Google and Meta Need to Block the End Around Play… and Quickly
April 8, 2026
Another dinobaby post. No AI unless it is an image. This dinobaby is not Grandma Moses, just Grandpa Arnold.
CNBC published an item I found interesting. “Meta, Google Under Attack As Court Cases Bypass 30-Year-Old Legal Shield.” The news item reports:
For the last three decades, internet giants have been able to avoid legal exposure for content on their platforms, thanks to a law that differentiates the companies from online publishers. But those safeguards appear to be weakening.
I immediately thought about one of those high school football games. One large, high school fields a team of big, brawny, and mean players. The other team comes from a small high school. The players are overmatched in human resources and fan support. Somehow after the first half, the team from the larger school is losing.
Everyone is stunned. How can this be? How can a group of puny players get the better of a high school with a larger school band than the small school. What’s going on?
The write up says:
a jury in New Mexico found Meta liable in a case involving child safety, while jurors in Los Angeles held the Facebook parent and Google’s YouTube negligent in a personal injury trial. Days after those verdicts were revealed, victims of the notorious sex offender Jeffrey Epstein filed a class action lawsuit against Google and the Trump administration over allegations related to the wrongful disclosure of personal information. In that complaint, the plaintiffs argue that Google’s AI Mode, which serves up AI-powered summaries and links, is “not a neutral search index,” a clear effort to make the case that Google isn’t just a platform sitting between users and the information they seek.
The penalties are trivial within the scope of the losers’ finances. But if the champions cannot knock off the wimps, there might be more hassles in conference games. One of these outfits wants to be the champion, and defeats by minnows do not make the big sharks look as fierce. The CNBC story points out:
… the cases establish a troubling precedent for tech giants that are betting their future on AI.
The operative words are “precedent” and “future.”
The report adds some color to the plight of the social media studs:
The verdict … against Meta and YouTube was the first time a jury found social media platforms liable for what plaintiff attorneys alleged was intentionally engineering addiction in minors with their products. The case went after how the platforms were designed, not just what content they carried. Plaintiffs argued that the combination of features like autoplay, recommendation algorithms, notifications and certain filters acted like “digital casinos,” leading to serious mental health problems for a young girl who claimed she couldn’t stop using the apps. The class action suit against Google, filed last week by a plaintiff with the pseudonym Jane Doe, alleged that the company’s AI Mode created its own summaries and links, exposing Epstein victims’ personal identifying information (PII), including names, phone numbers and email addresses.
The studs are not going to accept the outcome of the losses. The alums, the players, and the fans may complain to the objective, impartial, and fair athletic board. The article puts the protest this way:
Legal experts said appeals in the latest cases could find their way to the Supreme Court, which could determine whether the companies should be protected by law against the claims.
Did the wimps just get lucky or did the coaches come up with a new play? Answer: Who knows? But a win is a win. And there is another game coming and the season is not over.
Stephen E Arnold, April 8, 2026
A Young Agent Weeps Because He Caused Chaos in the Kitchen
April 3, 2026
Another dinobaby post. No AI unless it is an image. This dinobaby is not Grandma Moses, just Grandpa Arnold.
I am still thinking about a blue chip consulting firm’s confidence that its MBAs and CPAs can stop agentic software from making already wonky business processes more problematic. Why? Creating a fix for today’s smart software means very little tomorrow. Advances in smart software come less frequently than marketing baloney is output by these firms. Adding to the wonkiness is the idea that taking action today will ameliorate some future unknown bad action.
Thanks, Midjourney. Good enough.
Why am I confident in my skepticism? Well, for me. Navigate to Science.org’s article “AI Algorithms Can Become Agents of Chaos.” The write up asserts:
The agents proved trustworthy in five of the tests, which relied on OpenClaw, a “personal digital assistant” that harnesses AI agents to do a user’s bidding by controlling other software. They declined to spread AI disinformation or edit stored email addresses when asked, for example. But in 11 cases they went rogue, sharing private files—containing medical details and Social Security and bank account numbers—without permission or deploying useless looping programs that hogged costly computer time. One agent publicly posted a potentially libelous allegation about a fictitious person.
You can read the details of this agent / chaos analysis in the ArXiv paper “Agents of Chaos.”
The Science.org article states:
The study did not pinpoint why the breakdowns occurred. One crucial question is whether the failures stem from flawed programming that human designers can improve versus an “emergent” feature that arises spontaneously, says Yonatan Belinkov, a computer scientist at the Technion-Israel Institute of Technology who is on leave at Harvard University. Another is whether the problem worsens when multiple agents collaborate. A few of the Agents of Chaos case studies examined two agents working together, but already, Belinkov notes, these AIs are engaging on a much larger scale: Millions are chatting with one another on a social media platform, Moltbook, launched in January, where they have already reportedly created a new religion.
Yep, lawyers will decide liability. How confident am I? I am good with 90 percent confidence based on my technology experience. Are you going to let a BAIT (big AI tech) company decide if it is responsible for a disaster? What about letting the client decide when the client will assert that the marketing presentation did not include the equivalent of the sinking of the HMS Titanic? Will a government body decide? No, but the government professionals will have a working lunch, hire outside advisors, and create a white paper. Then the lawyers will decide.
What’s the fix for a hallucinating agent, bad coding, or a customer who just assumes the system is A-OK? The article presents some ideas:
Potential remedies for misbehaving AI agents include automated processes to undo harmful changes they make to other software and data, the preprint says. But training AI agents to distinguish between instructions with helpful versus malicious intent remains a major technical challenge, Cohen says. Currently, computer scientists lack the technical means to reliably constrain agents “so they don’t just do crazy things that you can’t really control.”
Net net: One can promise many things. Saying one knows how a future agentic system will function, malfunction, or just go off the rails strikes me as the equivalent of predicting where a two year old will throw apple sauce. I can predict a mess. I cannot predict where however.
Stephen E Arnold, April 3, 2026
Why the World Loves US Big Tech Outfits: The Meta Example
March 31, 2026
![green-dino_thumb_thumb[3]](https://www.arnoldit.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/green-dino_thumb_thumb3-6.gif "green-dino_thumb_thumb[3]")
Another dinobaby post. No AI unless it is an image. This dinobaby is not Grandma Moses, just Grandpa Arnold.
In the annals of big tech, one more lawsuit is likely to irrelevant. Even with LexisNexis-type systems, the decision will probably be as difficult to locate as the 1868 Erie War involving that charming fellow Corny Vanderbilt. Be that as it may, I noted the BBC article “Meta Told to Pay $375m for Misleading Users over Child Safety.” The write up reports as actual factual:
A court in New Mexico has ordered Meta to pay $375m (£279m) for misleading users over the safety of its platforms for children. A jury found that Meta, which owns Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp, was liable for the way in which its platforms endangered children and exposed them to sexually explicit material and contact with sexual predators.
How nitroglycerin like is an allegation about kiddies and explicit material? Based on what I hear at the law enforcement conferences which invite me to speak, this is a topic that catches investigator attention. A couple of years ago I presented an analysis of a business person’s online service. This individual was a member of the Chamber of Commerce. He operated a data service for businesses, and he operated what I call a “ghost service” for individuals with what I called less than salubrious interests. Not only did a couple of investigators want to speak with me after my talk, I had a follow up conversation with a Federal investigator in Detroit, and a phone call from an investigator who wanted me to send my presentation to a government connected organization focused on the types of content apparently referenced in this litigation. Usually someone says, “Good presentation.” Once in a while, I will be asked to join a group of attendees in the bar to talk informally (of course).
Thanks, MidJourney. Believe it or not, Venice.ai refused to generate the image because I requested adult content. Make sense? Sure, because good enough is indeed excellence.
I am not interested in the alleged fine. I know there will be appeals. Big companies have legal resources and often deal with set backs by playing the long game or just ignoring the legal outcome. That’s what the losing company’s legal eagles beat their wings and squawk for. Yeah, that and billing. I don’t want to forget that minor detail.
I want to step back and ask this question, “What is the impact of the charges levied at a US big tech firm in other countries?” Based on my personal experience of living in another country and working in a handful of these nations, I would offer these observations:
- Although heinous, this particular case provides a case study of a big tech outfit in the US doing exactly what it incentivizes employees to do. I want to be clear: The job descriptions and the incentive plans for workers allow certain steps to be taken. Thus, the behavior is emergent. Take away the lingo of the job description and the metrics for a bonus or promotion, and the worker behavior changes. Without these direct actions, certain behaviors are almost guaranteed to produce the type of issues identified in this litigation.
- The managerial and leadership set up makes it possible for a senior manager to say, “Whoa, I did not know this situation was taking place.” That is probably true. The job description, the incentives, and the compounds in the Petri dish blossom with behaviors others may find egregious. This means the leadership is telling a “truth” so the firm’s lawyers can do what lawyers do. (See my comment about billing.)
- Observers outside the US wonder how a company can allow certain actions to occur. Over time, if the US big tech companies demonstrate similar product and service manifestations, either fear, frustration, or distrust becomes linked with the concept of a US big tech firm. Just as a whiff of a spouse’s perfume can evoke memories or emotions, these trials perform the same function with regard to US big technology. Toss in AI capabilities and big tech becomes BAIT (big AI tech). Such associations are not helpful for American firms’ image.
The BBC article adds:
Meta is also involved in a separate trial in Los Angeles, in which a young woman claims that she became addicted to platforms like Instagram and YouTube, owned by Google, as a child because of how they are intentionally designed. There are thousands of similar lawsuits winding their way through the US courts.
That word “thousands” is shocking. The implications of the business actions of US companies could have knock on effects that the companies themselves will not recognize. At some point, fines and talk could be judged ineffective. That’s why it is helpful to look at how countries like Russia are making a tactical decision to kill Telegram. Could that happen in other countries? That’s a question worth considering in my opinion.
Stephen E Arnold, March 31, 2026
Google and Water: Hey, It Is Unlimited, Right?
March 16, 2026
How many times have I iterated that Google promises to do no harm yet it continues to think of the bottom line over the good of humanity. The Columbus Free Press reports, “Google’s Columbus Data Center Secrets Exposed.” Ohio power brokers foresaw that big businesses would come to the region seeking to use the vast supplies of water. The water is distributed through an aquifer that is now being monopolized by Google to cool its data center. Here’s how much water Google is using:
“According to Google, the Far South Side data center used 177 million gallons in 2024 when it was just coming online. Its data center in Lancaster took 207 million gallons that year and in New Albany, 405 million. Of Ohio’s 200-plus data centers, roughly 130 are in Central Ohio.”
Also an immense steam cloud is hanging out above Google’s Fart South Side data center. It’s not far from residential neighborhoods and a casino. And what about the steam cloud? Does it contain something like forever chemicals or pollutants that last as long as Google’s cookies on my computer? Google responded with assurances about caring about the Columbus neighborhood and climate change.
Is Columbus’ concerns an outlier? Will Google care? Sure. It will care enough to let loose a flight of legal eagles and some PR hawks to help residents of Columbus understand the “truth” about water.
Whitney Grace, March 16, 2026
CD? Ignore That, Big Tech AI
February 27, 2026
Another dinobaby post. No AI unless it is an image. This dinobaby is not Grandma Moses, just Grandpa Arnold.
I try to filter the Epstein Epstein Epstein just as I try to block the AI AI AI. However, one of the people on my team showed me this write up: “AIs Can Generate Near-Verbatim Copies of Novels from Training Data.” I am not surprised that a big time US big tech AI system would spit out text from a source. These companies struck me as outfits that were going to ingest content and let the lawyers run interference. Publishers and individual authors usually lack the fleets of legal eagles available to big tech outfits.
Thanks, Venice.ai. Good enough.
Furthermore, I am not surprised that some people are surprised that these smart software systems are stupid enough to output content that clearly illustrates that their marvels appear to surf on other people’s creative work. Why do I have this view? Before I stepped away from the work fray, I bounced in and out of some Silicon Valley entities. Heck, I worked at one for several years. I was involved in a couple of zippy start ups and heard people on the team make clear that if something could be done, just do it. “They” won’t figure it out for a long time. The “they”, of course, was users, regulators, law enforcement, morality watch dogs, and moms.
I assume that the author of the article is not aware that some of the big tech outfits are complaining that other big tech outfits are pirating their systems and methods. Yep, the outfits that just took other people’s work are squawking that a big tech company has the unmitigated gall to use another big tech firm’s intellectual property.
My term for this behavior is cynical duplicity. Its characteristics are:
- Move fast, break things. Reason: Chaos destabilizes and makes meaningful responses quite difficult
- Just take it. Reason: Most people don’t know that a well crafted or even a crappy crawler can suck down a lot of data quickly. By the time the source figures out that the data are gone, the data are — well, what do you think? — gone.
- Sue people who break the law. Reason: Money buys lawyers. Lawyers, many times, just do what the client wants. The entity with the most time and money wins. Period.
How do I know cynical duplicity is operating? Check out these headlines and stories:
- Anthropic says Deepseek, Moonshot, and MiniMax used 24,000 fake accounts to rip off Claude
- Google Blocks Antigravity for OpenClaw-Linked AI Ultra Users, Cites “Malicious Usage”
- OpenAI Claims Deepseek Distilled US Models to Gain an Edge
Note: I pulled these headlines from Bing News. If the urls 404, contact the estimable Microsoft, not me.
As a dinobaby, I think the focus of the story about smart software spitting out novels is interesting. However, I think the CD or cynical duplicity is the significant aspect of how big tech AI outfits conduct themselves.
Stephen E Arnold, February 27, 2026
Europe Is Likely to Try a Social Media Slow Down
February 23, 2026
There’s a growing trend in western countries to ban social media for the younger crowd. Why? It’s apparently detrimental to kids’ development. Greece, Turkey, Czechoslovakia, and Spain are among the European countries looking to ban social media for their younger citizens. Gizmodo has the scoop in the article: “Countries Across Europe Take Action To Ban Social Media For Minors.”
These countries aren’t alone as Portugal, United Kingdom, Ireland, Germany, Austria, and France are aware of the harmful implications that social media has. European leaders want to limit exposure to social media for growing minds because of potential dangers it does to cognitive development, growing mental aliments and “stranger danger” threats.
The European Union kicked off a social media ban for their youth after Australia implemented its own ban for kids under sixteen. No TikTok, Facebook, Reddit, etc, for them. Here’s the reasoning:
“A jumping-off point for the Australian ban was American social psychologist Jonathan Haidt’s book “The Anxious Generation,” which argues that the overwhelming presence of social media in the critical developmental stages of puberty has fundamentally rewired the brains of those born after 1995. Social media addiction among children and teens has been linked to higher feelings of loneliness, depression, anxiety, attention deficit disorders, body image issues and poor sleep quality. Many regulators are also increasingly worried about unchecked cyberbullying. The American Academy of Pediatrics released a report last month linking prolonged digital media use with language delays, anger issues, weaker cognition and even increased risk of Type 2 diabetes, and asked tech companies and the government to put strict guardrails in place that prohibit harmful social media design features like user profiling, autoplay and algorithmic recommender systems.”
US Technology companies don’t like this because this hurts their bottom line. Also technology is an important factor in Trump’s economic and development plan for the country. Is Europe engaged in some type of extortion scam aimed at estimable US companies? Europe, according to some enlightened US thinkers, is out of step with the need to go fast with AI. Those benighted EU people need to get with the program; otherwise, their children may lack the benefits of American social media; for example, body shaming, disruption of attention, and failure to master basic skills like reading, writing, and arithmetic. The US is the future.
Whitney Grace, February 23, 2026
Has Japan Caught the Ka-Ching Cash Register Bug?
February 19, 2026
Another dinobaby post. No AI unless it is an image. This dinobaby is not Grandma Moses, just Grandpa Arnold.
I just caught up on my news. Tucked into the list was an interesting write up with an international spin: “A Coalition of 600-Plus Companies in Japan Wants More Regulatory Action against Apple and Google.” Doesn’t Japan know that the US is busy regulating big tech? Apparently not or the actions taken have not addressed some of the allegations leveled at these exemplary American firms.
The write up states:
Last December Apple announced changes impacting iOS apps in Japan to comply with the Mobile Software Competition Act (MSCA). However they’re apparently not enough for a coalition representing more than 600 local companies is calling for further regulatory action….However, seven IT-related industry groups, including the Computer Entertainment Supplier’s Association, released a joint statement on Thursday calling on Apple and Google to swiftly eliminate new commissions imposed on app companies, reports The Japan News. The groups said the burden of the commissions is so heavy that directing users to external sites for payment “has not become a viable option.”
The article points out:
According to The Japan Times, they also argued that in the U.S., similar payment methods are offered free of charge. The groups accused Apple and Google of placing Japan’s consumers and businesses at a disadvantage compared to ones in the United States.
Several thoughts crossed my mind:
- Has Japan caught the EU’s ka-ching cash register bug? The idea is that suing US big tech firms can produce cash which can be collected once the endless appeals have been exhausted.
- Is Apple consciously discriminating against Japanese professionals? If so, why?
- Is this matter another example of Apple’s flagging management control? I ask this question because Siri is a no show again. What’s up with getting the management cart seeming unable to pull stuff from the orchard?
I don’t think too much about Apple. But maybe I should pay attention?
Stephen E Arnold, February 19, 226
The EU Oils Its Cash Register for 2026 Action: Meta Is at Bat
February 17, 2026
Another dinobaby post. No AI unless it is an image. This dinobaby is not Grandma Moses, just Grandpa Arnold.
“Commission Notifies Meta of Possible Interim Measures to Reverse Exclusion of Third-Party AI Assistants from WhatsApp” signals the Zuck that check writing may be something to put on his calendar. The EU statement says:
The European Commission has sent a Statement of Objections to Meta, setting out its preliminary view that Meta breached EU antitrust rules by excluding third party Artificial Intelligence (‘AI’) assistants from accessing and interacting with users on WhatsApp. Meta’s conduct risks blocking competitors from entering or expanding in the rapidly growing market for AI assistants. The Commission therefore intends to impose interim measures to prevent this policy change from causing serious and irreparable harm on the market, subject to Meta’s reply and rights of defense.
What’s interesting is the statement “intends to impose interim measures”. The EU tends to move slowly as opposed to one major country’s sending elected official home for a vacay. I interpret this statement to mean: Zuck, things are just going to happen. Buckle up, buddy.
EU professionals enjoy reading documents describing alleged criminal activities. Thanks, Venice.ai. Good enough.
The short announcement includes a graphic. To be honest, I am not sure if this art has been produced by smart software. Also, I am not sure I understand how the flipping of a red arrow to a green arrow will work. But I am a dinobaby, and I simply cannot understand some things. My view is to ring up certain known Internet service providers and some of those “ghost ISPs” and mandate aggressive filtering. The ISPs will squawk, but the EU litigation can create some financial pressure for certain outfits. My hunch is that certain judiciary units might want to do some on-site investigations too.
I am not sure if Meta’s legal eagles can remediate such direct actions at the service firms between a WhatsApp user and Meta. Certain countries are likely to be more enthusiastic about altering Meta’s behavior. But the EU’s signal is clear:
If the Commission concludes, after the parties have exercised their rights of defense, that the conditions for interim measures are met, it can adopt a decision imposing such measures. The adoption of an interim measures’ decision does not prejudge the final findings of the Commission on the substance of the case.
France has demonstrated that even iconic services can be spray painted dull gray. Is WhatsApp facilitating certain types of behavior the EU might find objectionable beyond the blocking of competitive smart software? I would suggest that this AI wrapping hides what’s in a box of alleged infractions facilitated by Meta / Facebook, WhatsApp, and Instagram.
My view is that France’s direct action against Pavel Durov may have been a useful example for some EU professionals. Furthermore, I think the EU has a short list of American big tech companies to examine with renewed vigor in the new year. Will the US firms care? Nope or at least until a significant revenue hit takes place. I predict that 2026 will be a bounteous year for legal eagles involved in US big tech, AI, and social media matters.
Stephen E Arnold, February 17, 2026
Big Tech and Age Verification: Now What, People?
February 12, 2026
Another dinobaby post. No AI unless it is an image. This dinobaby is not Grandma Moses, just Grandpa Arnold.
I have a couple of people on my team who reacted in an interesting way to this question: “How long would it take you to get around the age verification required in Australia?” Howard, just snorted. Stuart thought a moment and said, “A couple of minutes, maybe a bit more, maybe a bit less.” My team is not in its teens. But I know that there are some pre-teens, teens, and teens going on 28 years old who know how to subvert age verification systems.
Proud parents watch as Bill creates a social media account for Timmy, his younger brother. Mom and dad watch with pride because the siblings are interacting in a positive manner. Thanks, ChatGPT, good enough.
How many of these can you work around?
- ID via facial recognition using one’s real face just aged or use an older sibling’s face
- Use an adult’s user name and password
- Create alias accounts with new emails
- Rely on VPNs and related methods
- Pay an older person to register and set up an account.
Three separate news reports suggest that the US big tech outfits and outfits like Telegram will have to find a way to implement age verification systems that mostly work and don’t violate other laws. Otherwise, certain firms will lose access to customers in France, Greece, and Spain. These countries probably have a regulator or two eager to fine the US social media companies, go through the legal processes, issue fines, and then check their bank accounts. Deposits in the tens or hundreds of millions in dollars or other fiat currency are easy to spot.
Here are the three reports:
VPNs are next on my list – France set to evaluate VPN use following social media ban for under-15s
Greece to soon announce social media ban for children under 15, government source says
Spain, Greece weigh teen social media bans, drawing fury from Elon Musk
My team and I think that other countries in the EU will jump on the bandwagon. I am not sure the mental health of those under 16 is the only motivation for this requirement. Anti-US big tech sentiment reaches me in rural Kentucky. My hunch is that it extends to Silicon Valley as well. A crusade against the US may become a way to win re-election or snag a lucrative advisory job in some countries. Plus, there is what I called the “Kaching factor.” That’s the notional sound of issuing a big fine and ringing the cash register for the regulator bring an action against a US company.
If the age verification movement gains steam, the US social media companies will have to do some actual innovation in their age verification departments. Solutions to this problem are fraught with booby traps. These range from ease of use to security issues. Also, US big tech companies don’t want to lose access to these youthful users. Translation: The ad dollars are too significant.
Observing how the US tech companies respond will be fascinating. I look forward to verbal statements, legal battles, and direct violations. My view is that there is no perfect fix, just rising risk and costs. With everyone embracing AI, why not just use smart software. Yeah, that will work.
Stephen E Arnold, February 12, 2026
Mr. Musk, Ms. Yaccarino, Meet JUNALCO. Have a Nice Chat
February 4, 2026
![green-dino_thumb_thumb[3]](https://www.arnoldit.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/green-dino_thumb_thumb3.gif "green-dino_thumb_thumb[3]")
Another dinobaby post. No AI unless it is an image. This dinobaby is not Grandma Moses, just Grandpa Arnold.
Elon Musk and his former CEO Linda Yaccarino may have to make a trip to Paris in the spring. The reason? The duo have a date with JUNALCO. So what’s a “JUNALCO.” In French it is Juridiction nationale de lutte contre la criminalité organisée. The translation is in my rusty French something like France’s national prosecutors for organized crime, cybercrime, and complex transnational cases. If I think in terms of the US judicial and law enforcement set up, JUNALCO is a mix of special police (for instance, cyber investigators), the FBI, and a couple of offices of the State Department.
Getting caught in the French government’s legal processes is a problem for non-citizens. France is wired into other law enforcement organizations and the transnational folks as well. Non-citizens can “ignore” French legal requests and let their lawyers rack up big bills while catching some decent meals as the French legal processes move forward.
Two figures waiting in the rain for the French authorities to let them into the government building. Ah, Paris in the spring. Thanks, Venice.ai. Your French is worse than mine. It is “judiciaire,” not jiujicade. Sigh.
But if the person or persons ignore the French request, the French government is quite good at paperwork. A quick change at one of France’s airport en route to another destination could become an opportunity to spend some time with Border Police (PAF) and Customs (Douanes). At airports or any border crossing, these officials have wide discretionary powers. Computers make it easy to ID and chat with those on a watch list. In France, detention does not require an arrest warrant.
Who cares about this JUNALCO stuff? Answer: Elon Musk and Linda Yaccarino do.
“Paris Prosecutors Raid France Offices of Elon Musk’s X” reports:
Police specializing in combating cyber-crime, assisted by Europol, have raided the offices of Elon Musk’s social media platform, X, in France. The Paris prosecutor said it related to an investigation into the content recommended by X’s algorithm, which had subsequently been widened to include its controversial AI chatbot, Grok. The prosecutor’s office added both Musk and former X chief executive officer Linda Yaccarino had been summoned to appear at hearings in April as part of its probe.
France to most people means good food, nice architecture, and wonderful shopping. To those snagged in its bureaucratic processes France means home of the EU’s most overcrowded prison, Byzantine legal processes, and time… lots of time. Attorneys understand time and how to use it.
The question becomes, “Why target X.com, Elon, and the former CEO Linda, the ad sales expert?”
The answer is, “France has a case.”
JUNALCO does not take action with Europol along for the ride unless it has, in JUNALCO’s view, a very solid case against what France perceives as a very bad actor. The head of the Paris prosecutor’s office, in my experience, is not going to be moved by the wealth, power, rocket ships, and robots. Nope. X.com is on the JUNALCO spring agenda.
I would suggest that:
- This is serious: The raid, the summons, and the direct involvement of Europol
- Two executives means separate “interviews” and a real life prisoner’s dilemma for Mr. Musk. This is pressure geometry
- Refusal to appear means future risks and probably issues in other countries. Change planes at Amsterdam Airport Schiphol and the possibility exists that Mr. Musk or Ms. Yaccarino could be picked up and whisked to Paris
- France is the pointed end of the stick for certain major cyber crime actions in Western Europe.
What happens if Mr. Musk or Ms. Yaccarino is held for interrogation? Mr. Musk and/or Ms Yaccarino’s French attorneys will work with the duo’s American attorneys to contact the US embassy. Will that online form for assistance requests be acted upon promptly? One hopes.
This is a now, tomorrow, and future problem. As Simon and Garfunkel wrote:
April, come she will
When streams are ripe and swelled with pain
Ooops. Sorry. I meant “rain,” not “pain.” My bad.
Stephen E Arnold, February 4, 2026
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
