About five hours into Elon Musk’s testimony, I typed the following sentence into my notes: “I have never been more sympathetic to Sam Altman in my life.”
Technology
States’ anti-monopoly case against Live Nation continues Monday
The Live Nation-Ticketmaster trial is back on. Dozens of states are expected to move forward with their claims against the company’s alleged concert industry monopoly beginning on Monday, following a brief hearing on Friday.
The Justice Department and a handful of states have accepted settlements with the company, but the majority of the 40 state and district attorney general plaintiffs — as of now — are continuing their fight in court. The states that are pressing forward withdrew their motion for a mistrial, filed after the DOJ announced its settlement in court Monday, and showed up with new outside counsel to lead their trial team in the absence of the federal litigators. The judge also said that jurors will be allowed to see internal chats between Live Nation employees who bragged about how they “gouge” fans, overruling opposition from the company.
In a hearing Friday that lasted less than an hour, Judge Arun Subramanian — visibly cheerier than he was earlier this week when he scolded attorneys for failing to inform him of an impending settlement earlier — sorted through trial logistics and issued orders on exhibits. In order to take over the case, the now-departed DOJ trial team continued to work to transfer information the proceeding states would need at trial, the states’ co-lead attorney Jonathan Hatch said. But there are still some things left in the DOJ database that haven’t yet transferred, he said. At the judge’s request, the DOJ agreed to ensure that access wasn’t cut off until the states and their counsel got everything they needed.
Arkansas, Iowa, Mississippi, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and South Dakota have all either signed an agreement similar to the DOJ’s with Live Nation, or are close to doing so. South Carolina is continuing to negotiate with the company, and may continue with the litigation unless the state reaches an agreement on its monetary demands before then. An attorney speaking on behalf of these states said South Carolina had reached an agreement in principle on updated injunctive terms of the settlement, though it’s not clear what those are. That leaves more than 30 state AGs still involved in the litigation, unless things change before Monday.
The trial is expected to pick up with the testimony of AEG COO Jay Marciano, who was the last witness to be questioned by a DOJ trial lawyer in the case. Marciano was only partway through his testimony when court adjourned for the day, so the states will likely need to refresh the jurors’ memories, after their new trial team introduces themselves. AEG is a competitor to Live Nation-Ticketmaster and a similarly integrated ticketing and live events promotion business.
The judge also allowed several exhibits containing Slack messages between Live Nation employees to be shown to the jury, after the company sought to exclude them. The messages came to light this week after the judge unsealed them following requests from a group of media outlets.
“The messages included two-then regional directors … boasting about how they ‘gouge’ fans with ancillary costs”
The messages from 2022 included two then-regional directors for ticketing at the company’s amphitheatres boasting about how they “gouge” fans with ancillary costs, like for parking or VIP access, and ridiculing fans as “stupid” and saying Live Nation was “robbing them blind.” Live Nation spokesperson Emily Wofford described the exchange as one from a “junior staffer to a friend” and said it “absolutely does not reflect our values or how we operate.” In a brief opposing the motion to exclude the chats, however, the plaintiffs say these “junior” employees now hold important positions at the company: one is the head of ticketing for the arm of Live Nation that operates its amphitheatres, and the other is a senior director of ticketing for Live Nation’s Capital Region.
“Because this was a private Slack message, leadership learned of this when the public did, and will be looking into the matter promptly,” Wofford said in a statement. “Our business only works when fans have great experiences, which is why we’ve capped amphitheater venue fees at 15% and have invested $1 billion in the last 18 months into U.S. venues and fan amenities.”
Live Nation had sought to exclude the exhibits from being shown to the jury, with its attorneys arguing they were simply “informal Slack messages” without relevance to the case. Attorneys for the government argued the messages represent “candid, internal messages” that rebut the company’s claim that it invests in amphitheaters to give fans and artists a great choice of where to see a concert. The judge agreed that Live Nation had “opened the door” to this kind of evidence by bringing up the quality of fan experiences at its venues in its opening statement.
In any event, the show will go on beginning Monday morning.
Autonomous vehicles roving California’s roads will no longer be immune to traffic tickets starting on July 1st. New regulations announced by the California DMV this week allow law enforcement to give AV manufacturers a “notice of AV noncompliance” when one of their cars commits a traffic violation, like running a red light or failing to stop for school buses.
The updated regulations come after years of viral traffic violations and multiple safety investigations involving robotaxis. Tesla’s Full Self-Driving (FSD) system is also under investigation for running red lights and driving in the wrong direction. Now, driverless vehicle companies can get cited for those violations, at least in California.
California’s new regulations could also help prevent driverless cars from getting in the way during emergencies, like an incident in San Francisco last year when Waymos blocked traffic during a power outage. AV companies will now have to answer first-responder calls within 30 seconds and must allow emergency responders to “issue electronic geofencing directives,” which will block AVs from entering active emergency areas. Any driverless cars already in the area will have to leave.
The new regulations also allow AV companies to test and deploy heavy-duty autonomous trucks and include “licensing qualifications and permitting and training requirements for remote drivers and assistants.”
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
Inside Meta, the parent company of Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp, employees’ everyday clicks, shortcuts and screen habits are now part of how the company trains its artificial intelligence systems.
Meta has started rolling out internal software that tracks how employees use their computers, including how they move through apps and complete routine tasks. The company says this data will help build smarter AI tools, but it also raises new questions about how far workplace monitoring should go.
Sign up for my FREE CyberGuy Report
- Get my best tech tips, urgent security alerts and exclusive deals delivered straight to your inbox.
- For simple, real-world ways to spot scams early and stay protected, visit CyberGuy.com – trusted by millions who watch CyberGuy on TV daily.
- Plus, you’ll get instant access to my I free when you join.
HOW TO OPT OUT OF AI DATA COLLECTION IN POPULAR APPS
Inside Meta, employee computer habits are becoming training data as the company pushes deeper into AI-powered workplace automation. (Unknown)
What Meta’s employee tracking tool actually does
The system is called the Model Capability Initiative, or MCI. It runs on work apps and websites used by employees.
Here is what it tracks:
- Mouse movements and clicks
- Keystrokes and keyboard shortcuts
- Navigation behavior like dropdown selections
- Occasional screenshots of what is on screen
Meta says the idea is simple. If AI is supposed to act like a human using a computer, it needs real examples of how people actually work.
“If we’re building agents to help people complete everyday tasks using computers, our models need real examples of how people actually use them – things like mouse movements, clicking buttons, and navigating dropdown menus,” a Meta spokesperson told CyberGuy. “To help, we’re launching an internal tool that will capture these kinds of inputs on certain applications to help us train our models. There are safeguards in place to protect sensitive content, and the data is not used for any other purpose.”
The company insists that data collected through this tool is used only for model training, not for employee performance reviews, and managers do not have access to it. Company devices were already subject to monitoring, and this isn’t unique to Meta.
Why Meta is collecting employee data for AI
Meta isn’t collecting this information just for insight. It is feeding it into a broader push to build artificial intelligence agents that can handle work tasks. In an internal memo, Meta’s CTO Andrew Bosworth described a future where AI agents do most of the work while humans guide and review.
The company is already reorganizing around that idea. Internal programs like “AI for Work,” now called the Agent Transformation Accelerator, are designed to bring AI into daily workflows across teams.
Meta believes this approach will make operations faster and more efficient. The trade-off is that human work becomes training data for the systems that may replace parts of it.
META EMPLOYEE ACCUSED OF ACCESSING PRIVATE IMAGES
Meta is rolling out a workplace tracking tool that records employee clicks, keystrokes and screen activity to help train its AI systems. (Joan Cros/NurPhoto via Getty Images)
Privacy concerns around Meta’s employee tracking
Workplace monitoring has been around for years, but this takes it a step further. For example, tracking keystrokes and clicks in real time creates a level of oversight that companies have more often used with gig workers than office employees. As a result, employers can now watch day-to-day activity more closely.
At the same time, a legal gray area exists. In the United States, companies generally have broad authority to monitor employees as long as they provide notice. Because of that, employers have significant room to expand how they collect data.
However, outside the U.S., the rules can be stricter, and some regions place tighter limits on how companies collect and use employee data.
Even so, knowing someone is tracking your activity at this level can change how you work, how you communicate and how much autonomy you feel on the job.
How this fits into the broader AI job shift
Meta is hardly alone in pushing toward automation. Companies across Silicon Valley are investing heavily in AI systems that can write code, organize data and assist with decision-making. At the same time, many are cutting jobs or reshaping roles.
Meta plans to reduce its workforce by about 10 percent globally. Amazon has also trimmed tens of thousands of corporate roles in recent months.
The message is clear. AI has evolved beyond a tool that helps employees. It is increasingly positioned as a replacement for certain types of work.
JOBS THAT ARE MOST AT RISK FROM AI, ACCORDING TO MICROSOFT
Meta says its new internal monitoring tool will improve AI agents, but the program is also raising fresh concerns about employee privacy. (Donato Fasano/Getty Images)
What this means to you
Even if you do not work at Meta, this shift has wider implications. First, workplace monitoring is expanding beyond factories and delivery jobs into office environments. That could become standard across industries.
Second, your everyday work habits may become valuable data. Companies are realizing that human behavior is one of the most useful training resources for AI.
The line between assisting and replacing workers is getting thinner. Tools that start as helpers often evolve into something more autonomous over time.
If your job involves repetitive computer tasks, it is worth paying attention to how AI is being trained to handle them.
Take my quiz: How safe is your online security?
Think your devices and data are truly protected? Take this quick quiz to see where your digital habits stand. From passwords to Wi-Fi settings, you’ll get a personalized breakdown of what you’re doing right and what needs improvement. Take my Quiz here: CyberGuy.com.
Kurt’s key takeaways
Meta’s move marks a turning point. AI no longer relies only on public data or curated datasets. It now learns directly from how people work in real time. That shift raises practical questions about productivity and efficiency. It also brings deeper concerns about privacy, control and the future role of human workers. Companies argue they need this data to build better tools. At the same time, employees now help train systems that could eventually replace parts of their roles.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
If your daily work became training data for AI that could eventually do your job, would you be comfortable with that? Let us know by writing to us at CyberGuy.com.
Sign up for my FREE CyberGuy Report
- Get my best tech tips, urgent security alerts and exclusive deals delivered straight to your inbox.
- For simple, real-world ways to spot scams early and stay protected, visit CyberGuy.com – trusted by millions who watch CyberGuy on TV daily.
- Plus, you’ll get instant access to my Ultimate Scam Survival Guide free when you join.
Copyright 2026 CyberGuy.com. All rights reserved.
Musk’s direct testimony was an improvement over yesterday — even if his lawyer kept asking leading questions to cue him in how to answer. But that memory was immediately obliterated by an absolutely miserable cross-examination. For hours, Musk refused to answer yes or no questions with yes or no, occasionally “forgot” things he’d testified to in the morning, and scolded defense lawyer William Savitt. I watched a few jury members glance at each other. During one testy exchange, one woman was rubbing her head. Me too, babe.
Even the judge, who at times prompted Musk to answer “yes” or “no,” was having a bad time. “He was at times difficult,” said Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers after Musk after the jury left the room. (At one point, when she’d cut off his argumentative answer, she got the biggest laugh of the day.) “Part of management from my perspective is just to get through testimony.”
“I don’t yell at people,” Musk said
Musk spent a lot of yesterday painting this heroic picture of himself, and this morning, near the end of his direct examination, said, “I don’t lose my temper,” and “I don’t yell at people.” He said he might have called someone a “jackass,” but only in the spirit of saying something like, “don’t be a jackass.”
Immediately afterward, Savitt baited him into being petty, irritating, and generally hard to deal with. At one point, we all watched Musk lose his temper. He spent hours quibbling over simple questions. Again and again, Savitt referred back to Musk’s deposition, where he’d answered questions slightly differently, calling Musk’s accounts into question. Even if the average juror didn’t think he was lying, he was certainly inconsistent.
Savitt’s cross-examination left the distinct impression that Musk quit his quarterly payments to OpenAI because he wasn’t going to get full control of the company, then tried to kneecap it and fold it into Tesla. Initially, Musk wanted four board seats and 51 percent of the shares. The other co-founders would get three seats, together, to be voted on by shareholders (including other employees). Though Musk said that the eventual plan was to expand to 12 seats, it was obvious that Musk had full control on the initial board of seven.
When Musk didn’t get what he wanted, he pulled the plug on his funding commitment and hired Andrej Karpathy, OpenAI’s second-best engineer, to Tesla in 2017. Despite his fiduciary duty to OpenAI as a board member, he did not try to get Karpathy to stay at OpenAI when he said he heard Karpathy wanted to leave. (“I think people should have a right to work where they want to work,” Musk said on the stand.)
“In my and Andrej’s opinion, Tesla is the only path that could even hope to hold a candle to Google.”
By 2018, Musk was saying that OpenAI had no path forward with its current structure, declaring it was on “a path of certain failure” in emails to Ilya Sutskever and Greg Brockman. His proposed solution was to merge Tesla and OpenAI. “In my and Andrej’s opinion, Tesla is the only path that could even hope to hold a candle to Google,” Musk said. The plan never came to fruition, and Musk resigned from OpenAI’s board that year.
As early as 2016, Musk had his own concerns about OpenAI as a non-profit. In an email to a colleague at Neuralink, he wrote “Deepmind is moving very fast. I am concerned that OpenAI is not on a path to catch up. Setting it up as non-profit might, in hindsight, have been the wrong move. Sense of urgency is not as high.”
Asked about this, Musk said he was just speculating. Savitt said, “Those are your words, yes or no?”
“You mostly do unfair questions.”
Musk replied, “This is a hypothetical.”
Savitt said, “So you thought it might have been a wrong move? That’s what you said?”
Getting Musk to put any of that on the record was intensely difficult. He refused repeatedly to answer questions like whether he knew cutting off OpenAI donations would create financial pressure, or whether he’d asked Karpathy to stay at OpenAI. He accused Savitt of asking questions that were “designed to trick me,” and we got multiple versions of this:
Musk: You mostly do unfair questions
Savitt: I am trying to put the questions as fairly as I can. I am doing my best.
Musk: That’s not true.
Musk was trying to make this as painful as possible for Savitt, but he also made it as painful as possible for everyone else, including the jury. Watching him simply refuse to answer questions during cross he’d easily answered during direct was annoying. Watching him refuse to admit he understood the nature of linear time — and therefore the fact that he was still a director of OpenAI’s board before he resigned in 2018 — was infuriating. It made him look dishonest.
“I’d lost trust in Altman and I was concerned they were really trying to steal the charity.”
Musk’s basic, oft-repeated story during this week’s testimony has been that OpenAI is “stealing a charity” and “looting a non-profit.” He maintains that he was all right with some limited for-profit activity, but not anything that would overshadow OpenAI’s nonprofit work and constitute “the tail wagging the dog” — another phrase he reached for, over and over, like a security blanket. In direct testimony, he painted himself as a trusting “fool” who had believed the wily promises of Sam Altman and his cohort: “I gave them $38 million of essentially free funding, which they used to create an $800 billion for-profit company,” he lamented. His own lawyer’s questioning wrapped up with Musk being purportedly blindsided by a multibillion-dollar deal with Microsoft.
“I’d lost trust in Altman and I was concerned they were really trying to steal the charity,” Musk said. “It turned out to be true.”
“I said I didn’t look closely! I read the headline!”
On cross examination, Musk would barely even explain how much he bothered to learn about OpenAI’s operations before suing over them a few years later. When OpenAI proposed a for-profit arm around 2018, he got an email outlining the proposed corporate structure. On the stand, he said he’d only read the very first section of it,, which said that contributors should consider the investments as donations that may have no return. “I read the highlighted box with ‘important warning,’” Musk said.
Savitt asked Musk if he’d raised any objection to the structure then, when he’d received the documents. Musk said that he didn’t read beyond that first box.
Musk: I didn’t read the fine print.. We’re going into the fine print of this document.
Savitt: It’s a four-page document.
Musk then said he hadn’t read beyond taking this in the “spirit of a donation.” And then we got the deposition, where Musk said, “I don’t think I read this term sheet… I’m not sure I actually read this term sheet… I did not closely look at this term sheet.” Savitt pointed out that nowhere in the deposition did Musk say he’d read the first paragraph and Musk, raising his voice and effectively undermining his claims from the morning that he doesn’t lose his temper (lol) or yell at people (lmao), said, “I said I didn’t look closely! I read the headline!”
Imagine having to deal with this man as your cofounder. I think I would sooner open a vein.
Follow topics and authors from this story to see more like this in your personalized homepage feed and to receive email updates.
-
Education3 minutes agoThey Left for the School Bus. ICE Picked Them Up Instead.
-
Technology9 minutes agoNow California’s cops can give tickets to driverless cars
-
World15 minutes agoRubio warns China after Panama ship detentions, calls hemisphere sovereignty ‘non-negotiable’
-
Politics21 minutes agoHouse Republicans splinter over pesticide provision in farm bill as MAHA movement flexes its muscle
-
Health27 minutes agoEarly Parkinson’s warning signs may be hiding in the gut, study finds
-
Sports33 minutes agoDrake Maye voices support for Patriots coach Mike Vrabel as off-field controversy continues to swirl
-
Technology39 minutes agoMeta tracks workers to train AI agents
-
Business45 minutes agoCalifornia billionaire tax proposal attracts 1.5 million signatures. Here’s what happens next