that if we didn’t get an immediate response, the families would camp outside the Kirya IDF headquarters in Tel Aviv.

“After that, Gallant promised in a statement to meet the families the next day. We told him we weren’t willing to wait. That evening, Netanyahu’s office announced that he would meet the families’ representatives.”

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu meets with family members of hostages held by Hamas, in Jerusalem, January 22, 2024. (PMO Spokesperson)

What was the atmosphere like?

“We left the meeting very disappointed because Netanyahu talked about dismantling Hamas as the goal of the war. He didn’t promise anything regarding the demand to return the hostages. He merely said a military operation in Gaza was needed to serve as leverage for the hostages’ release.

“We later found out that Hamas had offered on October 9 or 10 to release all the civilian hostages in exchange for the IDF not entering the Strip, but the government rejected the offer.”

Did Benny Gantz and Gadi Eisenkot support your effort or were they not active on that front? (Five days after the war began, the centrist opposition National Unity party joined the emergency government, with its leader Gantz getting a spot on the three-member war cabinet and MK Eisenkot becoming an observer in the key decision-making panel. Both Gantz and Eisenkot are former IDF chiefs of staff.)

“We worked with them all the time. Any time we wanted to meet with them, they agreed. They pressured Netanyahu to make a deal, but Netanyahu sidelined them. The families are still asking Gantz not to leave the government” — as many government critics have increasingly been urging them to do.”

How come the first hostage deal was relatively quick (53 days since the war began), but the second deal has been pushed off for over 200 days? (Rubinstein said he has “no doubt” that a protest march to Jerusalem that he organized brought about the November deal in which over 100 women and children were released in exchange for a week-long truce and Israel freeing female and underage Palestinian security prisoners.)

“The main reason is the prime minister’s refusal. On the one hand, Netanyahu has told the families that the price” — likely the release of countless Palestinian terror convicts — “isn’t a factor. On the other hand, he’s holding onto all sorts of security excuses to prevent a deal.”

File: Far-right leaders Itamar Ben Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich at the Knesset on December 29, 2022. (Yonatan Sindel/Flash90)

How do you explain Netanyahu’s ostensible lack of effort to bring the hostages home?

“The main reason is conflict of interest. He knows that the moment the hostages are released, Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben Gvir will leave the government because they’ll think the price was too high.” (Finance Minister Smotrich, leader of the Religious Zionism party, and National Security Minister Ben Gvir, head of the Otzma Yehudit party, are far-right leaders essential to Netanyahu’s coalition and have been pushing for stronger military action in Gaza.)

“There is no doubt that Netanyahu is preventing a deal. Netanyahu knows that if he goes to elections at this time he won’t be able to form a new government, and he is motivated by cold political considerations.”

Do you agree with those arguing that every day that passes reduces the chances of the hostages coming home?

“Unfortunately, it’s worse than that. Time is not running out — time has already run out. Many hostages, even those who will come back alive, will need very complex rehabilitation because they’ve been in captivity and under very complex conditions for many months.”

Why did you resign as the families’ spokesman, a role you defined as the project of your lifetime?

“After five months of 24/7 work for the families, my own family needed me. There were also other reasons, such as the Prime Minister’s Office’s meddling in the Hostages and Missing Families Forum, in an attempt to divide [the families].”

(Some families have started to openly call on Netanyahu and his government to resign, while other families reject those messages. Rubinstein rejected claims leveled against him of “politicizing” the hostage families’ cause: “The opposite is true: Netanyahu’s people were the only ones making it political.”)

A protester holds a sign reading ‘Netanyahu’s survival or the survival of the hostages’ at a Tel Aviv protest calling for early elections and the release of the hostages from Gaza, April 6, 2024. (Lior Segev/Pro-Democracy Protest Movement)

Is it correct that there have also been threats against you?

“That’s right. There were threats to tarnish my name, but this isn’t the time to talk about it. At this time, the only focus should be on returning the 133 hostages who are rotting away in Hamas’s tunnels.”

In response to Rubinstein’s claims, the Prime Minister’s Office stated that “the prime minister, together with the security and diplomatic leadership, are working around the clock and doing everything possible to bring the hostages home.”

Gal Hirsch’s office commented: “Hirsch was appointed by the prime minister the day after the war broke out. The apparatus he set up began working in the first week of the war and has steadily continued to build and improve from day to day.

“The hostages apparatus is continuously acting in coordination with all security bodies, government ministries and international officials, and this action shall continue in order to return the hostages and help their families in their darkest hour.”

Read the whole story
Share this story
Delete

Long Lost Song Hunted By Thousands Found in 80s Porno

1 Share

Advertisement

The search is over for 'Everyone Knows That,' also known as 'Ulterior Motives' by Christopher Saint Booth, when it was found in the pornographic film "Angels of Passion."

Read the whole story
Share this story
Delete

Meta’s ‘set it and forget it’ AI ad tools are misfiring and blowing through cash - The Verge

1 Share

It was Valentine’s Day when Meta’s ad platform started going off the rails. RC Williams, the co-founder of the Philadelphia-based marketing agency 1-800-D2C, had set one of Meta’s automated ad tools to run campaigns for two separate clients. But when he checked the platform that day, he found that Meta had blown through roughly 75 percent of the daily ad budgets for both clients in under a couple of hours.

Williams told The Verge that the ads’ CPMs, or cost per impressions, were roughly 10 times higher than normal. A usual CPM of under $28 had inflated to roughly $250, way above the industry average. That would have been bad enough if the revenue earned from those ads wasn’t nearly zero. If you’re not a marketer, this might feel like spending a week’s worth of grocery money on a prime cut of wagyu at a steakhouse, only for the waiter to return with a floppy slider.

The Verge spoke to several marketers and businesses that advertise on Meta’s platforms who tell a similar story. Meta’s automated ad platform has been blowing through budgets and failing to deliver sales. Small businesses have seen their ad dollars get wiped out and wasted as a result, and some have said the bouts of overspending are driving them from Meta’s platforms.

“Meta’s unwillingness to be transparent or accountable with the performance issues and glitches is causing mass uncertainty.”

“Meta’s unwillingness to be transparent or accountable with the performance issues and glitches is causing mass uncertainty,” Karl Baker, founder of meditation startup Mindfulness Works, wrote in a message to The Verge.

The faulty ad service in question, known as Advantage Plus shopping campaigns, is part of a full suite of AI-enabled ad tools that Meta pitches to businesses as a faster and more efficient alternative to manual ad campaigns. To create an ad campaign, advertisers upload their creative assets, pick their conversion goals (e.g., getting more customers to make purchases on Instagram), and then set their budget caps. Meta hyped Advantage Plus shopping campaigns during earnings calls as a carefree, “set it and forget it” automated solution to online ads. But that hasn’t been the case, marketers say. 

Advantage Plus shopping campaigns have been unpredictable, seemingly working well on some days and then not so well on other days. The subreddit r/FacebookAds has become a sort of 24/7 help desk for Advantage Plus. Recent headings discussing the issues include “Advantage+ sucks,” “Is Facebook broken rn,” and “Is it just me?”

“People are always saying, ‘Is it me?’ or ‘Is it Meta?’” Baker said.

What Williams and many other marketers thought was a one-time glitch by Advantage Plus ended up becoming a recurring incident for weeks. “Since February 14th, [Advantage Plus] has overspent on numerous occasions and ignored the cost caps we have in place on it,” he said. 

Problems have persisted into April. “We have a couple of clients for whom we completely stopped Advantage Plus due to these anomalies,” said Aniruddha Mishra, director of growth at Miami-based digital marketing agency Node Media. He noted that for some clients, CPMs on Meta were anywhere from three to four times more expensive than they were last year. 

Advertisers say getting support from Meta has been a challenge, too. Meta laid off thousands of employees over the past year and gutted many of its customer support teams. As Digiday reported, Meta’s ad accounts teams were downsized, and many client inquiries are now being directed to AI chatbots. Several of the marketers that The Verge spoke to said that there’s been a noticeable decline in responsiveness from Meta since the transition. 

“The only thing [Meta] acknowledged was there was a platform bug on February 14th and apologized for the inconvenience.”

“The only thing [Meta] acknowledged was there was a platform bug on February 14th and apologized for the inconvenience,” said Williams. “They didn’t tell us what actually happened.”

Meta eventually refunded 1-800-D2C for the incident, but Williams said it took him several tries to finally get someone from the company to acknowledge him. The company issued the refund almost a month after the incident.

While some users speculate that Advantage Plus is “glitching” or “broken,” Meta’s response has been to insist that the tool is functioning as it should. 

“I’ve reached out to representatives at Meta, and I’ve been told that they’re not aware of any sort of glitch, which is truly shocking, because all my co-founder friends who work in e-commerce share this sentiment. They’re dealing with the same thing,” said Adriel Darvish, the CEO of a luxury handbag and jewelry service called Switch, in a phone interview with The Verge. “This is something universal that everyone is experiencing.”

With the problems continuing to pile on, Williams said his marketing firm completely halted its use of Advantage Plus in early April. Instead, they’ve gone back to the old-fashioned method of buying Facebook and Instagram ads manually. Notably, going back to the pre-AI, pre-automated way of doing things hasn’t really taken a toll on the firm’s human labor force. 

“Maybe an extra 10 to 20 minutes or so to build out the ad sets, but nothing crazy,” said Williams. 

Meta first launched Advantage Plus shopping campaigns globally in the fall of 2022, when the state of online advertising was in an uncertain place. Just a year before, Apple had launched its App Tracking Transparency feature with iOS 14.5, giving users an easy way to opt out of the third-party app-based tracking that powers many online ads. Meta opposed the change, saying it would “change the internet as we know it” and threaten the future of many online businesses. 

But Meta’s real concern was no doubt the threat to its own ad business, which chalked up a $10 billion dip in ad revenue in 2021 due to Apple’s changes. Targeted ads were no longer as effective since brands no longer had access to as much data, and they were becoming more expensive to boot. As a consequence, brands cut back on their online ad spend. 

With Advantage Plus shopping campaigns, Meta promised that AI and machine learning models could effectively replace the big gaping hole left by Apple’s privacy update. 

In lieu of tracking users, Advantage Plus uses the advertiser’s own first-party sales data to help target ads. But online advertisers would be effectively handing the reins over to Meta and no longer have access to the granular targeting controls and detailed analytics they did prior to Apple’s privacy changes.

Although there was a bit of a “learning curve” with Advantage Plus shopping, the tool gradually began to improve. Brands noticed their AI-driven Meta ad campaigns were performing well and poured more of their budgets into the platform. Adweek reported that by April 2023, marketers who had ditched Meta for TikTok ads and newer opportunities like connected TV were starting to come back

Advertisers had a honeymoon period with Advantage Plus last year, especially as Meta began packing it with new features. “Advantage Plus was working so well at this point, for most of the clients, that almost 50 to 70 percent of their ad budget is on Meta’s Advantage Plus campaigns. There are so many targeting and evolutions they’ve done in the past year and a half. It delivers a really strong performance if you know how to tweak the right parameters,” said Mishra. 

In an email to The Verge on April 15th, Meta spokesperson Kash Ayodele said the company had fixed a “few technical issues” with its ad platforms. “Our ads system is working as expected for the vast majority of advertisers. We recently fixed a few technical issues and are researching a small amount of additional reports from advertisers to ensure the best possible results for businesses using our apps.”

On an April 24th earnings call, Meta CFO Susan Li said that one Advantage Plus tool led to a “a 28 percent decrease in cost per click or per objective.” Li said Advantage Plus tools are seeing “very strong growth” and that the tools are improving when it comes to conversions.

But marketers are still complaining about underperformance on the platform. “Things have recovered for many, but not all. It’s been a very turbulent end to Q1 and beginning of Q2,” wrote media buyer David Herrmann in a direct message to The Verge

The dramatic increase in cost per click (CPC) and CPM is not just a Meta problem — online ads as a whole are getting costlier due to what marketers say are increased inefficiencies, which automation has only made worse. This significantly decreases profits for individual advertisers. And fixing this problem may be more complicated than fixing a “glitch” or series of glitches on Advantage Plus, especially since the millions that Meta as well as Google have poured into automated advertising hasn’t led to more successful ad campaigns. 

“The performance of accounts and campaigns hasn’t intrinsically increased [over the last three years],” noted Hawke Media’s Areen Mayelan. 

When ad campaigns are automated, such as with Meta’s Advantage Plus, “things get brushed under the rug,” said Mayelan. Everything from loose keywords to loose audiences to low-quality ads all effectively become inefficiencies that increase the cost of ads for brands. “Inefficiency results in an increase in CPCs and CPMs, because you’re creating artificial ‘competition’ where there otherwise might not be.” 

Meanwhile, Meta only stands to benefit from the boost in ad revenue. According to Meta’s first quarter earnings call on Wednesday, its ad business is doing just fine. Ad revenue amounted to $35.64 billion for the quarter, an impressive jump of 27 percent from this time in 2023.

Update April 29th, 4:50PM ET: This story has been updated with remarks from Meta’s CFO addressing the performance of Advantage Plus tools. It also clarifies remarks from Ayodele, who says Meta’s technical fixes relate to the ads platform more broadly, not just Advantage Plus.

Read the whole story
Share this story
Delete

Are you overpaying for your car loan? - Vox

2 Shares

A few weeks ago, a TikTok user named Blaisey Arnold posted a video about her Chevy Tahoe.

“After three years with my Tahoe, I’m finally getting rid of it,” Arnold said. It was her dream car, and she’d taken out a loan for the $84,000 — yes, you read that right, $84,000 — vehicle. Since then, she’d been paying $1,400 a month for the last three years, totaling about $50,000. But because of her high interest rate, only $10,000 of that money went toward paying off the balance of the car. “Honestly, that blows my mind,” she said.

It blew her viewers’ minds, too.

“The math isn’t mathing,” one commenter wrote. “Seriously, what is your interest rate???????” asked another. The video currently has about 2.5 million views. The situation was so untenable that Arnold joked in a follow-up video that she was considering leaving the Tahoe in a “bad part of town,” hiring the mob, or (more seriously) defaulting and letting it get repossessed.

There’s a lot we can’t know about her situation, without looking at her finances and the terms of her loans. But she’s not the only one shelling out huge amounts of cash for a fancy car: Other women have also been sharing the details of their major monthly car payments on TikTok.

Still, the online reactions seem to unite around a central theme: Arnold messed up big time by taking out a loan at a terrible rate. Defaulting and letting her car get repossessed, as she seems to be considering, will wreak havoc on her credit.

You could argue that Arnold’s decisions were irresponsible (and I really don’t recommend paying what amounts to a mortgage on a car), but it’s worth looking beyond this one wacky example at the larger structural forces that make car ownership such a necessary burden — and, at times, such an unnecessary scam.

Car ownership has gotten very expensive — but opting out can be difficult

In a society built almost entirely around the supremacy of cars as a means of transportation, most working-age adults seem to consider owning one necessary.

According to the 2021 Census, nearly 92 percent of American households had at least one vehicle, and the benefits of owning a car in a landscape built for them are so great that research suggests people will go out of their way to get one even if they can’t really afford it.

In the last few years, the costs around car ownership have soared, placing tremendous burdens on working class families and the poor.

The pandemic disrupted supply chains, manufacturers turned their attention toward expensive luxury vehicles, and interest rates soared. New cars are now unaffordable for more than 80 percent of Americans. Used car prices are up 34 percent from early 2020, too. On top of that, auto insurance rates have reached mind-boggling heights.

Owning a car is also much more than just a practical necessity: For a lot of people, it’s an outward symbol of prosperity, freedom, and even political ideology.

Car buyers are really vulnerable to exploitation — especially if they’re low-income

Cars are really expensive in America right now. But some car payments are astronomically — indeed, exploitatively — high.

To give one example: In their 2023 book, Cars and Jails: Freedom Dreams, Debt and Carcerality, authors Julie Livingston and Andrew Ross spoke with men recently released from prison who found that their credit histories prevented them from getting reasonable loans at affordable interest rates.

“A lot of people we were interviewing were driving pretty fancy cars. We were stroking our chins, going: ‘How did you afford that?’ It turned out that some of them were walking into dealerships and being told they couldn’t get financing for the Hondas they wanted, but could for a top-of-the-line Mercedes,” Ross told Vox last year.

“Why would a lender and dealer do that? Because they know they’re going to be able to repossess the car quickly.”

It’s not just formerly incarcerated people who are vulnerable.

A 2021 Consumer Reports investigation found that the lack of a federal interest rate limit, combined with a complicated patchwork of state laws, leaves consumers vulnerable to being preyed upon by shady lenders.

The investigation begins with an anecdote about a man who received disability payments from the Social Security Administration; he received a loan for a Jaguar with an astonishing annual percentage rate of 75 percent. “I don’t know APRs, I don’t know nothing about that,” the man told Consumer Reports. “I’m just trying to go in there and get the car.”

In another piece, the publication found that lenders and dealers often lent money to people with poor credit, sometimes at higher rates, with the aim of collecting the high interest and repossessing the vehicles when people defaulted on their loans.

There is some hope that things will get better. A few states have started to address the problem of hidden fees and predatory loans. At the end of 2023, the Federal Trade Commission announced a new rule aimed at cracking down on a slew of deceptive auto lending and sales practices. (It takes effect at the end of July 2024.)

Meanwhile, auto debt reached a record-high $1.61 trillion last year, and that debt is, of course, most onerous for the people who can least afford to pay.

Understanding how auto loans work — as Blaisey Arnold’s critics point out — is necessary, but it’s insufficient. Going after the lenders who prey on people who need cars to survive, and who often don’t realize they’re getting a bad deal, is paramount.

This story appeared originally in Today, Explained, Vox’s flagship daily newsletter. Sign up here for future editions.

Read the whole story
Share this story
Delete

Why Did US Buy Old Soviet Aircraft from Kazakhstan?

1 Share

Steve Brown

After a career as a British Army Ammunition Specialist and Bomb Disposal Officer, Steve later worked in the fields of ammunition destruction, demining and explosive ordnance disposal with the UN and NATO. In 2017, after taking early retirement, he moved to Ukraine with his Ukrainian wife and two sons where he became a full-time writer. He now works as a senior writer and English language editor with the Kyiv Post.

Read the whole story
Share this story
Delete

Elon Musk loses at Supreme Court in case over “funding secured” tweets

1 Share
Elon Musk frowns while sitting on stage during a conference interview.

Enlarge / Elon Musk speaks at the Satellite Conference and Exhibition on March 9, 2020 in Washington, DC. (credit: Getty Images | Win McNamee )

The US Supreme Court today rejected Elon Musk's attempt to terminate his settlement with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Musk appealed to the Supreme Court in December 2023, claiming the settlement he agreed to in 2018 forced him to "waive his First Amendment rights to speak on matters ranging far beyond the charged violations." The SEC settlement requires Musk to get pre-approval from a Tesla securities lawyer for tweets or other social media posts that may contain information material to the company or its shareholders.

The Supreme Court decided not to hear the case, leaving an appeals court ruling against Musk intact. The top court denied Musk's petition without comment Monday morning in a list of orders.

The SEC brought a securities fraud charge against Musk after his August 2018 tweets stating, "Am considering taking Tesla private at $420. Funding secured" and "Investor support is confirmed. Only reason why this is not certain is that it's contingent on a shareholder vote."

The SEC said the tweets were false and misleading because "Musk had not even discussed, much less confirmed, key deal terms, including price, with any potential funding source," and he "knew that he had not satisfied numerous additional contingencies." Musk's tweets caused Tesla's stock price to jump by over 6 percent and harmed investors by causing "significant confusion and disruption in the market for Tesla's stock," the SEC alleged.

Musk claimed “economic duress”

Musk claimed he was the victim of "economic duress" when he agreed to the settlement and that the SEC "weaponized" the deal in order to "muzzle and harass Mr. Musk and Tesla." In addition to the clause requiring pre-approval of tweets, the settlement required Musk and Tesla to each pay $20 million in penalties and forced Musk to step down from his board chairman post.

A US District Court judge rejected Musk's attempt to get out of the settlement in April 2022. A three-judge panel at the US Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit unanimously ruled against Musk in May 2023. The appeals court later denied Musk's request for an en banc rehearing in front of all the court's judges.

The 2nd Circuit panel ruling dismissed Musk's argument that the settlement is a "prior restraint" on his speech, writing, "Parties entering into consent decrees may voluntarily waive their First Amendment and other rights." The judges also saw "no evidence to support Musk's contention that the SEC has used the consent decree to conduct bad-faith, harassing investigations of his protected speech."

Musk's petition to the Supreme Court said the case presents the constitutional question of whether "a party's acceptance of a benefit prevents that party from contending that the government violated the unconstitutional conditions doctrine in requiring a waiver of constitutional rights in exchange for that benefit."

SEC: Settlement designed to prevent securities violations

The SEC urged the Supreme Court to reject Musk's petition in a March 2024 filing. The Supreme Court "has consistently held that, in resolving litigation, parties may choose to waive even fundamental constitutional rights," the SEC said.

The Musk settlement "was reasonably designed to minimize the likelihood that petitioner would make future false or misleading statements in violation of the securities laws," the SEC wrote. Musk's reply brief filed a few weeks ago claimed that the agency's "arguments highlight the need for review. In effect, the SEC argues that the Constitution imposes no limits on its authority to extract demands in its settlements."

Although Musk lost all attempts to terminate the settlement, he persuaded a jury in February 2023 to reject a class-action lawsuit filed by Tesla investors who claimed the tweets caused $12 billion in losses.

Read Comments

Read the whole story
Share this story
Delete
Next Page of Stories