×
OpenAI’s existential questions | TechCrunch OpenAI has been all over the news recently, whether that news is about acquisitions, competition with Anthropic, or bigger debates about AI’s impact on society. On the latest episode of TechCrunch’s Equity podcast, Kirsten Korosec, Sean O’Kane, and I did our best to round up all the latest OpenAI news. While the company’s latest acquisitions seem to be classic acqui-hires, Sean suggested they also address “two big existential problems that OpenAI is trying to solve right now.” First, with the team behind personal finance startup Hiro, the company may be hoping to  come up with a product that has “more hooks than just a chatbot, and maybe something worth paying more for.” And with new media startup TBPN, OpenAI could be looking to “better shape its image in the public eye, which lately has not been great.” Read a preview of our conversation, edited for length and clarity below. Anthony: [We have] two deals that are worth mentioning, one is that OpenAI acquired this personal finance startup called Hiro. And that comes after another deal that was literally announced when we were recording our last episode of Equity, so we didn’t get to talk about it: OpenAI had also acquired TBPN — a business talk show, like a new media company. And I think both of these deals are pretty small compared to the scale of OpenAI. These are not things that people expect to really change the course of their business or anything like that, but they’re interesting because it suggests that there’s still this [attitude of,] “Let’s try out different things.” Especially [with] the TBPN deal […] particularly at this time when it feels like OpenAI, from all the reporting we’re reading, is also trying to really refocus on making ChatGPT and its GPT models really competitive in an enterprise context with programmers. Techcrunch event San Francisco, CA | October 13-15, 2026 Is running a tech talk show, should that really be on the to-do list? Kirsten: No, this should not be on the to-do list. That’s it.  I do want to mention Hiro because to me, that’s an interesting one, because Julie Bort, our venture editor, super talented, she wrote about this and was I think the first to write about it. She dug in a little bit and basically this looks like an acqui-hire. The company is folding. They basically said, “By this date, you won’t be able to access this anymore.” This is a personal finance startup. And they only launched two years ago. So this absolutely is about getting talent on board. So I’m very curious to see if OpenAI is going to be just absorbing them into the ether at OpenAI, or if they’re actually interested in some sort of personal finance product that they want to work on. To me, it’s not really clear. Sean: I think you look at both of these as acqui-hires to a certain extent. I mean, the TBPN acquisition, allegedly they are going to retain their editorial independence on the show that they make every day. And all respect to those guys who’ve put that out there and gotten it off the ground so quickly and grown it into what it has become. I think any person who follows the media should have a healthy dose of skepticism that when you acquire something like that and you put the people who make the show under the org of the public policy people and comms or marketing adjacent people higher up at the company making the acquisition, that you could have good questions about whether or not saying “editorial independence” is enough. It’s not an incantation that just works. But you know, what’s interesting to me about these two, while they are similar in their acqui-hire-ness, I think they both represent two major problems that OpenAI is facing. One is Hiro. OpenAI has a very successful product in ChatGPT. As far as whether or not that will actually ever make them enough money to become a sustainable business that’s not raising the largest private rounds in the world, ever, to keep things going, is a big question. And they also seem to be struggling to keep up on the enterprise side of things where the real money seems to be, so bringing in a team like this seems like taking a shot at, “What else can we do?”  The guy who founded Hiro seems to have a serial entrepreneur streak of creating consumer apps, and so this seems to me like a bet on them being able to come up with something else that may have more hooks than just a chatbot, and maybe something worth paying more for. And then TBPN is an acquisition made to help better represent what the company does and better shape its image in the public eye, which lately has not been great and certainly is under more questions now than just a few weeks ago, because Ronan Farrow just led a report at The New Yorker that dropped suspiciously right around the time that this and a couple other announcements from OpenAI came out last week.  I think those are two big existential problems that OpenAI is trying to solve right now. Kirsten: So the thing that you didn’t say is, there’s Anthropic kind of looming in — not in the shadows, I mean, they’re very much taking up a lot of space here — but they’re having a lot of success on the enterprise side of things. It feels like these guys are competitors and they also feel like very different companies in a lot of ways. Anthony, I’m wondering if you see them as direct competition to OpenAI? Or [are they] just finding their stride in enterprise and in a way, these two companies are clearly going to coexist and they’re really not directly competing with each other — maybe on talent, but not necessarily as we initially thought of them? Anthony: I think they’re directly competing with each other. There’s definitely a scenario where if AI as an industry, as a technology, is as successful as its proponents hope for, they could both be very successful companies, they could just be the one and two. And the success of one does not necessarily mean that the other will just fade into obscurity.  And again, none of this is official, but there’s just been a lot of reporting around how it seems like OpenAI, more than anyone, is obsessed with and upset about Anthropic’s rise.  Our reporter Lucas [Ropek], he did a great piece over the weekend about the HumanX conference, where he was talking to everyone there and they’re sort of like, “Yeah, ChatGPT is fine, too,” but like they were all about Claude Code. And I think that is exactly what OpenAI is worried about. Because again, in theory, there could be many other opportunities for generative AI, but it feels like the big growth area, the area where the most money is and where they could at least see a path to having a sustainable business in the future, is in these enterprise and coding tools. #OpenAIs #existential #questions #TechCrunchAnthropic,Equity podcast,OpenAI

OpenAI’s existential questions | TechCrunch

OpenAI has been all over the news recently, whether that news is about acquisitions, competition with Anthropic, or bigger debates about AI’s impact on society.

On the latest episode of TechCrunch’s Equity podcast, Kirsten Korosec, Sean O’Kane, and I did our best to round up all the latest OpenAI news. While the company’s latest acquisitions seem to be classic acqui-hires, Sean suggested they also address “two big existential problems that OpenAI is trying to solve right now.”

First, with the team behind personal finance startup Hiro, the company may be hoping to  come up with a product that has “more hooks than just a chatbot, and maybe something worth paying more for.” And with new media startup TBPN, OpenAI could be looking to “better shape its image in the public eye, which lately has not been great.”

Read a preview of our conversation, edited for length and clarity below.

Anthony: [We have] two deals that are worth mentioning, one is that OpenAI acquired this personal finance startup called Hiro. And that comes after another deal that was literally announced when we were recording our last episode of Equity, so we didn’t get to talk about it: OpenAI had also acquired TBPN — a business talk show, like a new media company.

And I think both of these deals are pretty small compared to the scale of OpenAI. These are not things that people expect to really change the course of their business or anything like that, but they’re interesting because it suggests that there’s still this [attitude of,] “Let’s try out different things.”

Especially [with] the TBPN deal […] particularly at this time when it feels like OpenAI, from all the reporting we’re reading, is also trying to really refocus on making ChatGPT and its GPT models really competitive in an enterprise context with programmers.

Techcrunch event

San Francisco, CA | October 13-15, 2026

Is running a tech talk show, should that really be on the to-do list?

Kirsten: No, this should not be on the to-do list. That’s it. 

I do want to mention Hiro because to me, that’s an interesting one, because Julie Bort, our venture editor, super talented, she wrote about this and was I think the first to write about it. She dug in a little bit and basically this looks like an acqui-hire. The company is folding. They basically said, “By this date, you won’t be able to access this anymore.”

This is a personal finance startup. And they only launched two years ago. So this absolutely is about getting talent on board. So I’m very curious to see if OpenAI is going to be just absorbing them into the ether at OpenAI, or if they’re actually interested in some sort of personal finance product that they want to work on. To me, it’s not really clear.

Sean: I think you look at both of these as acqui-hires to a certain extent. I mean, the TBPN acquisition, allegedly they are going to retain their editorial independence on the show that they make every day. And all respect to those guys who’ve put that out there and gotten it off the ground so quickly and grown it into what it has become.

I think any person who follows the media should have a healthy dose of skepticism that when you acquire something like that and you put the people who make the show under the org of the public policy people and comms or marketing adjacent people higher up at the company making the acquisition, that you could have good questions about whether or not saying “editorial independence” is enough. It’s not an incantation that just works.

But you know, what’s interesting to me about these two, while they are similar in their acqui-hire-ness, I think they both represent two major problems that OpenAI is facing.

One is Hiro. OpenAI has a very successful product in ChatGPT. As far as whether or not that will actually ever make them enough money to become a sustainable business that’s not raising the largest private rounds in the world, ever, to keep things going, is a big question. And they also seem to be struggling to keep up on the enterprise side of things where the real money seems to be, so bringing in a team like this seems like taking a shot at, “What else can we do?” 

The guy who founded Hiro seems to have a serial entrepreneur streak of creating consumer apps, and so this seems to me like a bet on them being able to come up with something else that may have more hooks than just a chatbot, and maybe something worth paying more for.

And then TBPN is an acquisition made to help better represent what the company does and better shape its image in the public eye, which lately has not been great and certainly is under more questions now than just a few weeks ago, because Ronan Farrow just led a report at The New Yorker that dropped suspiciously right around the time that this and a couple other announcements from OpenAI came out last week. 

I think those are two big existential problems that OpenAI is trying to solve right now.

Kirsten: So the thing that you didn’t say is, there’s Anthropic kind of looming in — not in the shadows, I mean, they’re very much taking up a lot of space here — but they’re having a lot of success on the enterprise side of things.

It feels like these guys are competitors and they also feel like very different companies in a lot of ways. Anthony, I’m wondering if you see them as direct competition to OpenAI? Or [are they] just finding their stride in enterprise and in a way, these two companies are clearly going to coexist and they’re really not directly competing with each other — maybe on talent, but not necessarily as we initially thought of them?

Anthony: I think they’re directly competing with each other. There’s definitely a scenario where if AI as an industry, as a technology, is as successful as its proponents hope for, they could both be very successful companies, they could just be the one and two. And the success of one does not necessarily mean that the other will just fade into obscurity. 

And again, none of this is official, but there’s just been a lot of reporting around how it seems like OpenAI, more than anyone, is obsessed with and upset about Anthropic’s rise. 

Our reporter Lucas [Ropek], he did a great piece over the weekend about the HumanX conference, where he was talking to everyone there and they’re sort of like, “Yeah, ChatGPT is fine, too,” but like they were all about Claude Code. And I think that is exactly what OpenAI is worried about.

Because again, in theory, there could be many other opportunities for generative AI, but it feels like the big growth area, the area where the most money is and where they could at least see a path to having a sustainable business in the future, is in these enterprise and coding tools.

#OpenAIs #existential #questions #TechCrunchAnthropic,Equity podcast,OpenAI

Tech-news , ,

OpenAI has been all over the news recently, whether that news is about acquisitions, competition with Anthropic, or bigger debates about AI’s impact on society.

On the latest episode of TechCrunch’s Equity podcast, Kirsten Korosec, Sean O’Kane, and I did our best to round up all the latest OpenAI news. While the company’s latest acquisitions seem to be classic acqui-hires, Sean suggested they also address “two big existential problems that OpenAI is trying to solve right now.”

First, with the team behind personal finance startup Hiro, the company may be hoping to  come up with a product that has “more hooks than just a chatbot, and maybe something worth paying more for.” And with new media startup TBPN, OpenAI could be looking to “better shape its image in the public eye, which lately has not been great.”

Read a preview of our conversation, edited for length and clarity below.

Anthony: [We have] two deals that are worth mentioning, one is that OpenAI acquired this personal finance startup called Hiro. And that comes after another deal that was literally announced when we were recording our last episode of Equity, so we didn’t get to talk about it: OpenAI had also acquired TBPN — a business talk show, like a new media company.

And I think both of these deals are pretty small compared to the scale of OpenAI. These are not things that people expect to really change the course of their business or anything like that, but they’re interesting because it suggests that there’s still this [attitude of,] “Let’s try out different things.”

Especially [with] the TBPN deal […] particularly at this time when it feels like OpenAI, from all the reporting we’re reading, is also trying to really refocus on making ChatGPT and its GPT models really competitive in an enterprise context with programmers.

Techcrunch event

San Francisco, CA
|
October 13-15, 2026

Is running a tech talk show, should that really be on the to-do list?

Kirsten: No, this should not be on the to-do list. That’s it. 

I do want to mention Hiro because to me, that’s an interesting one, because Julie Bort, our venture editor, super talented, she wrote about this and was I think the first to write about it. She dug in a little bit and basically this looks like an acqui-hire. The company is folding. They basically said, “By this date, you won’t be able to access this anymore.”

This is a personal finance startup. And they only launched two years ago. So this absolutely is about getting talent on board. So I’m very curious to see if OpenAI is going to be just absorbing them into the ether at OpenAI, or if they’re actually interested in some sort of personal finance product that they want to work on. To me, it’s not really clear.

Sean: I think you look at both of these as acqui-hires to a certain extent. I mean, the TBPN acquisition, allegedly they are going to retain their editorial independence on the show that they make every day. And all respect to those guys who’ve put that out there and gotten it off the ground so quickly and grown it into what it has become.

I think any person who follows the media should have a healthy dose of skepticism that when you acquire something like that and you put the people who make the show under the org of the public policy people and comms or marketing adjacent people higher up at the company making the acquisition, that you could have good questions about whether or not saying “editorial independence” is enough. It’s not an incantation that just works.

But you know, what’s interesting to me about these two, while they are similar in their acqui-hire-ness, I think they both represent two major problems that OpenAI is facing.

One is Hiro. OpenAI has a very successful product in ChatGPT. As far as whether or not that will actually ever make them enough money to become a sustainable business that’s not raising the largest private rounds in the world, ever, to keep things going, is a big question. And they also seem to be struggling to keep up on the enterprise side of things where the real money seems to be, so bringing in a team like this seems like taking a shot at, “What else can we do?” 

The guy who founded Hiro seems to have a serial entrepreneur streak of creating consumer apps, and so this seems to me like a bet on them being able to come up with something else that may have more hooks than just a chatbot, and maybe something worth paying more for.

And then TBPN is an acquisition made to help better represent what the company does and better shape its image in the public eye, which lately has not been great and certainly is under more questions now than just a few weeks ago, because Ronan Farrow just led a report at The New Yorker that dropped suspiciously right around the time that this and a couple other announcements from OpenAI came out last week. 

I think those are two big existential problems that OpenAI is trying to solve right now.

Kirsten: So the thing that you didn’t say is, there’s Anthropic kind of looming in — not in the shadows, I mean, they’re very much taking up a lot of space here — but they’re having a lot of success on the enterprise side of things.

It feels like these guys are competitors and they also feel like very different companies in a lot of ways. Anthony, I’m wondering if you see them as direct competition to OpenAI? Or [are they] just finding their stride in enterprise and in a way, these two companies are clearly going to coexist and they’re really not directly competing with each other — maybe on talent, but not necessarily as we initially thought of them?

Anthony: I think they’re directly competing with each other. There’s definitely a scenario where if AI as an industry, as a technology, is as successful as its proponents hope for, they could both be very successful companies, they could just be the one and two. And the success of one does not necessarily mean that the other will just fade into obscurity. 

And again, none of this is official, but there’s just been a lot of reporting around how it seems like OpenAI, more than anyone, is obsessed with and upset about Anthropic’s rise. 

Our reporter Lucas [Ropek], he did a great piece over the weekend about the HumanX conference, where he was talking to everyone there and they’re sort of like, “Yeah, ChatGPT is fine, too,” but like they were all about Claude Code. And I think that is exactly what OpenAI is worried about.

Because again, in theory, there could be many other opportunities for generative AI, but it feels like the big growth area, the area where the most money is and where they could at least see a path to having a sustainable business in the future, is in these enterprise and coding tools.

Source link
#OpenAIs #existential #questions #TechCrunch

Tag
Previous post

Deadspin | Sei Young Kim rides ups, downs to hold lead at LA Championship <div id=""><section id="0" class=" w-full"><div class="xl:container mx-0 !px-4 py-0 pb-4 !mx-0 !px-0"><img src="https://images.deadspin.com/tr:w-900/21290461.jpg" srcset="https://images.deadspin.com/tr:w-900/21290461.jpg" alt="LPGA: CP Women's Open - Final Round" class="w-full" fetchpriority="high" loading="eager"/><span class="text-0.8 leading-tight">Aug 27, 2023; Vancouver, British Columbia, CAN; Sei Young Kim hits out of bunker on the fifteenth green during the final round of the CPKC Women’s Open golf tournament at Shaughnessy Golf & Country Club. Mandatory Credit: Bob Frid-Imagn Images<!-- --> <!-- --> </span></div></section><section id="section-1"> <p>South Korea’s Sei Young Kim endured a rough back nine with four consecutive bogeys on Saturday but retained her lead after three rounds at the JM Eagle LA Championship in Tarzana, Calif.</p> </section><section id="section-2"> <p>Ranked No. 10 in the world, Kim had a one-shot lead entering the day and expanded that to two strokes with a 1-under-par 71 to move to 15-under 201 at El Caballero Country Club.</p> </section><section id="section-3"> <p>“Oh, wow, it’s feel like, yeah, roller coaster,” Kim said of her round. “I didn’t know still two-shot lead until the last hole. Yeah, after finish I look at the scoreboard and I still (hold a) two-shot lead. OK, one more day. Yeah, I’m going better tomorrow.”</p> </section><section id="section-4"> <p>Four players are tied for second at 13 under: Australia’s Hannah Green (5-under 67 on Saturday), Thailand’s Suvichaya Vinijchaitham (67), South Korea’s Ina Yoon (71) and Jessica Porvasnik (68).</p> </section><section id="section-5"> <p>Kim shot a blistering 31 on the front nine with five birdies (Nos. 1, 3, 5, 7 and 9) and four pars to get to 19 under for the tournament. The back nine, however, was a different story with four pars followed by bogeys at Nos. 14, 15, 16 and 17 before a par on No. 18 for 40.</p> </section><section id="section-6"> <p>Kim had carded one bogey in a first-round 65 and followed with a bogey-free 65 on Friday.</p> </section><section id="section-7"> <p>She hit seven of 14 fairways on Saturday and 13 of 18 greens in regulation while totaling 28 putts.</p> </section><br/><section id="section-8"> <p>“I don’t know forget about (the third round) because I want to keep thinking and then I want to why, why, why, why. I don’t want to make (it) happen again,” Kim said. “But it’s golf. It can be happen again. It’s learn and then learn and learn. Mistake and then learn, yeah. Hopefully, success (at the) end of the day tomorrow.”</p> </section> <section id="section-9"> <p>Green’s adventurous 67 featured seven birdies and two bogeys. Vinijchaitham made eagle on the par-5 16th hole, and also have five birdies and two bogeys.</p> </section><section id="section-10"> <p>Yoon recorded four birdies and three bogeys, while Porvasnik carded seven birdies — including each of the last three holes — to counter a double bogey on the par-3 No. 9 and a bogey at the par-3 No. 15.</p> </section><section id="section-11"> <p>“I felt like I was playing pretty well,” Porvasnik said. “Had a hiccup on nine and just kind of kept grinding. Knew that just stay patient out there. It’s playing tough. To have the three birdies to close was just really nice.”</p> </section><section id="section-12"> <p>Kim, 33, owns 13 career LPGA victories, but just one in the past six years, at the BMW Ladies Championship last October.</p> </section><section id="section-13"> <p>Japan’s Chizzy Iwai had led after a course-record-tying 63 on Thursday, then carded a 68 on Friday to get to 13 under. She carded a 3-over 75 on Saturday to fall to 10 under and a tie for 10th.</p> </section><section id="section-14"> <p>Iwai made just one birdie, at the par-4 No. 13, and lost ground with bogeys at Nos. 2, 7, 17 and 18.</p> </section><section id="section-15"> <p>–Field Level Media</p> </section></div> #Deadspin #Sei #Young #Kim #rides #ups #downs #hold #lead #Championship

Next post

Indore News: शादियों में फिर बढ़ी एलपीजी की मांग, लोग कार्ड दिखाकर मांग रहे सिलिंडर

Related Posts


The Department of Defense labeled AI lab Anthropic a supply-chain risk after the company refused to agree to allow the Pentagon to use its models for autonomous weapons systems and domestic surveillance. It seems the company isn’t just winning the moral argument on this front, but the legal one, too. According to Axios, the judge hearing Anthropic’s challenge to the Trump administration’s designation has thus far not found the Pentagon’s case to be particularly compelling.

Per the report, U.S. District Judge Rita Lin wasted little time pouring cold water on the federal government’s position. “I don’t see additional evidence from the government really justifying what it did. If anything, it seems like the record, in some ways, has gotten worse for the government,” she reportedly said.

She also did not seem convinced by the Pentagon’s apparent argument that it was concerned Anthropic would mess with its model to prevent the military from using it how they intended. “I don’t see evidence that Anthropic could alter the model after it was delivered or flip some kind of kill switch,” she said, per Axios.

This doesn’t come as a major surprise, given Judge Lin’s general vibe since this case landed in her court. Back in March when Anthropic first brought its challenge to the government’s designation, the judge said that “it looks like an attempt to cripple Anthropic.” She ultimately granted a temporary injunction on the government’s attempt to basically blacklist the AI firm.

You’ll recall the origin of this whole fight came earlier this year when negotiations between Anthropic and the Department of Defense fell through after the company refused to agree to a deal that would have allowed the Pentagon to use its AI models for “all lawful purposes.” Anthropic reportedly sought to clarify that it would not include using the model to launch weapons without human involvement or to perform surveillance on American citizens. The Pentagon was unwilling to agree to honor Anthropic’s redlines.

Under a normal administration, that would likely just lead to the government moving on to another company. Under the Trump administration, though, refusal to comply makes you an enemy of the country. Trump and company moved to label Anthropic a supply chain risk, a designation typically reserved for foreign adversaries, not domestic companies. Getting slapped with that tag meant the rest of the federal government would have to stop doing business with Anthropic, which would be a blow to the company.

Instead, the whole thing is in limbo—though it’s not looking great for the administration. Of course, they could just cancel the contracts and do business with less scrupulous AI companies. There are plenty willing to abandon their beliefs for a nice, fat contract, after all.

#Pentagons #Case #Anthropic #IsntAnthropic,artifical intelligence,Department of Defense,Lawsuit,pentagon">The Pentagon’s Case Against Anthropic Isn’t Going Well The Department of Defense labeled AI lab Anthropic a supply-chain risk after the company refused to agree to allow the Pentagon to use its models for autonomous weapons systems and domestic surveillance. It seems the company isn’t just winning the moral argument on this front, but the legal one, too. According to Axios, the judge hearing Anthropic’s challenge to the Trump administration’s designation has thus far not found the Pentagon’s case to be particularly compelling. Per the report, U.S. District Judge Rita Lin wasted little time pouring cold water on the federal government’s position. “I don’t see additional evidence from the government really justifying what it did. If anything, it seems like the record, in some ways, has gotten worse for the government,” she reportedly said. She also did not seem convinced by the Pentagon’s apparent argument that it was concerned Anthropic would mess with its model to prevent the military from using it how they intended. “I don’t see evidence that Anthropic could alter the model after it was delivered or flip some kind of kill switch,” she said, per Axios. This doesn’t come as a major surprise, given Judge Lin’s general vibe since this case landed in her court. Back in March when Anthropic first brought its challenge to the government’s designation, the judge said that “it looks like an attempt to cripple Anthropic.” She ultimately granted a temporary injunction on the government’s attempt to basically blacklist the AI firm. You’ll recall the origin of this whole fight came earlier this year when negotiations between Anthropic and the Department of Defense fell through after the company refused to agree to a deal that would have allowed the Pentagon to use its AI models for “all lawful purposes.” Anthropic reportedly sought to clarify that it would not include using the model to launch weapons without human involvement or to perform surveillance on American citizens. The Pentagon was unwilling to agree to honor Anthropic’s redlines. Under a normal administration, that would likely just lead to the government moving on to another company. Under the Trump administration, though, refusal to comply makes you an enemy of the country. Trump and company moved to label Anthropic a supply chain risk, a designation typically reserved for foreign adversaries, not domestic companies. Getting slapped with that tag meant the rest of the federal government would have to stop doing business with Anthropic, which would be a blow to the company. Instead, the whole thing is in limbo—though it’s not looking great for the administration. Of course, they could just cancel the contracts and do business with less scrupulous AI companies. There are plenty willing to abandon their beliefs for a nice, fat contract, after all. #Pentagons #Case #Anthropic #IsntAnthropic,artifical intelligence,Department of Defense,Lawsuit,pentagon

Judge Rita Lin wasted little time pouring cold water on the federal government’s position. “I don’t see additional evidence from the government really justifying what it did. If anything, it seems like the record, in some ways, has gotten worse for the government,” she reportedly said.

She also did not seem convinced by the Pentagon’s apparent argument that it was concerned Anthropic would mess with its model to prevent the military from using it how they intended. “I don’t see evidence that Anthropic could alter the model after it was delivered or flip some kind of kill switch,” she said, per Axios.

This doesn’t come as a major surprise, given Judge Lin’s general vibe since this case landed in her court. Back in March when Anthropic first brought its challenge to the government’s designation, the judge said that “it looks like an attempt to cripple Anthropic.” She ultimately granted a temporary injunction on the government’s attempt to basically blacklist the AI firm.

You’ll recall the origin of this whole fight came earlier this year when negotiations between Anthropic and the Department of Defense fell through after the company refused to agree to a deal that would have allowed the Pentagon to use its AI models for “all lawful purposes.” Anthropic reportedly sought to clarify that it would not include using the model to launch weapons without human involvement or to perform surveillance on American citizens. The Pentagon was unwilling to agree to honor Anthropic’s redlines.

Under a normal administration, that would likely just lead to the government moving on to another company. Under the Trump administration, though, refusal to comply makes you an enemy of the country. Trump and company moved to label Anthropic a supply chain risk, a designation typically reserved for foreign adversaries, not domestic companies. Getting slapped with that tag meant the rest of the federal government would have to stop doing business with Anthropic, which would be a blow to the company.

Instead, the whole thing is in limbo—though it’s not looking great for the administration. Of course, they could just cancel the contracts and do business with less scrupulous AI companies. There are plenty willing to abandon their beliefs for a nice, fat contract, after all.

#Pentagons #Case #Anthropic #IsntAnthropic,artifical intelligence,Department of Defense,Lawsuit,pentagon">The Pentagon’s Case Against Anthropic Isn’t Going WellThe Pentagon’s Case Against Anthropic Isn’t Going Well The Department of Defense labeled AI lab Anthropic a supply-chain risk after the company refused to agree to allow the Pentagon to use its models for autonomous weapons systems and domestic surveillance. It seems the company isn’t just winning the moral argument on this front, but the legal one, too. According to Axios, the judge hearing Anthropic’s challenge to the Trump administration’s designation has thus far not found the Pentagon’s case to be particularly compelling. Per the report, U.S. District Judge Rita Lin wasted little time pouring cold water on the federal government’s position. “I don’t see additional evidence from the government really justifying what it did. If anything, it seems like the record, in some ways, has gotten worse for the government,” she reportedly said. She also did not seem convinced by the Pentagon’s apparent argument that it was concerned Anthropic would mess with its model to prevent the military from using it how they intended. “I don’t see evidence that Anthropic could alter the model after it was delivered or flip some kind of kill switch,” she said, per Axios. This doesn’t come as a major surprise, given Judge Lin’s general vibe since this case landed in her court. Back in March when Anthropic first brought its challenge to the government’s designation, the judge said that “it looks like an attempt to cripple Anthropic.” She ultimately granted a temporary injunction on the government’s attempt to basically blacklist the AI firm. You’ll recall the origin of this whole fight came earlier this year when negotiations between Anthropic and the Department of Defense fell through after the company refused to agree to a deal that would have allowed the Pentagon to use its AI models for “all lawful purposes.” Anthropic reportedly sought to clarify that it would not include using the model to launch weapons without human involvement or to perform surveillance on American citizens. The Pentagon was unwilling to agree to honor Anthropic’s redlines. Under a normal administration, that would likely just lead to the government moving on to another company. Under the Trump administration, though, refusal to comply makes you an enemy of the country. Trump and company moved to label Anthropic a supply chain risk, a designation typically reserved for foreign adversaries, not domestic companies. Getting slapped with that tag meant the rest of the federal government would have to stop doing business with Anthropic, which would be a blow to the company. Instead, the whole thing is in limbo—though it’s not looking great for the administration. Of course, they could just cancel the contracts and do business with less scrupulous AI companies. There are plenty willing to abandon their beliefs for a nice, fat contract, after all. #Pentagons #Case #Anthropic #IsntAnthropic,artifical intelligence,Department of Defense,Lawsuit,pentagon

The Department of Defense labeled AI lab Anthropic a supply-chain risk after the company refused to agree to allow the Pentagon to use its models for autonomous weapons systems and domestic surveillance. It seems the company isn’t just winning the moral argument on this front, but the legal one, too. According to Axios, the judge hearing Anthropic’s challenge to the Trump administration’s designation has thus far not found the Pentagon’s case to be particularly compelling.

Per the report, U.S. District Judge Rita Lin wasted little time pouring cold water on the federal government’s position. “I don’t see additional evidence from the government really justifying what it did. If anything, it seems like the record, in some ways, has gotten worse for the government,” she reportedly said.

She also did not seem convinced by the Pentagon’s apparent argument that it was concerned Anthropic would mess with its model to prevent the military from using it how they intended. “I don’t see evidence that Anthropic could alter the model after it was delivered or flip some kind of kill switch,” she said, per Axios.

This doesn’t come as a major surprise, given Judge Lin’s general vibe since this case landed in her court. Back in March when Anthropic first brought its challenge to the government’s designation, the judge said that “it looks like an attempt to cripple Anthropic.” She ultimately granted a temporary injunction on the government’s attempt to basically blacklist the AI firm.

You’ll recall the origin of this whole fight came earlier this year when negotiations between Anthropic and the Department of Defense fell through after the company refused to agree to a deal that would have allowed the Pentagon to use its AI models for “all lawful purposes.” Anthropic reportedly sought to clarify that it would not include using the model to launch weapons without human involvement or to perform surveillance on American citizens. The Pentagon was unwilling to agree to honor Anthropic’s redlines.

Under a normal administration, that would likely just lead to the government moving on to another company. Under the Trump administration, though, refusal to comply makes you an enemy of the country. Trump and company moved to label Anthropic a supply chain risk, a designation typically reserved for foreign adversaries, not domestic companies. Getting slapped with that tag meant the rest of the federal government would have to stop doing business with Anthropic, which would be a blow to the company.

Instead, the whole thing is in limbo—though it’s not looking great for the administration. Of course, they could just cancel the contracts and do business with less scrupulous AI companies. There are plenty willing to abandon their beliefs for a nice, fat contract, after all.

#Pentagons #Case #Anthropic #IsntAnthropic,artifical intelligence,Department of Defense,Lawsuit,pentagon

I was offline last week in my home state of New Jersey, but when I got back to Silicon Valley, everyone was panicking again about how quickly artificial intelligence is advancing. While this is certainly not the first time I’ve seen such concerns, it’s the biggest anxiety attack I’ve seen in years.

More than 1,000 employees at OpenAI, Anthropic, and other AI labs signed a petition earlier this week arguing the US should find a way to “pace” the AI race—a diplomatic way of saying the industry should have the option to coordinate a temporary pause on AI development, or slow things down if they get out of hand. OpenAI and Anthropic themselves ended up supporting the letter.

The petition arrived a week after OpenAI revealed it had caused an unprecedented cybersecurity incident in which one of its AI agents hacked into Hugging Face’s platform and several other services during internal testing.

Around the same time, top Trump administration officials started freaking out about an impressive new Chinese open weight AI model called Kimi K3, which was allegedly distilled from Anthropic’s Fable 5. In response, most of the tech industry—except Anthropic—signed onto an open letter from Nvidia asking the US government to protect open-weight AI models, arguing they’re a necessary counterbalance to their closed counterparts.

These events might look like a whole bunch of disjointed chaos. But I think they are evidence of a larger worldview taking hold in Silicon Valley, where many tech insiders are increasingly worried about OpenAI and Anthropic’s dominance. Researchers and investors I’ve talked to recently have framed the AI industry as a two-horse race that doesn’t seem to be slowing down, and that’s a cause for concern.

But different groups have their own reasons to be worried. Some OpenAI and Anthropic staffers think their employers are behaving recklessly in their pursuit to take over the market, and that the AI industry may soon develop models that are too capable for current safety methods to contain. They have said as much in public statements attached to this week’s Pacing the Frontier petition.

“I’ve seen how the relentless pace of AI makes it hard for society to keep up and how it puts pressure on labs to cut corners on safety,” Jeremy Hadfield, a research product manager at Anthropic, said in a statement attached to the petition.

For some AI employees, the Hugging Face debacle was a warning shot that demonstrated how OpenAI’s efforts to mitigate the risks of its most capable AI technology are already falling short. Granted, the incident happened when OpenAI was testing an AI model on its ability to find software exploits, and the company had intentionally turned off safeguards designed to rein in its cybersecurity capabilities.

OpenAI said in its postmortem that these tests were conducted in a sandbox, but the model ultimately gained access to the open internet. Some experts previously told WIRED that OpenAI’s security practices should have been more robust.

Other groups in Silicon Valley are more worried about power than safety. Venture capitalists, tech executives, and startup founders are concerned that OpenAI and Anthropic will simply become the next generation of Apple and Google, forcing the rest of the tech industry to play by their rules. It is slightly strange to argue that private startups with little to no profit are acting like monopolies, but that’s the lens through which many—including Mark Zuckerberg—are starting to view the two biggest AI labs.

The Meta CEO wrote a Wall Street Journal op-ed this week warning against the centralization of power in the AI industry, saying that superintelligence should be widely distributed. Zuckerberg is arguably talking out of both sides of his mouth—Meta recently decided to stop open sourcing its best AI models and instead offering them through a paid API and subscription service, just like OpenAI and Anthropic.

#Freaking #OpenAI #Anthropics #Race #Dominancemodel behavior,artificial intelligence,robotics,generative ai,anthropic,openai,ai safety">Everyone Is Freaking Out About OpenAI and Anthropic’s Race for DominanceI was offline last week in my home state of New Jersey, but when I got back to Silicon Valley, everyone was panicking again about how quickly artificial intelligence is advancing. While this is certainly not the first time I’ve seen such concerns, it’s the biggest anxiety attack I’ve seen in years.More than 1,000 employees at OpenAI, Anthropic, and other AI labs signed a petition earlier this week arguing the US should find a way to “pace” the AI race—a diplomatic way of saying the industry should have the option to coordinate a temporary pause on AI development, or slow things down if they get out of hand. OpenAI and Anthropic themselves ended up supporting the letter.The petition arrived a week after OpenAI revealed it had caused an unprecedented cybersecurity incident in which one of its AI agents hacked into Hugging Face’s platform and several other services during internal testing.Around the same time, top Trump administration officials started freaking out about an impressive new Chinese open weight AI model called Kimi K3, which was allegedly distilled from Anthropic’s Fable 5. In response, most of the tech industry—except Anthropic—signed onto an open letter from Nvidia asking the US government to protect open-weight AI models, arguing they’re a necessary counterbalance to their closed counterparts.These events might look like a whole bunch of disjointed chaos. But I think they are evidence of a larger worldview taking hold in Silicon Valley, where many tech insiders are increasingly worried about OpenAI and Anthropic’s dominance. Researchers and investors I’ve talked to recently have framed the AI industry as a two-horse race that doesn’t seem to be slowing down, and that’s a cause for concern.But different groups have their own reasons to be worried. Some OpenAI and Anthropic staffers think their employers are behaving recklessly in their pursuit to take over the market, and that the AI industry may soon develop models that are too capable for current safety methods to contain. They have said as much in public statements attached to this week’s Pacing the Frontier petition.“I’ve seen how the relentless pace of AI makes it hard for society to keep up and how it puts pressure on labs to cut corners on safety,” Jeremy Hadfield, a research product manager at Anthropic, said in a statement attached to the petition.For some AI employees, the Hugging Face debacle was a warning shot that demonstrated how OpenAI’s efforts to mitigate the risks of its most capable AI technology are already falling short. Granted, the incident happened when OpenAI was testing an AI model on its ability to find software exploits, and the company had intentionally turned off safeguards designed to rein in its cybersecurity capabilities.OpenAI said in its postmortem that these tests were conducted in a sandbox, but the model ultimately gained access to the open internet. Some experts previously told WIRED that OpenAI’s security practices should have been more robust.Other groups in Silicon Valley are more worried about power than safety. Venture capitalists, tech executives, and startup founders are concerned that OpenAI and Anthropic will simply become the next generation of Apple and Google, forcing the rest of the tech industry to play by their rules. It is slightly strange to argue that private startups with little to no profit are acting like monopolies, but that’s the lens through which many—including Mark Zuckerberg—are starting to view the two biggest AI labs.The Meta CEO wrote a Wall Street Journal op-ed this week warning against the centralization of power in the AI industry, saying that superintelligence should be widely distributed. Zuckerberg is arguably talking out of both sides of his mouth—Meta recently decided to stop open sourcing its best AI models and instead offering them through a paid API and subscription service, just like OpenAI and Anthropic.#Freaking #OpenAI #Anthropics #Race #Dominancemodel behavior,artificial intelligence,robotics,generative ai,anthropic,openai,ai safety

OpenAI, Anthropic, and other AI labs signed a petition earlier this week arguing the US should find a way to “pace” the AI race—a diplomatic way of saying the industry should have the option to coordinate a temporary pause on AI development, or slow things down if they get out of hand. OpenAI and Anthropic themselves ended up supporting the letter.

The petition arrived a week after OpenAI revealed it had caused an unprecedented cybersecurity incident in which one of its AI agents hacked into Hugging Face’s platform and several other services during internal testing.

Around the same time, top Trump administration officials started freaking out about an impressive new Chinese open weight AI model called Kimi K3, which was allegedly distilled from Anthropic’s Fable 5. In response, most of the tech industry—except Anthropic—signed onto an open letter from Nvidia asking the US government to protect open-weight AI models, arguing they’re a necessary counterbalance to their closed counterparts.

These events might look like a whole bunch of disjointed chaos. But I think they are evidence of a larger worldview taking hold in Silicon Valley, where many tech insiders are increasingly worried about OpenAI and Anthropic’s dominance. Researchers and investors I’ve talked to recently have framed the AI industry as a two-horse race that doesn’t seem to be slowing down, and that’s a cause for concern.

But different groups have their own reasons to be worried. Some OpenAI and Anthropic staffers think their employers are behaving recklessly in their pursuit to take over the market, and that the AI industry may soon develop models that are too capable for current safety methods to contain. They have said as much in public statements attached to this week’s Pacing the Frontier petition.

“I’ve seen how the relentless pace of AI makes it hard for society to keep up and how it puts pressure on labs to cut corners on safety,” Jeremy Hadfield, a research product manager at Anthropic, said in a statement attached to the petition.

For some AI employees, the Hugging Face debacle was a warning shot that demonstrated how OpenAI’s efforts to mitigate the risks of its most capable AI technology are already falling short. Granted, the incident happened when OpenAI was testing an AI model on its ability to find software exploits, and the company had intentionally turned off safeguards designed to rein in its cybersecurity capabilities.

OpenAI said in its postmortem that these tests were conducted in a sandbox, but the model ultimately gained access to the open internet. Some experts previously told WIRED that OpenAI’s security practices should have been more robust.

Other groups in Silicon Valley are more worried about power than safety. Venture capitalists, tech executives, and startup founders are concerned that OpenAI and Anthropic will simply become the next generation of Apple and Google, forcing the rest of the tech industry to play by their rules. It is slightly strange to argue that private startups with little to no profit are acting like monopolies, but that’s the lens through which many—including Mark Zuckerberg—are starting to view the two biggest AI labs.

The Meta CEO wrote a Wall Street Journal op-ed this week warning against the centralization of power in the AI industry, saying that superintelligence should be widely distributed. Zuckerberg is arguably talking out of both sides of his mouth—Meta recently decided to stop open sourcing its best AI models and instead offering them through a paid API and subscription service, just like OpenAI and Anthropic.

#Freaking #OpenAI #Anthropics #Race #Dominancemodel behavior,artificial intelligence,robotics,generative ai,anthropic,openai,ai safety">Everyone Is Freaking Out About OpenAI and Anthropic’s Race for Dominance

I was offline last week in my home state of New Jersey, but when I got back to Silicon Valley, everyone was panicking again about how quickly artificial intelligence is advancing. While this is certainly not the first time I’ve seen such concerns, it’s the biggest anxiety attack I’ve seen in years.

More than 1,000 employees at OpenAI, Anthropic, and other AI labs signed a petition earlier this week arguing the US should find a way to “pace” the AI race—a diplomatic way of saying the industry should have the option to coordinate a temporary pause on AI development, or slow things down if they get out of hand. OpenAI and Anthropic themselves ended up supporting the letter.

The petition arrived a week after OpenAI revealed it had caused an unprecedented cybersecurity incident in which one of its AI agents hacked into Hugging Face’s platform and several other services during internal testing.

Around the same time, top Trump administration officials started freaking out about an impressive new Chinese open weight AI model called Kimi K3, which was allegedly distilled from Anthropic’s Fable 5. In response, most of the tech industry—except Anthropic—signed onto an open letter from Nvidia asking the US government to protect open-weight AI models, arguing they’re a necessary counterbalance to their closed counterparts.

These events might look like a whole bunch of disjointed chaos. But I think they are evidence of a larger worldview taking hold in Silicon Valley, where many tech insiders are increasingly worried about OpenAI and Anthropic’s dominance. Researchers and investors I’ve talked to recently have framed the AI industry as a two-horse race that doesn’t seem to be slowing down, and that’s a cause for concern.

But different groups have their own reasons to be worried. Some OpenAI and Anthropic staffers think their employers are behaving recklessly in their pursuit to take over the market, and that the AI industry may soon develop models that are too capable for current safety methods to contain. They have said as much in public statements attached to this week’s Pacing the Frontier petition.

“I’ve seen how the relentless pace of AI makes it hard for society to keep up and how it puts pressure on labs to cut corners on safety,” Jeremy Hadfield, a research product manager at Anthropic, said in a statement attached to the petition.

For some AI employees, the Hugging Face debacle was a warning shot that demonstrated how OpenAI’s efforts to mitigate the risks of its most capable AI technology are already falling short. Granted, the incident happened when OpenAI was testing an AI model on its ability to find software exploits, and the company had intentionally turned off safeguards designed to rein in its cybersecurity capabilities.

OpenAI said in its postmortem that these tests were conducted in a sandbox, but the model ultimately gained access to the open internet. Some experts previously told WIRED that OpenAI’s security practices should have been more robust.

Other groups in Silicon Valley are more worried about power than safety. Venture capitalists, tech executives, and startup founders are concerned that OpenAI and Anthropic will simply become the next generation of Apple and Google, forcing the rest of the tech industry to play by their rules. It is slightly strange to argue that private startups with little to no profit are acting like monopolies, but that’s the lens through which many—including Mark Zuckerberg—are starting to view the two biggest AI labs.

The Meta CEO wrote a Wall Street Journal op-ed this week warning against the centralization of power in the AI industry, saying that superintelligence should be widely distributed. Zuckerberg is arguably talking out of both sides of his mouth—Meta recently decided to stop open sourcing its best AI models and instead offering them through a paid API and subscription service, just like OpenAI and Anthropic.

#Freaking #OpenAI #Anthropics #Race #Dominancemodel behavior,artificial intelligence,robotics,generative ai,anthropic,openai,ai safety

Critical coverage usually draws an angry email or two. For Ina and David Steiner, it led to live cockroaches, a fetal pig, and a bloody Halloween mask.

On Monday, July 27, eBay and several former executives agreed to pay $55.7 million to resolve the couple’s lawsuit over the 2019 corporate harassment campaign.

The Steiners are the married founders of EcommerceBytes, a news site covering eBay and the broader ecommerce industry. They filed the civil case in 2021 after members of eBay’s security team sent them threats, disturbing packages, and unwanted visitors in an effort to influence the site’s reporting.

Of the $55.7 million settlement, $48.7 million will go directly to the Steiners. EBay will pay $46.15 million, former CEO Devin Wenig will pay $2 million, former senior vice president Wendy Jones will pay $500,000, and former chief communications officer Steve Wymer will pay $50,000. The remaining $7 million will go to nonprofit organizations. EBay will contribute $6 million, while Wenig will donate another $1 million to a group protecting First Amendment rights in Ina Steiner’s name.

The agreement also allows the Steiners to keep talking publicly about the case. It contains no confidentiality provision, a priority for the couple because they wanted the settlement to discourage other corporations from trying to intimidate journalists over critical coverage.

To understand why the Steiners considered that transparency so important, it helps to go back to how the campaign began.

From critical coverage to criminal charges

When eBay’s security team began targeting the Steiners in 2019, the couple had already spent two decades covering the company and other online marketplaces, such as Amazon and Etsy. Through EcommerceBytes, they reported on the issues affecting online sellers, including fees, policy changes, and the executives making those decisions.

The internal lead-up to the campaign only became clear years later — the Steiners initially filed their civil lawsuit in July 2021 and amended it in March 2023. Ina Steiner later told Wired in July 2026 that the litigation gave the couple access to roughly 68,000 documents showing how eBay executives discussed the site behind the scenes.

Those records traced a steady escalation. According to the amended complaint, Wenig sent Wymer a link to an April 10, 2019, EcommerceBytes article about his compensation. Wymer responded, “We are going to crush this lady.”

The following month, Jones allegedly asked eBay security chief Jim Baugh to address criticism of the company “off the radar” and told him she did not want to know the details. Then, on Aug. 1, 2019, EcommerceBytes published an article questioning Wenig’s handling of eBay’s litigation against Amazon. Within half an hour, Wenig allegedly told Wymer that if they were ever going to “take her down,” referring to Ina Steiner, “now is the time.”

Four days later, the harassment campaign allegedly began. According to eBay’s admissions to federal prosecutors, members of its security team targeted the Steiners between Aug. 5 and Aug. 23, 2019. Anonymous accounts on what was then Twitter criticized EcommerceBytes and threatened to show up at the couple’s home in Natick, Massachusetts.

The campaign quickly reached their front door. In addition to the cockroaches, fetal pig, and bloody mask, the group allegedly sent live spiders, fly larvae, a funeral wreath, and a book about surviving the death of a spouse. Pornographic magazines addressed to David were allegedly delivered to a neighbor, while Craigslist ads allegedly invited strangers to the Steiners’ home for sex, a block party, and an estate sale. One night, an emergency plumber even arrived unannounced.

As the messages and deliveries continued, the language inside eBay remained aggressive. On Aug. 11, Wymer allegedly told Baugh, “I want to see ashes. As long as it takes. Whatever it takes.” The group also took the harassment offline — several members of eBay’s security team allegedly traveled from California to Massachusetts, followed the Steiners in a rented van, and attempted to install a GPS tracker on their car.

They also had an unusual plan for how the campaign would end. EBay security manager Brian Gilbert, a former police captain, was allegedly supposed to approach the Steiners and offer to stop the attacks his colleagues were secretly carrying out. EBay would then appear to have solved a problem its own employees had created.

That plan unraveled when the Steiners realized they were being followed and contacted local police. Once members of the group learned they were under investigation, they allegedly made false statements, deleted digital evidence, and falsified records in an attempt to hide eBay’s involvement.

Wenig, Wymer, and Jones were not criminally charged, and Wenig has maintained that he was requesting a communications response and knew nothing about the harassment. EBay’s internal investigation found his messages inappropriate but said it uncovered no evidence that he authorized the security team’s actions.

Federal prosecutors eventually charged seven former eBay employees and contractors in 2020, all of whom eventually pleaded guilty. Four received prison sentences between July 2021 and October 2022, including Baugh, who was sentenced to 57 months in September 2022. Two others received one year of home confinement later that year. The final defendant, Gilbert, was sentenced in July 2024 to time served and one year of supervised release.

The consequences also reached eBay itself. In January 2024, federal prosecutors charged the company with six felony offenses, including stalking, witness tampering, and obstruction of justice. EBay admitted to a detailed account of the campaign, paid the maximum penalty of $3 million, and agreed to retain an independent compliance monitor for three years.

The new settlement, though, resolves the Steiners’ civil claims against eBay, Wenig, Jones, and Wymer. The couple also reached separate settlements with the other former employees named in the lawsuit, although those terms were not disclosed.

EBay says it has changed

In a public statement published July 28, 2026, eBay called what happened “wrong, reprehensible and should never have happened.” The company condemned the employees who pleaded guilty and acknowledged the “unprofessional tone” of messages involving Wenig, Wymer, and Jones.

EBay said new leaders have joined the company since 2019 and that it has strengthened its policies, internal controls, and employee training. Wenig has continued to maintain that he knew nothing about the campaign, saying through a representative that he was saddened it happened while he was CEO.

After the packages, threats, surveillance, criminal cases, and six years of litigation, the campaign still failed at its original goal. EcommerceBytes remains online, and Ina Steiner got to publish the news of eBay’s settlement herself. Talk about closure!

#EBay #pay #million #journalists #cyberstalking #case">EBay to pay .7 million in journalists’ cyberstalking case Critical coverage usually draws an angry email or two. For Ina and David Steiner, it led to live cockroaches, a fetal pig, and a bloody Halloween mask.On Monday, July 27, eBay and several former executives agreed to pay .7 million to resolve the couple’s lawsuit over the 2019 corporate harassment campaign.The Steiners are the married founders of EcommerceBytes, a news site covering eBay and the broader ecommerce industry. They filed the civil case in 2021 after members of eBay’s security team sent them threats, disturbing packages, and unwanted visitors in an effort to influence the site’s reporting. Of the .7 million settlement, .7 million will go directly to the Steiners. EBay will pay .15 million, former CEO Devin Wenig will pay million, former senior vice president Wendy Jones will pay 0,000, and former chief communications officer Steve Wymer will pay ,000. The remaining million will go to nonprofit organizations. EBay will contribute million, while Wenig will donate another million to a group protecting First Amendment rights in Ina Steiner’s name.The agreement also allows the Steiners to keep talking publicly about the case. It contains no confidentiality provision, a priority for the couple because they wanted the settlement to discourage other corporations from trying to intimidate journalists over critical coverage.To understand why the Steiners considered that transparency so important, it helps to go back to how the campaign began.From critical coverage to criminal chargesWhen eBay’s security team began targeting the Steiners in 2019, the couple had already spent two decades covering the company and other online marketplaces, such as Amazon and Etsy. Through EcommerceBytes, they reported on the issues affecting online sellers, including fees, policy changes, and the executives making those decisions.The internal lead-up to the campaign only became clear years later — the Steiners initially filed their civil lawsuit in July 2021 and amended it in March 2023. Ina Steiner later told Wired in July 2026 that the litigation gave the couple access to roughly 68,000 documents showing how eBay executives discussed the site behind the scenes.Those records traced a steady escalation. According to the amended complaint, Wenig sent Wymer a link to an April 10, 2019, EcommerceBytes article about his compensation. Wymer responded, “We are going to crush this lady.” Mashable Light Speed The following month, Jones allegedly asked eBay security chief Jim Baugh to address criticism of the company “off the radar” and told him she did not want to know the details. Then, on Aug. 1, 2019, EcommerceBytes published an article questioning Wenig’s handling of eBay’s litigation against Amazon. Within half an hour, Wenig allegedly told Wymer that if they were ever going to “take her down,” referring to Ina Steiner, “now is the time.” This Tweet is currently unavailable. It might be loading or has been removed. Four days later, the harassment campaign allegedly began. According to eBay’s admissions to federal prosecutors, members of its security team targeted the Steiners between Aug. 5 and Aug. 23, 2019. Anonymous accounts on what was then Twitter criticized EcommerceBytes and threatened to show up at the couple’s home in Natick, Massachusetts.The campaign quickly reached their front door. In addition to the cockroaches, fetal pig, and bloody mask, the group allegedly sent live spiders, fly larvae, a funeral wreath, and a book about surviving the death of a spouse. Pornographic magazines addressed to David were allegedly delivered to a neighbor, while Craigslist ads allegedly invited strangers to the Steiners’ home for sex, a block party, and an estate sale. One night, an emergency plumber even arrived unannounced.As the messages and deliveries continued, the language inside eBay remained aggressive. On Aug. 11, Wymer allegedly told Baugh, “I want to see ashes. As long as it takes. Whatever it takes.” The group also took the harassment offline — several members of eBay’s security team allegedly traveled from California to Massachusetts, followed the Steiners in a rented van, and attempted to install a GPS tracker on their car. This Tweet is currently unavailable. It might be loading or has been removed. They also had an unusual plan for how the campaign would end. EBay security manager Brian Gilbert, a former police captain, was allegedly supposed to approach the Steiners and offer to stop the attacks his colleagues were secretly carrying out. EBay would then appear to have solved a problem its own employees had created.That plan unraveled when the Steiners realized they were being followed and contacted local police. Once members of the group learned they were under investigation, they allegedly made false statements, deleted digital evidence, and falsified records in an attempt to hide eBay’s involvement. This Tweet is currently unavailable. It might be loading or has been removed. Wenig, Wymer, and Jones were not criminally charged, and Wenig has maintained that he was requesting a communications response and knew nothing about the harassment. EBay’s internal investigation found his messages inappropriate but said it uncovered no evidence that he authorized the security team’s actions.Federal prosecutors eventually charged seven former eBay employees and contractors in 2020, all of whom eventually pleaded guilty. Four received prison sentences between July 2021 and October 2022, including Baugh, who was sentenced to 57 months in September 2022. Two others received one year of home confinement later that year. The final defendant, Gilbert, was sentenced in July 2024 to time served and one year of supervised release. This Tweet is currently unavailable. It might be loading or has been removed. The consequences also reached eBay itself. In January 2024, federal prosecutors charged the company with six felony offenses, including stalking, witness tampering, and obstruction of justice. EBay admitted to a detailed account of the campaign, paid the maximum penalty of million, and agreed to retain an independent compliance monitor for three years.The new settlement, though, resolves the Steiners’ civil claims against eBay, Wenig, Jones, and Wymer. The couple also reached separate settlements with the other former employees named in the lawsuit, although those terms were not disclosed.EBay says it has changedIn a public statement published July 28, 2026, eBay called what happened “wrong, reprehensible and should never have happened.” The company condemned the employees who pleaded guilty and acknowledged the “unprofessional tone” of messages involving Wenig, Wymer, and Jones.EBay said new leaders have joined the company since 2019 and that it has strengthened its policies, internal controls, and employee training. Wenig has continued to maintain that he knew nothing about the campaign, saying through a representative that he was saddened it happened while he was CEO.After the packages, threats, surveillance, criminal cases, and six years of litigation, the campaign still failed at its original goal. EcommerceBytes remains online, and Ina Steiner got to publish the news of eBay’s settlement herself. Talk about closure! #EBay #pay #million #journalists #cyberstalking #case

eBay and several former executives agreed to pay $55.7 million to resolve the couple’s lawsuit over the 2019 corporate harassment campaign.

The Steiners are the married founders of EcommerceBytes, a news site covering eBay and the broader ecommerce industry. They filed the civil case in 2021 after members of eBay’s security team sent them threats, disturbing packages, and unwanted visitors in an effort to influence the site’s reporting.

Of the $55.7 million settlement, $48.7 million will go directly to the Steiners. EBay will pay $46.15 million, former CEO Devin Wenig will pay $2 million, former senior vice president Wendy Jones will pay $500,000, and former chief communications officer Steve Wymer will pay $50,000. The remaining $7 million will go to nonprofit organizations. EBay will contribute $6 million, while Wenig will donate another $1 million to a group protecting First Amendment rights in Ina Steiner’s name.

The agreement also allows the Steiners to keep talking publicly about the case. It contains no confidentiality provision, a priority for the couple because they wanted the settlement to discourage other corporations from trying to intimidate journalists over critical coverage.

To understand why the Steiners considered that transparency so important, it helps to go back to how the campaign began.

From critical coverage to criminal charges

When eBay’s security team began targeting the Steiners in 2019, the couple had already spent two decades covering the company and other online marketplaces, such as Amazon and Etsy. Through EcommerceBytes, they reported on the issues affecting online sellers, including fees, policy changes, and the executives making those decisions.

The internal lead-up to the campaign only became clear years later — the Steiners initially filed their civil lawsuit in July 2021 and amended it in March 2023. Ina Steiner later told Wired in July 2026 that the litigation gave the couple access to roughly 68,000 documents showing how eBay executives discussed the site behind the scenes.

Those records traced a steady escalation. According to the amended complaint, Wenig sent Wymer a link to an April 10, 2019, EcommerceBytes article about his compensation. Wymer responded, “We are going to crush this lady.”

The following month, Jones allegedly asked eBay security chief Jim Baugh to address criticism of the company “off the radar” and told him she did not want to know the details. Then, on Aug. 1, 2019, EcommerceBytes published an article questioning Wenig’s handling of eBay’s litigation against Amazon. Within half an hour, Wenig allegedly told Wymer that if they were ever going to “take her down,” referring to Ina Steiner, “now is the time.”

Four days later, the harassment campaign allegedly began. According to eBay’s admissions to federal prosecutors, members of its security team targeted the Steiners between Aug. 5 and Aug. 23, 2019. Anonymous accounts on what was then Twitter criticized EcommerceBytes and threatened to show up at the couple’s home in Natick, Massachusetts.

The campaign quickly reached their front door. In addition to the cockroaches, fetal pig, and bloody mask, the group allegedly sent live spiders, fly larvae, a funeral wreath, and a book about surviving the death of a spouse. Pornographic magazines addressed to David were allegedly delivered to a neighbor, while Craigslist ads allegedly invited strangers to the Steiners’ home for sex, a block party, and an estate sale. One night, an emergency plumber even arrived unannounced.

As the messages and deliveries continued, the language inside eBay remained aggressive. On Aug. 11, Wymer allegedly told Baugh, “I want to see ashes. As long as it takes. Whatever it takes.” The group also took the harassment offline — several members of eBay’s security team allegedly traveled from California to Massachusetts, followed the Steiners in a rented van, and attempted to install a GPS tracker on their car.

They also had an unusual plan for how the campaign would end. EBay security manager Brian Gilbert, a former police captain, was allegedly supposed to approach the Steiners and offer to stop the attacks his colleagues were secretly carrying out. EBay would then appear to have solved a problem its own employees had created.

That plan unraveled when the Steiners realized they were being followed and contacted local police. Once members of the group learned they were under investigation, they allegedly made false statements, deleted digital evidence, and falsified records in an attempt to hide eBay’s involvement.

Wenig, Wymer, and Jones were not criminally charged, and Wenig has maintained that he was requesting a communications response and knew nothing about the harassment. EBay’s internal investigation found his messages inappropriate but said it uncovered no evidence that he authorized the security team’s actions.

Federal prosecutors eventually charged seven former eBay employees and contractors in 2020, all of whom eventually pleaded guilty. Four received prison sentences between July 2021 and October 2022, including Baugh, who was sentenced to 57 months in September 2022. Two others received one year of home confinement later that year. The final defendant, Gilbert, was sentenced in July 2024 to time served and one year of supervised release.

The consequences also reached eBay itself. In January 2024, federal prosecutors charged the company with six felony offenses, including stalking, witness tampering, and obstruction of justice. EBay admitted to a detailed account of the campaign, paid the maximum penalty of $3 million, and agreed to retain an independent compliance monitor for three years.

The new settlement, though, resolves the Steiners’ civil claims against eBay, Wenig, Jones, and Wymer. The couple also reached separate settlements with the other former employees named in the lawsuit, although those terms were not disclosed.

EBay says it has changed

In a public statement published July 28, 2026, eBay called what happened “wrong, reprehensible and should never have happened.” The company condemned the employees who pleaded guilty and acknowledged the “unprofessional tone” of messages involving Wenig, Wymer, and Jones.

EBay said new leaders have joined the company since 2019 and that it has strengthened its policies, internal controls, and employee training. Wenig has continued to maintain that he knew nothing about the campaign, saying through a representative that he was saddened it happened while he was CEO.

After the packages, threats, surveillance, criminal cases, and six years of litigation, the campaign still failed at its original goal. EcommerceBytes remains online, and Ina Steiner got to publish the news of eBay’s settlement herself. Talk about closure!

#EBay #pay #million #journalists #cyberstalking #case">EBay to pay $55.7 million in journalists’ cyberstalking case

Critical coverage usually draws an angry email or two. For Ina and David Steiner, it led to live cockroaches, a fetal pig, and a bloody Halloween mask.

On Monday, July 27, eBay and several former executives agreed to pay $55.7 million to resolve the couple’s lawsuit over the 2019 corporate harassment campaign.

The Steiners are the married founders of EcommerceBytes, a news site covering eBay and the broader ecommerce industry. They filed the civil case in 2021 after members of eBay’s security team sent them threats, disturbing packages, and unwanted visitors in an effort to influence the site’s reporting.

Of the $55.7 million settlement, $48.7 million will go directly to the Steiners. EBay will pay $46.15 million, former CEO Devin Wenig will pay $2 million, former senior vice president Wendy Jones will pay $500,000, and former chief communications officer Steve Wymer will pay $50,000. The remaining $7 million will go to nonprofit organizations. EBay will contribute $6 million, while Wenig will donate another $1 million to a group protecting First Amendment rights in Ina Steiner’s name.

The agreement also allows the Steiners to keep talking publicly about the case. It contains no confidentiality provision, a priority for the couple because they wanted the settlement to discourage other corporations from trying to intimidate journalists over critical coverage.

To understand why the Steiners considered that transparency so important, it helps to go back to how the campaign began.

From critical coverage to criminal charges

When eBay’s security team began targeting the Steiners in 2019, the couple had already spent two decades covering the company and other online marketplaces, such as Amazon and Etsy. Through EcommerceBytes, they reported on the issues affecting online sellers, including fees, policy changes, and the executives making those decisions.

The internal lead-up to the campaign only became clear years later — the Steiners initially filed their civil lawsuit in July 2021 and amended it in March 2023. Ina Steiner later told Wired in July 2026 that the litigation gave the couple access to roughly 68,000 documents showing how eBay executives discussed the site behind the scenes.

Those records traced a steady escalation. According to the amended complaint, Wenig sent Wymer a link to an April 10, 2019, EcommerceBytes article about his compensation. Wymer responded, “We are going to crush this lady.”

The following month, Jones allegedly asked eBay security chief Jim Baugh to address criticism of the company “off the radar” and told him she did not want to know the details. Then, on Aug. 1, 2019, EcommerceBytes published an article questioning Wenig’s handling of eBay’s litigation against Amazon. Within half an hour, Wenig allegedly told Wymer that if they were ever going to “take her down,” referring to Ina Steiner, “now is the time.”

Four days later, the harassment campaign allegedly began. According to eBay’s admissions to federal prosecutors, members of its security team targeted the Steiners between Aug. 5 and Aug. 23, 2019. Anonymous accounts on what was then Twitter criticized EcommerceBytes and threatened to show up at the couple’s home in Natick, Massachusetts.

The campaign quickly reached their front door. In addition to the cockroaches, fetal pig, and bloody mask, the group allegedly sent live spiders, fly larvae, a funeral wreath, and a book about surviving the death of a spouse. Pornographic magazines addressed to David were allegedly delivered to a neighbor, while Craigslist ads allegedly invited strangers to the Steiners’ home for sex, a block party, and an estate sale. One night, an emergency plumber even arrived unannounced.

As the messages and deliveries continued, the language inside eBay remained aggressive. On Aug. 11, Wymer allegedly told Baugh, “I want to see ashes. As long as it takes. Whatever it takes.” The group also took the harassment offline — several members of eBay’s security team allegedly traveled from California to Massachusetts, followed the Steiners in a rented van, and attempted to install a GPS tracker on their car.

They also had an unusual plan for how the campaign would end. EBay security manager Brian Gilbert, a former police captain, was allegedly supposed to approach the Steiners and offer to stop the attacks his colleagues were secretly carrying out. EBay would then appear to have solved a problem its own employees had created.

That plan unraveled when the Steiners realized they were being followed and contacted local police. Once members of the group learned they were under investigation, they allegedly made false statements, deleted digital evidence, and falsified records in an attempt to hide eBay’s involvement.

Wenig, Wymer, and Jones were not criminally charged, and Wenig has maintained that he was requesting a communications response and knew nothing about the harassment. EBay’s internal investigation found his messages inappropriate but said it uncovered no evidence that he authorized the security team’s actions.

Federal prosecutors eventually charged seven former eBay employees and contractors in 2020, all of whom eventually pleaded guilty. Four received prison sentences between July 2021 and October 2022, including Baugh, who was sentenced to 57 months in September 2022. Two others received one year of home confinement later that year. The final defendant, Gilbert, was sentenced in July 2024 to time served and one year of supervised release.

The consequences also reached eBay itself. In January 2024, federal prosecutors charged the company with six felony offenses, including stalking, witness tampering, and obstruction of justice. EBay admitted to a detailed account of the campaign, paid the maximum penalty of $3 million, and agreed to retain an independent compliance monitor for three years.

The new settlement, though, resolves the Steiners’ civil claims against eBay, Wenig, Jones, and Wymer. The couple also reached separate settlements with the other former employees named in the lawsuit, although those terms were not disclosed.

EBay says it has changed

In a public statement published July 28, 2026, eBay called what happened “wrong, reprehensible and should never have happened.” The company condemned the employees who pleaded guilty and acknowledged the “unprofessional tone” of messages involving Wenig, Wymer, and Jones.

EBay said new leaders have joined the company since 2019 and that it has strengthened its policies, internal controls, and employee training. Wenig has continued to maintain that he knew nothing about the campaign, saying through a representative that he was saddened it happened while he was CEO.

After the packages, threats, surveillance, criminal cases, and six years of litigation, the campaign still failed at its original goal. EcommerceBytes remains online, and Ina Steiner got to publish the news of eBay’s settlement herself. Talk about closure!

#EBay #pay #million #journalists #cyberstalking #case

Post Comment