Conversations about smartwatches recently took an unexpected turn. People who already own one, as well as those who are new to the scene, generally agree that the Apple Watch SE 3,priced at $219 (was $249), is a reliable model that does not break the bank or overcomplicate matters.

The S10 chip featured in higher-end watches easily performs all of the regular duties including as apps, notifications, and voice commands, ensuring rapid replies whether you’re reading your messages or starting a workout. Because processing occurs directly on the watch, you can still use Siri to get answers to quick questions like the weather or your reminders while offline, and gestures like double tapping or a flick of the wrist allow you to answer calls or scroll through apps with one hand free as needed.

Sale

Apple Watch SE 3 [GPS 40mm] Smartwatch with Midnight Aluminum Case with Midnight Sport Band – S/M…

• HEALTH ESSENTIALS — Temperature sensing enables richer insights in the Vitals app* and retrospective ovulation estimates.* You’ll also get a daily…
• GREAT BATTERY LIFE — Enjoy all-day, 18-hour battery life. Then charge up to twice as fast as SE 2* and get up to 8 hours of battery in just…
• ALWAYS-ON DISPLAY — Now you can read the time and see the watch face without raising your wrist to wake the display.

Glances become completely effortless with this device because the display remains active while dimming its brightness just enough to save battery. You can quickly check the time, weather, and what’s on your calendar without having to raise your wrist every five seconds, which is a huge advantage during meetings or lengthy hikes. The display itself is no slouch, as it can remain bright enough to see clearly outside, and the glass is far more scratch resistant than previous entry-level models.

The health monitoring runs quietly in the background without demanding your attention. Heart rate is tracked continuously with alerts for anything unusual, sleep tracking now delivers nightly scores with breathing pause detection, and wrist temperature data helps with cycle estimation over time. A daily vitals summary pulls all of your trends together in one place so you are never hunting through multiple screens for answers. Everything surfaces when it is relevant and stays out of the way when it is not.

Fitness tracking is equally straightforward. Built in GPS logs runs and bike rides accurately, activity rings update in real time so you always know where you stand against your daily goals, and swim tracking holds up well in the pool. Workout suggestions are tailored to your history, making the SE 3 a genuinely practical companion for anyone looking to move more or build a consistent routine without wading through complicated menus or investing in dedicated gear.

Battery life just plain holds up through a typical day of use – with notifications, workouts, and the occasional call. You can top off the charge in about 15 minutes and get a few hours of life out of it. And when you need to really stretch it out, theres low power mode to fall back on – but more often than not you’ll still have plenty left over when the day winds down, so you dont have to worry about it running out mid-afternoon.

The world’s top AI research conference, the Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems—better known as NeurIPS—became the latest organization this week to become embroiled in a growing clash between geopolitics and global scientific collaboration. The conference’s organizers announced and then quickly reversed controversial new restrictions for international participants after Chinese AI researchers threatened to boycott the event.

“This is a potential watershed moment,” says Paul Triolo, a partner at the advisory firm DGA-Albright Stonebridge who studies US-China relations. Triolo argues that attracting Chinese researchers to NeurIPS is beneficial to US interests, but some American officials have pushed for American and Chinese scientists to decouple their work—especially in AI, which has become a particularly sensitive topic in Washington.

The incident could deepen political tensions around AI research, as well as dissuade Chinese scientists from working at US universities and tech companies in the future. “At some level now it is going to be hard to keep basic AI research out of the [political] picture,” Triolo says.

In its annual handbook for paper submissions, issued in mid-March, NeurIPS organizers announced updated restrictions for participation. The rules stated that the event could not provide services including “peer review, editing, and publishing” to any organizations subject to US sanctions, and linked to a database of sanctioned entities. It included companies and organizations on the Bureau of Industry and Security’s entity list and those on another list with alleged ties to the Chinese military.

The new rules would have affected researchers at Chinese companies like Tencent and Huawei who regularly present work at NeurIPS. The database also includes entities from other countries such as Russia and Iran. The US places limits on doing business with these organizations, but there are no rules around academic publishing or conference participation.

The NeurIPS handbook has since been updated to specify that the restrictions apply only to Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons, a list used primarily for terrorist groups and criminal organizations.

“In preparing the NeurIPS 2026 handbook, we included a link to a US government sanctions tool that covers a significantly broader set of restrictions than those NeurIPS is actually required to follow,” the event’s organizers said in a statement issued Friday. “This error was due to miscommunication between the NeurIPS Foundation and our legal team.”

Before they reversed course, the conference organizers initially said that the new rule was “about legal requirements that apply to the NeurIPS Foundation, which is responsible for complying with sanctions,” adding that it was seeking legal consultation on the issue.

Immediate Backlash

The new rule drew swift backlash from AI researchers around the world, particularly in China, which produces a large quantity of cutting-edge machine learning papers and is home to a growing share of the world’s top AI talent. Several academic groups there issued statements condemning the measure and, more importantly, discouraging Chinese academics from attending NeurIPS in the future. Some urged Chinese academics to contribute instead to domestic research conferences, potentially helping increase the country’s influence in relevant science and tech fields.

The China Association of Science and Technology (CAST), an influential government-affiliated organization for scientists and engineers, said Thursday that it would stop providing funding for Chinese scholars traveling to attend NeurIPS and would use the money instead to support domestic and international conferences that “respect the rights of Chinese scholars.”

CAST also said it will no longer count publications at the 2026 NeurIPS conference as academic achievements when evaluating future research funding. It’s unclear if the organization will reverse course now that NeurIPS has walked back the new rule.

SoftBank has taken on a new $40 billion loan to help it cover its $30 billion commitment to invest in OpenAI as part of the AI model maker’s record-breaking $110 billion raise last month, the Japanese conglomerate said on Friday.

Most striking is that the loan is unsecured and has a 12-month term, meaning it must be repaid or refinanced by next year. This could be a signal that the lenders believe OpenAI’s highly anticipated public listing will indeed come later this year, as some outlets, like CNBC, have reported. The loan is provided by JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, and four Japanese banks.

Since OpenAI’s IPO is bound to be one of the largest listings ever, if it does happen this year, that would presumably give SoftBank the liquidity to settle the debt in such a short time span. SoftBank’s new $30 billion investment in OpenAI brings its total bet on ChatGPT’s maker to over $60 billion.

from the yet-another-unanticipated-defense dept

The expression, “to make a federal case out of something” usually describes making a bigger deal out of something than it should be. But in the case of Anthropic and Hegseth, Trump, and the Department of Defense*, this federal case is actually quite simple: what the government defendants did to Anthropic is beyond the bounds of anything the law or Constitution would allow. It didn’t require some complicated analytical parsing to see the problem with the Administration’s behavior, and the remedy is straightfoward: there’s now an injunction depriving that behavior of any effect (albeit stayed for seven days).

But the government is only restrained as to what it did that was actually illegal. Importantly, the injunction clarifies that to the extent that the government could lawfully stop working with Anthropic, it remained fully able to divorce itself. From the full paragraph on the last page of the preliminary injunction order itself articulating what has been restrained:

This Order restores the status quo. It does not bar any Defendant from taking any lawful action that would have been available to it on February 27, 2026, prior to the issuances of the Presidential Directive and the Hegseth Directive and entry of the Supply Chain Designation. For example, this Order does not require the Department of War to use Anthropic’s products or services and does not prevent the Department of War from transitioning to other artificial intelligence providers, so long as those actions are consistent with applicable regulations, statutes, and constitutional provisions.

As the decision justifying the injunction explains, this case wasn’t about whether and how DOD could use Anthropic and whether Anthropic could have a say in how it was used, which was the issue underpinning the contract dispute between the two. Had it been, then the DOD could have simply walked away from the product. The problem is that the government didn’t just stop doing business with Anthropic; it went further, and it is those actions that broke the law.

The question here is whether the government violated the law when it went further. After Anthropic went public with its disagreement with the Department of War, Defendants reacted with three significant measures that are the subject of this lawsuit. First, the President announced that every federal agency (not just the Department of War) would immediately ban Anthropic from ever having another government contract. That would include, for example, the National Endowment for the Arts using Claude to design its website. Second, Secretary Hegseth announced that anyone who wants to do business with the U.S. military must sever any commercial relationship with Anthropic. That would mean a company that used Claude to power its customer service chatbot could not serve as a defense contractor. Third, the Department of War designated Anthropic a “supply chain risk,” a label that applies to adversaries of the U.S. government who may sabotage its technology systems. That designation has never been applied to a domestic company and is directed principally at foreign intelligence agencies, terrorists, and other hostile actors. [p.1-2]

And the court counts several ways that the government’s actions were likely illegal. At minimum, Anthropic suffered a due process violation for not having notice and an opportunity to respond to the government’s sudden supply chain risk designation, which threatened a cognizable liberty interest the Fifth Amendment protects. (“The record shows that the Challenged Actions threaten to cripple Anthropic by not only stripping it of billions of dollars in federal contracts and subcontracts but also by labeling it as an adversary to the United States and ending its ability to have any commercial relationship with any company that might want to do business with DoW.”) [fuller analysis p.24-29]

The “supply chain risk” designation was also likely “both contrary to law and arbitrary and capricious.” On the first point, there are two statutory paths for designating a vendor a supply chain risk, and this case addressed just one of them—the other will be addressed by the DC Circuit. But it found the government’s claim it was using the statutory authority properly to be wanting: First, Anthropic’s conduct did not meet the statutory definition of a supply chain risk.

On the record before the Court, Anthropic’s conduct does not appear to be within the definition of “supply chain risk” in Section 3252. Section 3252 defines a supply chain risk as limited to “the risk that an adversary may sabotage, maliciously introduce unwanted function, or otherwise subvert . . . a covered system.” 10 U.S.C. § 3252(d)(4). Assuming without deciding that a domestic company can be an “adversary,” the plain text of the statute is directed at covert acts or hacks, not overt positions taken during contract negotiations. Indeed, it is difficult to understand how one could sabotage, maliciously introduce an unwanted function, or subvert an information technology system by publicly announcing usage restrictions or insisting on such restrictions in conversations with DoW. Defendants appear to be taking the position that any vendor who “push[es] back” on or “question[s]” DoW becomes its “adversary.” (Dkt. No. 128 at 41.) That position is deeply troubling and inconsistent with the statutory text. [p.30-32]

And second, those procedural rules the government blew off to invoke the statute, such as the need to notify Congress first, actually mattered. Despite what the government argued at oral argument, that the Congressional notification requirements were only for the benefit of Congress, the court found that they were important safeguards Congress had built into the statute to prevent its abuse and therefore non-optional. (“Section 3252 and its enabling regulations create institutional safeguards—which the Secretary must complete before making a designation—to ensure that its designation is applied properly. The Supply Chain Designation failed to comply with these mandated procedural safeguards.”) [see analysis p.32-34].

In addition, the designation itself was likely arbitrary and capricious. As the court noted early in its decision (emphasis added):

The Department of War provides no legitimate basis to infer from Anthropic’s forthright insistence on usage restrictions that it might become a saboteur. At oral argument, government counsel suggested that Anthropic showed its subversive tendencies by “questioning” the use of its technology, “raising concerns” about it, and criticizing the government’s position in the press. Nothing in the governing statute supports the Orwellian notion that an American company may be branded a potential adversary and saboteur of the U.S. for expressing disagreement with the government.[p. 2; further analysis p.35-37 (“In sum, the contradictory positions, the procedural defects, and the rushed process following a public declaration of the foreordained conclusion all indicate that the actions were arbitrary and capricious.”)]

And then there is the problem at the heart of the matter: that it appears the government is trying to punish Anthropic for daring to criticize it, and that sort of retaliation for speech violates the First Amendment.

The record supports an inference that Anthropic is being punished for criticizing the government’s contracting position in the press. In their announcements, the President and Secretary Hegseth called Anthropic “out of control” and “arrogant,” describing its “sanctimonious rhetoric” as an attempt to “strong-arm” the government. The Department of War’s records show that it designated Anthropic as a supply chain risk because of its “hostile manner through the press.” Punishing Anthropic for bringing public scrutiny to the government’s contracting position is classic illegal First Amendment retaliation. [p.2]

And it violates the First Amendment not only by impinging on Anthropic’s right to speak, but everyone else, who is now deterred from speaking out as well, even on matters of public concern like ethical use of AI, given that the government is now inflicting consequences on those who speak in ways it doesn’t like. To the court, the government’s action looks clearly retaliatory. (“The record shows that Defendants’ conduct appears to be driven not by a desire to maintain operational control when using AI in the military but by a desire to make an example of Anthropic for its public stance on the weighty issues at stake in the contracting dispute.”) [p.19]. A retaliation claim can succeed when (1) the plaintiff was engaged in constitutionally protected activity, (2) the defendant’s actions would “chill a person of ordinary firmness” from continuing to engage in the protected activity, and (3) the protected activity was a substantial motivating factor in the defendant’s conduct—in other words, that what the defendant did was intended to chill speech, and here the court found all these prongs met. [p.20].

On the first, Anthropic was publicly staking out a position on what deployments of Claude are currently unsafe and what rights Anthropic has to allow Claude’s use by the government only with certain safety restrictions, which the court found to be a matter of public concern and thus protected by the First Amendment. (“[T]he record shows that Anthropic and its CEO, Dario Amodei, are a loud and influential voice regarding the capabilities, risks, and safe uses of AI technology.”) [p.20]. As to the second, there was plenty of evidence of speech being chilled:

Anthropic has submitted evidence that the Challenged Actions threaten to cripple the company and chill public debate. See supra Section II.G. Several amicus briefs support this conclusion. A group of 37 individuals working on AI technology assert that the Challenged Actions “chill[] professional debate on the benefits and risks of frontier AI systems and various ways that risks can be addressed to optimize the technology’s deployment.” (Dkt. No. 24-1 at 8.) An industry group of “values-led investors” warns that the Challenged Actions chill speech necessary to allow them to direct their investments to support the “principles and values” they care about. (Dkt. No. 77-1 at 12.) In short, the Challenged Actions easily qualify as ones which would chill a person of ordinary firmness from continuing to engage in further protected speech amici in the case showed how everyone’s speech was being chilled by what the government had done.[p.21]

And as for the third, the government’s behavior clearly resulted from displeasure with Anthropic’s views and the desire to relinquish them.

Secretary Hegseth expressly tied Anthropic’s punishment to its attitude and rhetoric in the press. He stated that “Anthropic delivered a master class in arrogance.” (Dkt. No. 6-21 at 2.) Referring to Anthropic and Amodei, he further stated: “Cloaked in the sanctimonious rhetoric of ‘effective altruism,’ they have attempted to strong-arm the United States military” through their “corporate virtue-signaling” and “Silicon Valley ideology.” (Id.) “Anthropic’s stance is fundamentally incompatible with American principles.” (Id.) The President described Anthropic as “radical left, woke company” and its employees as “leftwing nut jobs,” who “made a DISASTROUS MISTAKE trying to STRONG-ARM the Department of War.” (Dkt. No. 6-20 at 2.) Read in context of these repeated references to rhetoric and ideology, the term “strong-arm” in the Presidential Directive and the Hegseth Directive appears to be characterizing Anthropic as applying public pressure. […] These specific references to Anthropic’s viewpoint and public stance are direct evidence of what motivated Defendants’ decision-making.[p.21-22]

And the government’s defense—that Anthropic’s “contracting position” is conduct, not speech entitled to First Amendment protection, and that Anthropic’s refusal to accept DOD’s terms was what prompted the government’s actions—was unavailing.

First, without reaching the question of whether private contract negotiations alone could constitute protected activity under the First Amendment, the record shows that Anthropic engaged in protected speech when it took public the parties’ contracting impasse and the reasons behind its refusal to agree to DoW’s terms. (See, e.g., Dkt. Nos. 6-7, 6-18.) As already explained, Anthropic’s views on this matter fall within the heart of what the First Amendment protects: “subject[s] of general interest and of value and concern to the public” and “of legitimate news interests.” See Snyder, 562 U.S. at 452–53 (citation omitted). Therefore, to the extent Anthropic publicly discussed its “contracting position,” that speech is protected by the First Amendment.

Next, Defendants argue that even if Anthropic’s public statements constitute protected speech, the contract dispute—not Anthropic’s speech—was the motive and “but for” cause of the Challenged Actions. (Dkt. No. 96 at 22–24.) They point out that although Anthropic and Amodei have long advocated for AI safety, Defendants took the Challenged Actions only after Anthropic refused to remove its usage restrictions. But Defendants’ own actions belie the notion that Anthropic’s contracting position is what drove the Challenged Actions. Anthropic had imposed its usage restrictions from the beginning of DoW’s use of Claude Gov, and no one had ever suggested that this indicated that Anthropic was untrustworthy or a potential saboteur. To the contrary, Anthropic passed extensive vetting at that time and was praised by the government, which had made arrangements to expand the company’s role. It was only when Anthropic publicly discussed its dispute with DoW that Defendants criticized its rhetoric and ideology and adopted the punitive measures at issue.[p.22-23]

Throughout the decision the court observes that if the dispute here were just over the contract, then surely the government would have just stopped using Claude. But it didn’t just do that; it did more. And that more is now enjoined. The February 27 Presidential Directive from Trump “ordering all federal agencies to cease use of Anthropic’s technology” is to have no effect, nor is any agency action (by any agency,** not just the DOD), taken in response to it. No one in the Trump Administration (Anthropic had named pretty much every agency as defendants, so that’s basically how it boils down) may “issu[e] or maintain[] any guidance, directive, communication, or instruction to any officer, employee, contractor, or agent, in furtherance of or implementing the Presidential Directive” or “tak[e] any other action to implement, effectuate, or further the purposes of the Presidential Directive.”

Meanwhile, Hegseth and the DOD are also enjoined from “implementing, applying, or enforcing in any manner” what the court referred to as the Hegseth Directive, issued later on February 27, designating Anthropic a “Supply-Chain Risk to National Security” and “directing that no contractor, supplier, or partner doing business with the United States military may conduct commercial activity with Anthropic.” Nor can it implement, apply, or enforce anything in the March 3 letter DOD sent notifying Anthropic of the supply chain designation and the associated determination formalizing that designation under 10 U.S.C. § 3252. Hegseth and the DOD are also enjoined from “[f]rom issuing or maintaining any guidance, directive, communication, or instruction to any officer, employee, contractor, or agent, in furtherance of or implementing the Hegseth Directive or the Supply Chain Designation [and from] taking any other action to implement, effectuate, or further the purposes of the Hegseth Directive or the Supply Chain Designation.”

* No, it’s not the “Department of War” as unfortunately both parties and even the court called it, for reasons that elude. Perhaps Anthropic feared it would pull a Trump-friendly judge and need to speak the Administration’s language in order to be treated fairly, but such was not the case, at least in this piece of the case in the Northern District of California—maybe it will be different in the second piece of the case in the DC Circuit. But it’s not clear why the court had to humor them; it applies law, and the law, as passed by Congress to create, name, and fund the agency, calls it the Department of Defense, with Hegseth having been appointed to a specific job called the “Secretary of Defense.” If Congress wanted it to be called the “Department of War” it could have named it thus, but it found there were tangible policy reasons not to when it in fact changed its name to the DOD instead. It typifies the Trump Administration’s typical indifference to any law that might happen to govern any of its behavior to ignore it and Congress’s authority to pass it by unilaterally trumping Congress’s wishes and rename it, but no one else needs to indulge yet another of their abuses of power by humoring their choice.

** The Executive Office of the President is not bound by the injunction directly, despite being a named defendant. Nevertheless, “[l]ike all other persons, EOP is barred from acting for, with, by, through, or under authority from any enjoined Defendant, or in concert or participation with any enjoined Defendant, in any manner inconsistent with the preliminary injunction order.” [p.42]

Filed Under: 1st amendment, defense department, dod, free speech, pete hegseth, supply chain risk

Companies: anthropic

When to watch the IPL 2026

• The 2026 Indian Premier League season runs from Saturday, March 28, until Sunday, May 31.

Where to watch the IPL 2026

• Indian Premier League matches will air in the US on Willow TV.

73% off with 2yr plan (+4 free months). Now only $3.49/month

See more details

See at Now

Advertisement

Watch the 2026 T20 World Cup in the UK from £15

Now

See at Sky

Watch the Black Caps vs. India live in New Zealand

Advertisement

Sky Sport

Show more (2 items)

The 19th edition of the world’s richest cricket tournament gets underway this weekend, with Virat Kohli’s defending champs Royal Challengers Bengaluru taking on Sunrisers Hyderabad in the opening game of the new Indian Premier League season on Saturday.

Among the big talking points in the run-up to the new campaign is Kolkata Knight Riders’ heavy investment in Cameron Green. The Australian all-rounder became the most expensive overseas signing in IPL history after being bought for $2.7 million by KKR in the 2026 auction. Chennai Super Kings will meanwhile be hoping for a huge improvement after their worst-ever season in 2025, with Ruturaj Gaikwad taking over as captain from MS Dhoni.

The 2026 edition of the IPL also looks set to herald the arrival of a new cricketing superstar, with 15-year-old Vaibhav Suryavanshi widely tipped to shine for Rajasthan Royals.

Elsewhere, the new term brings a slight format change, with a modified group stage where teams now play opponents from their own group once and the opposite group twice.

The 2026 Indian Premier League season starts on Saturday, March 28, with the match between Royal Challengers Bengaluru and Sunrisers Hyderabad, and ends with the final on Sunday, May 31. A full schedule can be found on the official Indian Premier League website. 

How to watch the 2026 IPL season online from anywhere using a VPN

If you’re traveling abroad and want to keep up with the action from the Indian Premier League while away from home, a VPN can help enhance your privacy and security when streaming.   

It encrypts your traffic and prevents your internet service provider from throttling your speeds, and can also be helpful when connecting to public Wi-Fi networks while traveling, adding an extra layer of protection for your devices and logins. VPNs are legal in many countries, including the US and Canada, and can be used for legitimate purposes such as improving online privacy and security.  

However, some streaming services may have policies that restrict VPN use to access region-specific content. If you’re considering a VPN for streaming, check the platform’s terms of service to ensure compliance.   

If you choose to use a VPN, follow the provider’s installation instructions, ensuring you’re connected securely and in compliance with applicable laws and service agreements. Some streaming platforms may block access when a VPN is detected, so verify whether your streaming subscription allows VPN use.  

Advertisement

Price $13 per month, $75 for the first year or $98 total for the first two years (one- and two-year plans renew at $100 per year)Latest Tests No DNS leaks detected, 18% speed loss in 2025 testsJurisdiction British Virgin IslandsNetwork 3,000 plus servers in 105 countries

ExpressVPN is our current best VPN pick for people who want a reliable and safe VPN, and it works on a variety of devices. Prices start at $3.49 a month on a two-year plan for the service’s Basic tier.

Advertisement

Note that ExpressVPN offers a 30-day money-back guarantee.

73% off with 2yr plan (+4 free months). Now only $3.49/month

Livestream the Indian Premier League season in the US and Canada

The 2026 T20 World Cup final is being broadcast live in North America on the cricket streaming service Willow TV.

A direct Willow TV subscription is available in the US for $10 per month or $80 per year, allowing you to watch a wide range of matches from around the world via your browser or the service’s very own app.

The dedicated cricket-streaming service is also available from various cable providers, including Spectrum, Dish and Xfinity as well as OTT providers Sling TV (via its Desi Binge Plus or Dakshin Flex plans) and Fubo (via an add-on).

Advertisement

Livestream the IPL 2026 in India

This year’s IPL is being televised on Star Sports linear channels in India, and can be livestreamed via JioHotstar.

JioHotstar is available in three different tiers. The streaming service’s Mobile plan currently costs Rs 79. The new Super Plan (Ads, 2 Devices, 1080p) will meanwhile set you back Rs 149 per month, while the top tier Premium Plan (Ad-Free, 4 Devices, 4K, Includes Hollywood) is now priced at Rs 299 per month.

Advertisement

Watch the Indian Premier League in the UK

Live coverage of Sunday’s final is exclusive to Sky Sports in the UK and will be broadcast on its Sky Sports cricket channel. If you already have Sky Sports as part of your TV package, you can stream the tournament via its Sky Go app, but cord-cutters will want to set up a Now account and a Now Sports membership to stream the game. 

Sky subsidiary Now offers streaming access to Sky Sports channels with a Now Sports membership. You can get a day of access for £15, or sign up to a monthly plan from £35 per month right now.

Advertisement

Livestream the Indian Premier League in South Africa 

In South Africa, IPL matches are being broadcast live this season on SuperSport. 

If you can’t watch on your TV, you can also watch via the network’s streaming service for PC and Mac, as well as via SuperSport’s mobile app.

Advertisement

Pay TV network SuperSport boasts exclusive live coverage of Indian Premier League matches in South Africa.

The main ways to stream SuperSport is through DStv Stream Premium which currently costs R799 per month.

Stream the Indian Premier League in Australia

Cricket fans Down Under can watch Indian Premier League action on Fox Sports via Foxtel. If you’re not a Fox subscriber, your best option is to sign up for the streaming service Kayo Sports.  

Advertisement

A Kayo Sports subscription starts at AU$30 a month and lets you stream on one screen, while its Premium tier costs AU$46 a month for simultaneous viewing on up to three devices.

The service gives you access to a wide range of sports, including F1, NRL, NFL, NHL and MLB, and there are no lock-in contracts.

Better still, if you’re a new customer, you can take advantage of a one-week Kayo Sports free trial.

Advertisement

Stream the Indian Premier League in New Zealand

Cricket fans in New Zealand looking to cheer on the Black Caps in Sunday’s final will need a subscription to pay-TV broadcaster Sky Sport, which has the broadcast rights to show the T20 World Cup live.

Pay-TV broadcaster Sky Sport will be showing the T20 World Cup final live in New Zealand. That also means you can also watch every game online using the network’s Sky Go streaming service.

Advertisement

Cord-cutters can opt for the online-only Sky Sport Now service, which costs $30 for a weekly pass, $55 for the monthly option, or $550 for a full year of viewing.

Physical Intelligence, the two-year-old San Francisco robotics startup, is in discussions to raise about $1 billion in new funding at a valuation exceeding $11 billion, according to Bloomberg. The deal would effectively double the company’s $5.6 billion valuation in just four months.

Founders Fund is set to participate with Lightspeed Venture Partners also in talks to invest alongside returning backers Thrive Capital and Lux Capital, Bloomberg reported. The deal is still in early stages and details could change, noted the outlet.

TechCrunch visited Physical Intelligence’s headquarters in January, where co-founder Sergey Levine described the company’s ambition simply: “Think of it like ChatGPT, but for robots.” At the time, the company had raised just over $1 billion and employed about 80 people working to build general-purpose AI models that can power robots to perform a wide variety of tasks, from folding laundry to peeling vegetables.

Co-founder Lachy Groom told TechCrunch the company has no timeline for commercialization, an unusual posture that its investors don’t seem to mind. “There’s no limit to how much money we can really put to work,” Groom said. “There’s always more compute you can throw at the problem.”

from the it-was-always-a-shakedown dept

Remember when Elon Musk told advertisers to “go fuck” themselves and then sued them for the crime of taking his advice? A federal judge has now dismissed that lawsuit — with prejudice — confirming what anyone with a passing familiarity with antitrust law already knew: companies deciding they don’t want their brands plastered next to extremist content aren’t engaged in an illegal conspiracy. They’re just making basic (probably pretty smart) business decisions.

When X Corp filed this case back in August of 2024, we walked through in great detail why the legal theory was fundamentally broken. Not broken in a “they pleaded it badly” kind of way, but broken in a “this theory does not describe an antitrust violation no matter how many drugs you’re taking or how convinced you are that the world owes you advertising dollars” kind of way. Judge Jane Boyle of the Northern District of Texas has now agreed, and the key section of her ruling is worth reading in full, because it says what we said at the outset: X has not suffered antitrust injury.

The court laid out the standard, quoting the Fifth Circuit, channeling the Supreme Court, on what counts as an antitrust injury:

The Supreme Court has distilled antitrust injury as being “injury of the type the antitrust laws were intended to prevent and that flows from that which makes defendants’ acts unlawful.” … “The antitrust laws … were enacted for ‘the protection of competition not competitors.’” … “Typical” antitrust injury thus “include[s] increased prices and decreased output.” … “This circuit has narrowly interpreted the meaning of antitrust injury, excluding from it the threat of decreased competition.” … “Loss from competition itself—that is, loss in the form of customers[] choosing the competitor’s goods and services over the plaintiff’s—does not constitute an antitrust injury.” … In short, the question underlying antitrust injury is whether consumers—not competitors—have been harmed.

Antitrust law protects competition, not competitors. X’s entire argument boiled down to: “advertisers chose to spend their money somewhere other than our platform, and that hurt us.” But that’s just… the market. That’s how markets work. Customers choosing not to buy from you because they don’t like what you’re selling has never been an antitrust violation, and the court made short work of explaining why.

Amusingly, the GOP — whose campaigns Musk has bankrolled extensively — spent decades pushing for exactly this narrow definition of antitrust injury, precisely to make cases like this harder to bring. Perhaps one of those politicians could have mentioned that before Elon filed.

But this case was never actually about winning an antitrust case. It was a warning shot at advertisers: give Elon your money or we’ll drag you through an expensive court process. A shakedown dressed up in legal filings. Indeed, after the lawsuit was filed, it was reported that part of X’s “sales” process was to threaten companies that they’d be added to the lawsuit if they didn’t advertise on the platform.

The court examined X’s theory from two different angles, and it failed both times. First, if the conspiracy was supposed to benefit competing social media platforms (like Pinterest, one of the defendants), X hadn’t alleged that any competitor was actually behind the boycott or pressuring advertisers to exclude X so the competitor could corner the market:

X has not alleged that the advertisers chose to do business with Pinterest—or any other social media company—as part of an agreement not to do business with X. Unlike the large hospital in Doctor’s Hospital, Pinterest is not alleged to be X’s competitor that wanted to exclude X from the market so that it could charge higher prices. In turn, unlike the network in Doctor’s Hospital, the advertisers did not decide to boycott X at Pinterest’s—or any other X competitor’s—behest to secure the competitor’s business. Instead, X alleges a conspiracy driven by advertisers not to further X-competitor social media companies’ interests but to pursue their own collective interests as to where they place their advertisements.

Second, if the conspiracy was supposed to eliminate competition at the advertiser level, the court found that GARM wasn’t acting as some kind of gatekeeper blocking X from accessing customers. It was just… advertisers deciding for themselves:

GARM is not an economic intermediary like the retailers in Eastern States. GARM did not buy advertising space from X to sell to advertisers nor did it, in such an arrangement, tell X not to sell directly to GARM’s customers. Rather, GARM was organized by advertisers and reflected their “avowed commitment to furthering [their] economic interests . . . as a group.” … Thus, if GARM is the obstacle to X reaching its advertiser-customers directly, then it is the equivalent of the advertiser-customers themselves deciding not to deal.

That’s the ballgame. Advertisers collectively deciding they don’t want to spend money on your platform — especially after you’ve told them to go fuck themselves and your platform has become a haven for content that damages their brands — just doesn’t state an antitrust claim. Imagine being so entitled that when the marketplace rejects your offering, you insist that it must be an antitrust attack on your rights to their money?

The court was so confident in this conclusion that it dismissed the case with prejudice and denied X the opportunity to replead, noting that the 165-paragraph complaint was already plenty detailed:

The 165-paragraph Second Amended Complaint contains no dearth of detail: if facts existed that GARM operated at an X competitor’s behest to put X out of business or that GARM advertisers sought to unfairly exclude competing advertisers from doing business, X would have pleaded those facts. The very nature of the alleged conspiracy does not state an antitrust claim, and the Court therefore has no qualm dismissing with prejudice.

When a court tells you the nature of your theory doesn’t work, that’s about as definitive a loss as you can get.

As we noted when the case was filed, the evidence X submitted in its own complaint actually undermined the case. One of X’s own exhibits showed GARM’s lead, Rob Rakowitz, explicitly telling an advertiser that GARM doesn’t make recommendations and that advertising decisions are “completely within the sphere of each member and subject to their own discretion.” Another email showed Rakowitz telling an advertiser asking about Twitter that “you may want to connect with Twitter directly to understand their progress on brand safety and make your own decisions.” This is the supposedly nefarious conspiracy that X spent years and untold legal fees litigating.

Separately, I have to mention the blatant forum shopping: X filed this case in the Wichita Falls Division of the Northern District of Texas, which was widely understood as a transparent attempt to land in front of Judge Reed O’Connor, known for partisan rulings and already presiding over Elon’s SLAPP suit against Media Matters. That didn’t work out — O’Connor recused himself, not because of his ownership of Tesla stock, but rather his ownership of some advertising firms who were defendants. The case got reassigned to Judge Boyle, and X still lost. In an ironic twist, X then tried to transfer the case to the Southern District of New York, only to have the court deny that motion because X couldn’t even prove they did business in that specific district. So X handpicked a forum, lost its judge, and then couldn’t escape to a different one. Great lawyering.

But the legal dismissal, satisfying as it is, doesn’t capture the most important part of what actually happened here. Because while the court correctly found that X suffered no antitrust injury, GARM itself suffered a very real injury: it was killed.

GARM shut down within days of the lawsuit being filed, following Rep. Jim Jordan’s misleading congressional investigation that painted the organization as some kind of anti-conservative censorship machine. Jordan’s pressure campaign, combined with the threat of expensive litigation from the world’s richest man, made it untenable for GARM to continue operating. The organization that existed to help advertisers make informed decisions about brand safety — a fundamentally expressive activity, protected by the First Amendment — was destroyed through government jawboning and litigation threats.

There was only one attack on free speech involved here and it came from Jim Jordan and Elon Musk, not GARM or its advertiser members.

X filed this lawsuit wrapped in the language of free speech. Former X CEO Linda Yaccarino literally wore a necklace that said “free speech” while announcing the case, claiming that advertisers not giving X money was somehow an attack on users’ ability to express themselves. The actual speech suppression ran the other direction entirely. A private organization exercising its speech rights to help its members make informed business decisions was bullied out of existence through a combination of congressional intimidation and frivolous litigation.

Jordan celebrated GARM’s dissolution as a victory for free speech — par for the course for the censorial MAGA GOP. A congressman used the weight of his office to pressure a private organization into shutting down, and called that free speech. Meanwhile, the lawsuit that was part of that same ecosystem of intimidation has now been found to have no legal merit whatsoever.

This is what actual jawboning looks like in practice. The lawsuit didn’t need to succeed to accomplish its goal. GARM is gone. The organization that facilitated conversations among advertisers about how to protect their brands has been silenced. The chilling effect on any future organization that might want to do something similar is obvious and intentional. Any industry group that tries to coordinate around brand safety now knows that it might face a billionaire-funded lawsuit and a congressional investigation for its trouble.

The court’s ruling is a vindication of basic antitrust law. But the more important point is about what the actual free speech dynamics were in this whole saga.

X can appeal, of course, and given that this falls within the Fifth Circuit, stranger things have happened. But the fundamental problem remains what it’s always been: the theory that advertisers owe you their business because you exist, and that organizing around brand safety is a criminal conspiracy, has never been a viable legal argument. The court said so plainly. Dismissed with prejudice. Nothing to fix, because the whole premise was broken from the start.

Filed Under: advertising, antitrust, boycott, elon musk, free market, jim jordan, linda yaccarino, marketplace of ideas, shakedown

Companies: garm, wfa, x

• AI reduces fraud setup time from hours to minutes globally
• Scam success rates increase sharply within the first day of contact
• Deepfake tools strengthen credibility across complex multi-stage fraud operations

Financial fraud has expanded into a high-volume global activity, with losses estimated at over $400 billion within a single year.

According to Vyntra’s 2026 report, nearly two-thirds of scams succeed within a day of first contact, leaving little opportunity for intervention once engagement begins.