A federal jury ruled against Elon Musk in his lawsuit accusing OpenAI of abandoning its nonprofit roots, finding that neither the tech company nor CEO Sam Altman could be held liable in the matter because Musk waited too long to bring the case.

The jury delivered a unanimous verdict after deliberating for less than two hours on Monday morning, following 11 days of testimony and arguments in Oakland, California. They found all of Musk’s claims against the company and Altman to have exceeded the statute of limitations.

Musk was a co-founder of OpenAI in 2015, but left the artificial intelligence (AI) startup in 2018 after he was unable to persuade its other leaders to have OpenAI merge with Tesla or create a for-profit entity led by him to attract the investment needed to meet the company’s technological needs.

In his lawsuit, Musk accused OpenAI of violating its founding mission as a nonprofit to develop AI for the benefit of humanity when the startup created a for-profit entity in 2019.

ELON MUSK ATTORNEY CLAIMS OPENAI, SAM ALTMAN ‘STOLE A CHARITY’ AS HIGH-STAKES LEGAL FIGHT BEGINS

His lawsuit sought the removal of OpenAI CEO Sam Altman and President Greg Brockman from their roles at the company. He also sought over $150 billion in damages from OpenAI and Microsoft, which Musk said he would provide to OpenAI’s nonprofit entity. Altman and Brockman were among OpenAI’s co-founders.

ELON MUSK SAYS HE WAS A ‘FOOL’ FOR FUNDING OPENAI: REPORT

Altman and OpenAI, now a company valued at $852 billion, argued there was never a promise to keep the company nonprofit permanently.

CLICK HERE TO GET FOX BUSINESS ON THE GO

The company behind ChatGPT further countered Musk’s claims by noting that the Tesla CEO pursued a merger with OpenAI and was involved with discussions about creating a for-profit entity for the company before his departure from its board of directors. They also said they viewed the lawsuit as a tactic to boost his own AI startup, xAI, as a competitor to OpenAI.

TUCSON, Ariz. — More than 100 days after 84-year-old Nancy Guthrie vanished from her Catalina Foothills home, fresh online speculation has intensified around her daughter Annie Guthrie and son-in-law Tommaso Cioni, with unverified claims they have not been seen at their nearby Arizona residence for over a week.

Authorities have not publicly linked the couple to any wrongdoing, and no arrests have been made in the high-profile case involving the mother of NBC “Today” show co-anchor Savannah Guthrie. Pima County Sheriff’s Department officials continue to describe the investigation as active and ongoing, with FBI assistance, but have released limited new details amid efforts to protect leads.

Nancy Guthrie was last seen after a family dinner on Jan. 31, 2026. She was reportedly dropped off at her home by Annie and Tommaso Cioni. The next morning, family members reported her missing. Investigators found signs of forced entry, blood evidence at the property and a tampered doorbell camera showing a masked individual, according to details shared in media reports and family statements.

Self-described investigative commentator Jonathan Lee Riches, active on X, recently posted claims that Annie Guthrie and Cioni’s home appeared unoccupied, with their vehicle missing. Neighbors and online observers echoed similar observations, fueling theories on social media platforms like Reddit and X. However, mainstream outlets and journalists covering the case, including NewsNation’s Brian Entin, have reported no evidence implicating family members.

Sheriff Chris Nanos and the Pima County Sheriff’s Department have emphasized that the case began as a suspected abduction. DNA samples, including hair and blood from the scene, were sent to the FBI for advanced testing. A $1 million family reward remains active for information leading to Nancy Guthrie’s safe return.

Savannah Guthrie has maintained a relatively low public profile while balancing work and family pleas. On Mother’s Day 2026, she posted an emotional message urging prayers and sharing memories. She recently announced a new game show project but continues to advocate for her mother’s return. “We miss you with our every breath,” she wrote in one update.

The case has drawn intense media attention and amateur sleuth involvement, leading to complaints about trespassers and vloggers in the neighborhood. Officials have urged the public to avoid speculating and to report credible tips directly to law enforcement or the FBI tip line.

Early in the investigation, cryptocurrency ransom demands surfaced but went unresolved without proof of life. Searches have covered desert areas, with volunteers and law enforcement pursuing thousands of leads from surveillance footage and tips. As the case enters its fourth month, some former investigators suggest it may be shifting toward recovery efforts, though officials maintain hope.

Annie Guthrie and Tommaso Cioni were reportedly among the last to see Nancy alive. Their home has undergone consented searches by investigators in the past. Online speculation persists partly because of their proximity and family connections, but authorities and journalists stress the absence of public evidence tying them to foul play.

Pima County officials have conducted door-to-door inquiries and analyzed extensive video evidence. Sheriff Nanos has said investigators are “definitely closer” but has slowed public updates to safeguard the probe. The FBI’s involvement includes forensic work on items from the home.

The disappearance has captivated true-crime audiences nationwide, with figures like Khloé Kardashian publicly discussing it on podcasts. Amateur theories proliferate online, ranging from targeted abduction to more speculative family-related claims, but law enforcement has not named suspects.

Nancy Guthrie, described as active despite health challenges, lived independently in the Tucson area. Her vanishing without medication, shoes or other essentials raised immediate red flags. Family members, including Savannah, have highlighted inconsistencies in the timeline that continue to haunt the case.

As days stretch into months, the emotional toll on the Guthrie family is evident. Savannah returned to “Today” after an initial absence and has used her platform sparingly to appeal for information. The family’s reward offer underscores their desperation for answers.

Broader questions linger about security in the affluent Catalina Foothills neighborhood. The tampered camera and blood evidence suggest a deliberate act, yet the lack of immediate witnesses or clear motive puzzles investigators and the public alike.

Community vigils and independent searches continue, blending awareness efforts with criticism over potential interference. Officials caution that unverified social media claims can hinder progress by spreading misinformation or harassing those close to the case.

The Pima County Sheriff’s Department and FBI continue sifting through tips. Anyone with information is encouraged to contact authorities rather than engage in public speculation. A dedicated tip line and anonymous reporting options remain available.

Nancy Guthrie’s case highlights the challenges of high-profile missing persons investigations in the social media age. While digital sleuths generate leads, they also complicate official work. As the search surpasses 100 days with no confirmed proof of life, the focus remains on bringing resolution to the Guthrie family.

For now, the disappearance of Nancy Guthrie stands as an unresolved mystery. Law enforcement urges patience and vigilance, reminding the public that credible information could still break the case open. The family’s public appeals and private anguish continue amid a nationwide watch.

GIFT Nifty surged nearly 1% after reports suggested the United States may temporarily ease sanctions on Iranian oil exports as part of ongoing diplomatic discussions. The sharp move higher signalled a positive start for Indian equities after volatile trading in the earlier session, when concerns over rising crude oil prices and escalating tensions in West Asia had weighed heavily on market sentiment.

According to reports, Iran’s foreign ministry spokesperson said the country remains focused on ending the ongoing conflict. Iranian news agency Tasnim also reported that the US has proposed a temporary waiver on sanctions related to Iranian oil exports until a final agreement is reached.

The developments raised hopes that additional Iranian crude supply could return to global markets, easing pressure on oil prices and reducing fears of a prolonged energy shock.

Global crude prices have surged sharply in recent sessions amid concerns that tensions involving Iran could disrupt supplies in the Middle East, a region critical to global oil flows. India, which imports more than 80% of its crude oil requirements, remains particularly sensitive to rising oil prices because they directly impact inflation, the rupee and fiscal balances.

The latest reports therefore triggered relief buying across risk assets, especially in Asian markets and equity futures.

On Monday, benchmark indices had witnessed extreme volatility before recovering losses toward the close. BSE Sensex ended 77 points higher at 75,315 after falling more than 1,100 points during intraday trade. Nifty 50 closed nearly flat at 23,650 after staging a late recovery.
Vinod Nair, Head of Research at Geojit Investments, had said the prolonged US-Iran stalemate continued to cloud near-term market sentiment, while higher bond yields, elevated crude prices and rupee weakness reinforced inflation concerns.Hariprasad K, Research Analyst and Founder of Livelong Wealth, said markets witnessed aggressive short covering and selective value buying after the early panic selling phase.

He noted that export-oriented sectors such as information technology were increasingly being viewed as defensive allocations during periods of geopolitical uncertainty.

Analysts believe any diplomatic breakthrough involving Iran could reduce pressure on global crude prices and improve risk appetite across emerging markets including India. Brent crude had climbed above $110 per barrel during the previous session as investors feared possible disruptions to Middle East oil supplies.

Analysts said the market will continue to closely track developments around Iran-related negotiations because oil prices remain one of the biggest near-term risks for inflation and equity valuations globally.

(Disclaimer: Recommendations, suggestions, views and opinions given by the experts are their own. These do not represent the views of Economic Times)

Indian Oil Corporation (IOC) reported a consolidated net profit at Rs 14,458 crore in the March-ended quarter versus Rs 8,124 crore in the year ago period, implying a 78% surge. The profits are attributable to the equity holders of the parent.

The revenue from operations posted a revenue growth of 7% to Rs 2,36,899 crore in Q4FY26 was versus Rs 2,21,360 crore posted by the company in the corresponding quarter of the previous financial year.

The company’s board also recommended a final dividend of Rs 1.25 per equity share subject to the approval of the shareholders at the upcoming Annual General Meeting (AGM). The final dividend will be paid within 30 days from the date of declaration at the AGM. The record date for payment of final dividend would be fixed and intimated in due course.

The company’s profit after tax (PAT) grew 11% on a sequential basis versus Rs 13,007 crore in Q3FY26 while the topline saw a marginal uptick of 0.27% quarter-on-quart versus Rs 2,36,257 crore in the October-December quarter of FY2026.

The state-run oil marketing companies incurred expenses of Rs 2.19 lakh crore in the quarter under review versus Rs 2.20 crore and Rs 2.12 crore in the corresponding quarter of the last financial year. The expenses were made on ithe heads like ‘Cost of Materials Consumed’, excise duty, purchase of stock in trade, employee benefits and finance cost, among other things.

The profit before tax (PBT) in the quarter under review stood at Rs 19,791 crore in Q4FY26 versus Rs 17,827 crore in Q3FY26 and Rs 10,044 crore in Q4FY25.
The company assets as on March 31, 2026 stood at Rs 5,28,956 crore versus Rs 5,07,200 crore as on March 31, 2025.The company in its filing to exchanges said the conflict in Middle East region which began in February, led to supply uncertainties and resultant volatility in the price of crude oil and petroleum products in the international market. However, the profitability for the year 2025-26 was largely insulated from the impact of these developments due to inventory procured at normal prices before the conflict, the filing said.

The company improved its debt-to-equity ratio to 0.53 in Q4FY26 versus 0.60 in Q3FY26 and 0.75 in Q4FY25.

The profit margin stood at 6.41% in Q4FY26 versus 5.72% in Q3FY26 and 3.78% in Q4FY25 while operating margin stood at 8.40% in Q4FY26 versus 7.94% in Q3FY26 and 4.96% in Q4FY25.

(Disclaimer: The recommendations, suggestions, views, and opinions given by the experts are their own. These do not represent the views of The Economic Times.)

JUNO BEACH, Fla. — NextEra Energy Inc. announced Monday it has agreed to acquire Dominion Energy Inc. in an all-stock transaction valued at approximately $67 billion, creating the world’s largest regulated electric utility by market capitalization and a powerhouse positioned to meet surging electricity demand driven by artificial intelligence and data centers.

The deal, one of the largest in U.S. utility history, combines NextEra’s leadership in renewables and Florida operations with Dominion’s substantial regulated assets in Virginia and the Carolinas. The combined company will serve about 10 million customer accounts across four fast-growing states, own roughly 110 gigawatts of generation capacity and boast a diversified platform spanning regulated utilities, renewables, nuclear, gas and transmission infrastructure.

Under the terms, Dominion shareholders will receive a fixed exchange ratio of 0.8138 shares of NextEra Energy for each share of Dominion, resulting in NextEra shareholders owning approximately 74.5% of the combined entity and Dominion shareholders owning 25.5%. A small cash component includes a one-time $360 million payment to Dominion shareholders at closing. The transaction is expected to be tax-free to shareholders and immediately accretive to adjusted earnings per share.

NextEra, already the largest U.S. utility by market value with a market capitalization near $195 billion, will operate the new entity under its name on the New York Stock Exchange. The companies will maintain dual headquarters in Juno Beach, Florida, and Richmond, Virginia, along with Dominion Energy South Carolina’s operational headquarters in Cayce. Local utility brands — including Dominion Energy Virginia, Dominion Energy North Carolina and Dominion Energy South Carolina — will remain unchanged.

John Ketchum, NextEra’s chairman, president and CEO, will lead the combined company. Robert Blue, Dominion’s current chair, president and CEO, will serve as president and CEO of regulated utilities and join the board. The transaction has unanimous board approval and is expected to close in 12 to 18 months, subject to shareholder votes, regulatory approvals from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, state commissions in Virginia, North Carolina and South Carolina, and antitrust clearance.

The strategic rationale centers on scale amid unprecedented power demand. Data centers and AI infrastructure are driving electricity needs higher than at any time in decades. NextEra and Dominion together bring complementary strengths: NextEra’s expertise in large-scale renewables, battery storage and efficient operations pairs with Dominion’s strong presence in the PJM Interconnection, home to massive data center clusters in Northern Virginia.

The combined platform will feature more than 80% regulated operations, a $138 billion rate base expected to grow at about 11% annually through 2032, and over 130 GW of large-load opportunities in its pipeline. Executives project 9%+ adjusted earnings per share growth through 2032, supported by diversified growth across regulated utilities and long-term contracted businesses.

To benefit customers directly, the companies pledged $2.25 billion in bill credits for Dominion’s customers in Virginia, North Carolina and South Carolina, spread over two years after closing. Additional commitments include enhanced charitable giving, retention of approximately 15,000 Dominion employees with current compensation and benefits, and continued focus on reliability, storm resiliency and affordability.

Ketchum emphasized the customer-first approach. “Scale matters more than ever — not for the sake of size, but because scale translates into capital and operating efficiencies,” he said in a statement. “This enables us to buy, build, finance and operate more efficiently, which translates into more affordable electricity for our customers in the long run.”

Blue echoed the sentiment, highlighting shared commitments to reliable, affordable energy. “This combination brings together two strong operating platforms and creates an even stronger energy partner for Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Florida,” he noted.

Wall Street reacted positively to the news. NextEra shares traded higher in early sessions, while Dominion shares jumped significantly on the premium implied by the exchange ratio. Analysts view the deal as transformative, positioning the new entity as a dominant player in the energy transition and the AI-driven power surge.

The merger caps years of consolidation pressures in the utility sector. NextEra had previously pursued large deals, including an unsuccessful attempt for Duke Energy. Dominion has been streamlining operations, including asset sales in recent years to focus on core regulated businesses.

Regulatory scrutiny will be a key hurdle. The transaction requires approvals across multiple jurisdictions, but executives expressed confidence given the complementary footprints with minimal overlap and the pro-customer elements like bill credits. The deal also aligns with broader industry trends of utilities scaling up to finance massive grid and generation investments.

Environmental and consumer groups are expected to weigh in during regulatory reviews. NextEra’s strong renewables portfolio could help address concerns about carbon emissions, while critics may question market concentration in certain regions. The companies stressed their track records in safety, reliability and community engagement.

For the broader energy sector, the combination signals confidence in long-term demand growth. Hyperscalers and tech giants are signing massive power purchase agreements, restarting nuclear plants and pushing for faster transmission builds. A larger, better-capitalized utility could accelerate these efforts while maintaining affordability.

The deal also highlights NextEra’s evolution from a Florida-focused utility to a national energy leader. Its unregulated renewables arm, one of the world’s largest, will complement Dominion’s regulated strengths, creating what executives call “North America’s premier energy infrastructure platform.”

Shareholders of both companies stand to benefit from enhanced scale, improved credit profiles and a robust dividend policy. NextEra plans 6% annual dividend growth through 2028. The combined entity targets a payout ratio below 55% by 2030.

As the utilities prepare for regulatory filings and integration planning, the announcement marks a pivotal moment in U.S. energy history. In an era of exploding electricity demand, the new NextEra-Dominion powerhouse aims to deliver the generation, transmission and innovation needed to power America’s future while keeping costs in check for millions of households and businesses.

The coming months will test whether this vision withstands regulatory review and delivers on promises of affordability and reliability. For now, the deal positions the combined company at the forefront of the industry’s most significant transformation in decades.

Britain’s biggest bookmakers are squaring up for a High Court fight with the Gambling Commission over a controversial new regime of so-called affordability checks, in a row that threatens to drag the regulator into yet another costly courtroom battle and reopen one of the most contentious debates in UK consumer-facing business.

Industry chiefs say the checks, which would block customers from placing further bets once they cross specific loss thresholds, contain “serious failings” and risk pushing hundreds of thousands of punters into an unregulated black market that is already mushrooming online. With the Gambling Commission expected to decide this week whether to impose the rules unilaterally, the Betting & Gaming Council (BGC) has put the regulator on formal notice that legal action is now firmly on the table.

A flagship reform under fire

Affordability checks – formally known as financial risk assessments (FRAs), sit at the heart of the biggest overhaul of British gambling laws in a generation, introduced under the previous Conservative government in 2023. The intention was straightforward: identify high-spending customers who may be in financial difficulty and intervene before harm escalates. The political promise that accompanied it was equally clear – any such checks would be “frictionless”, invisible to the ordinary punter.

Under the proposed regime, an FRA would be triggered when a customer loses £1,000 or more in 24 hours, or £2,000 over 90 days. Operators that fail to carry out the checks risk regulatory action; customers who refuse to comply face being locked out of their accounts.

The Commission has leant heavily on the results of its pilot, which ran from September 2024 to April 2025 and used around 800,000 historical data points. According to its own published findings, only 3 per cent of gamblers would face an assessment, and 97 per cent of those would be “frictionless” – meaning the customer would not have to lift a finger.

The BGC disputes almost every part of that picture.

“Serious failings” and a 20% problem

In a letter dated 21 April and addressed to the interim chair of the Gambling Commission, seen by The Sunday Times, the BGC set out “grave concerns about the wider ramifications” of the FRA proposals. The trade body argues that once you strip out customers spending less than £200 a year on betting – essentially casual punters who place the occasional flutter, the true proportion of regular customers caught up in checks could be closer to 20 per cent, not 3 per cent.

It also flagged stark inconsistencies in data drawn from the three credit-reference agencies involved in the pilot. In more than half of some cases, the BGC said, a risk flag was raised by only one of the three agencies, a finding that, if accurate, undermines the central claim that the system can reliably distinguish a vulnerable customer from a comfortable one.

Grainne Hurst, BGC chief executive, did not mince her words: “Given the serious concerns raised by operators, there is a real risk that the industry could ultimately be left with little choice but to consider legal challenges if these proposals proceed without further scrutiny.”

The Commission, the BGC told The Sunday Times, has not yet responded to the April letter.

One senior industry source put it more bluntly: “It’s ridiculous that we’ve been forced to consider such a dramatic step. I hope the Gambling Commission and government see sense. They’re blind to the damage these checks could cause.”

The black market gathering pace

The commercial backdrop for the dispute is what makes it a story for British business, not just the gambling lobby. The Commission’s own reforms, first unpacked by Business Matters, have already raised the cost of compliance for licensed operators and tightened the screws on bonusing, customer interaction and product design – a trend examined in more detail in our analysis of the 2026 gambling reforms.

The fear inside the regulated industry is that affordability checks tip an already finely balanced equation in the wrong direction. The BGC estimates that the offshore black market has more than tripled in size since 2022 and that unlicensed operators could be spending £1 billion a year on advertising by 2028, more than the entire regulated UK market combined. The trade body warns that as much as £300 million in tax receipts could be lost as customers migrate to operators that ask no questions and offer no protections.

Critics counter that the industry is talking up the black-market threat to protect incumbents. Either way, as our earlier reporting on the business of British bookmakers made clear, the licensed sector is a meaningful contributor to the Treasury, to racing’s levy and to high-street employment – and few in Whitehall want to be seen handing market share to operators based in jurisdictions Britain does not regulate.

“The evidence so far suggests these proposals are not fit for purpose and risk driving people away from the regulated market towards the growing illegal online black market, where there are no protections and no safeguards,” Hurst said.

A regulator on the back foot

For the Gambling Commission, the prospect of another High Court fight is awkward, to put it mildly. The regulator has been at the centre of an unusually heavy caseload in recent months, including a bruising dispute with Richard Desmond, the billionaire former proprietor of the Daily Express, over the awarding of the multibillion-pound National Lottery contract, and a separate privacy case brought by executives from Entain, the parent company of Ladbrokes and Coral.

It is also rudderless at the top. Andrew Rhodes, the Commission’s chief executive, departed abruptly earlier this month to join Hawkbridge, the new advisory arm of law firm Harris Hagan – a firm that has acted for several of Britain’s largest bookmakers. The optics of the departure are not lost on operators now contemplating litigation.

In a statement, the Commission defended its approach: “A pilot was used to test how frictionless the White Paper policy could be and give us useful findings on how it could be implemented. We have been rigorously assessing that work in detail throughout the pilot, drawing upon a range of evidence and input from pilot participants and advised by NatCen. The proposed approach has been subject to significant scrutiny already and we have published findings during the process.”

What to watch this week

For the SME-heavy supply chain that hangs off Britain’s regulated betting industry, from data providers and payments firms to marketing agencies and the racing sector, this week’s decision matters. A green light without industry buy-in raises the prospect of months of legal uncertainty, suspended investment and contractual disputes. A pause or a redesign would buy time but extend the regulatory grey zone that has already prompted operators to scale back UK exposure.

What is harder to dispute is that the Commission’s room for manoeuvre is shrinking. With High Court action threatened, a chief executive gone and a black market growing in confidence, the regulator’s next move will be watched not just by bookmakers but by every consumer-facing business that depends on a stable, proportionate licensing regime.

---

Large crowds of people have been queuing outside Swatch stores worldwide, with some shops having to close over safety considerations.

Police had to be called to deal with large gathering of shoppers outside some stores in the UK, France and Switzerland as people gathered to buy the new pocket watch made in collaboration with Audemars Piguet.

Swatch’s new Royal Pop sells for £335 but has already been put on resale by some buyers online for up to £16,000.

A man told the BBC he managed to buy a watch for £335 and resell it for “just over £1,000”.