Dean Ball helped write the federal government’s AI rulebook. In July, he starts work at OpenAI. That one sentence is the AI policy revolving door in miniature, and the door is spinning in a clear direction.
Ball served as senior policy adviser for AI and emerging technology at the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, where he was a primary author of the administration’s AI Action Plan, the document that set federal expectations on chip exports, AI safety, and how Washington deals with the companies building frontier models. On July 6 he becomes head of a new OpenAI team called Strategic Futures, reporting to chief strategy officer Jason Kwon and working on catastrophic risk, recursive self-improvement, labor-market effects, and the relationship between frontier labs and governments. He keeps a non-resident fellowship at the Foundation for American Innovation. The same week, Noam Shazeer, who co-wrote the 2017 paper that made modern AI possible, left Google for OpenAI. One of those moves is talent. The other is governance.
OpenAI did not respond to a request for comment.
Here is the part worth sitting with: the AI policy revolving door is not new. The door between Washington and industry has been turning for decades, and it turns in both parties. During the Obama years, the Tech Transparency Project counted 258 revolving-door moves between Google and the federal government. The Pentagon version is older and larger, with hundreds of senior defense officials cycling into contractor boardrooms, a pattern the Project On Government Oversight has tracked for years. When Biden staffed his administration, advisers openly described technology firms as the new Goldman Sachs, the way that bank once seeded every Treasury. We covered the policy-text version of this in how the AI executive order got written, and the thinning line between state and company in Britain’s sovereign AI push. Ball is the AI era’s turn of a very old wheel.
That history is also Ball’s defense, and it is a fair one. Government needs people who actually understand the technology, and you do not get that understanding without moving talent in and out of the field. The door has always swung both ways. Someone who helped write a framework is not a regulator signing off on OpenAI’s compliance, and keeping a public fellowship is more transparency than most bother with. The distinctions are real.
The mistake is hunting for the villain. There isn’t one, and that is the whole problem. Power has stopped needing corruption now that it can simply hire the referee. The defense industry took generations to perfect this move, Wall Street took decades, and AI ran the same play in about three years, in the open, announced over press releases. What we are watching is a narrow class of people learning to write the rules and own the upside inside the same career, and calling the combination expertise. The public was never at that table. It only gets the bill.
For everyone outside this world, the takeaway is plain. The AI policy revolving door is why the rules about the AI in your bank, your hospital, and your benefits keep getting written by a circle of people who end up at the companies those rules cover. No one has to break anything for the public to lose its seat at the table, and that is a harder problem to fix than corruption, because nothing illegal ever happens.
Watch who moves next. The names leaving government for the labs are a better map of where AI policy is actually heading than anything published in the Federal Register.
FAQ
Who is Dean Ball?
Dean Ball was the senior policy adviser for AI and emerging technology at the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and a primary author of the administration’s AI Action Plan. In July 2026 he joins OpenAI to lead a new team called Strategic Futures.
What is the AI policy revolving door?
The AI policy revolving door is the movement of people between the government roles that write AI rules and the companies those rules govern. The pattern is not unique to AI. It has long run between the Pentagon and defense contractors, and between the Treasury and Wall Street.
Related Stories
In eleven days, Grok generated approximately 3 million sexualized images of women and children. An estimated 23,000 of those images depicted minors.
On February 16, 2026, Ireland’s Data Protection Commission (DPC) announced it had opened a formal investigation into X Internet Unlimited Company, the legal entity behind Elon Musk’s X platform, for potential violations of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Graham Doyle, the DPC’s Deputy Commissioner, confirmed the inquiry would examine whether X met its “fundamental obligations under the GDPR” regarding the processing of personal data of EU and EEA citizens, including children.
This is the second simultaneous EU investigation into Grok. In January, the European Commission launched a separate probe under the Digital Services Act (DSA), examining whether X properly assessed and mitigated the risks of Grok’s image generation capabilities. Two legal frameworks. Two investigating bodies. One platform.
How It Happened
The timeline tells the story. Between December 29, 2025 and January 9, 2026, Grok’s image generation feature allowed users to create realistic depictions of real people in sexualized contexts using simple text prompts. The Centre for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), a British nonprofit, documented the scale: 3 million sexualized images generated in barely more than a week.
Users could type commands like “put her in a bikini” or “remove her clothes” and Grok would comply. It worked on public figures, private individuals, and minors.
X’s response was to restrict image generation to paying customers. Put another way, X put a price tag on the violation.
EU Tech Commissioner Henna Virkkunen called nonconsensual sexual deepfakes “a violent, unacceptable form of degradation.” European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen stated the EU would not “tolerate unthinkable behaviour, such as digital undressing of women and children.” X had already been fined €120 million ($140 million) in December 2025 for separate DSA violations.
The Enforcement Template
What makes this case structurally important is the dual-track approach. The GDPR investigation targets data protection. Every one of those 3 million images required processing someone’s personal data, their face, their likeness, their identity, without consent. The DSA investigation targets platform responsibility for content moderation and risk assessment.
If both investigations produce enforcement action, it creates a template that applies to every AI image generation tool operating in the EU. Meta’s AI tools, Midjourney, Stability AI, and every other platform with generative image capabilities would face the same scrutiny under both frameworks.
The pattern is consistent with how the EU has escalated its digital enforcement. When France banned American platforms from government use, it expanded the regulatory toolkit. When deepfake technology compromised remote hiring, it demonstrated the real-world harm that drives regulation forward.
The open question is whether the fines are large enough to change anything. €120 million is a rounding error for a platform valued in the tens of billions.
The Counter-Argument
X would argue that Grok’s image generation was an experimental feature, that restrictions were implemented quickly, and that paying-customer-only access limits misuse. The company could point to other AI platforms that have faced similar challenges with image generation guardrails. Every major generative AI tool has had content policy failures in its early stages.
That argument collapses under the numbers. Three million images. Eleven days. Twenty-three thousand involving children. This was not a guardrail failure. This was what the system was built to do.
This was a user acquisition play. The simplest way to drive engagement on a platform is to let users do things they cannot do anywhere else. For eleven days, X let millions of people generate explicit images of real women and children without consent. The surge in activity those numbers represent would appear in every growth metric X reports to investors and advertisers. Restricting it to paid users after the backlash does not undo the damage. It monetizes it.
What This Means for Everyday People
If your face is on the internet, it can be used to generate explicit images without your knowledge or consent. That was true before Grok. Grok industrialized it at a scale that made the problem impossible to ignore.
The EU is now testing whether existing law can contain AI-generated harm. If the GDPR and DSA can force platforms to build safety systems before launch rather than after scandal, it sets a global standard. If they cannot, the next episode will be larger. The technology only becomes more capable.
For inquiries and analysis contact laterstack@proton.me
On Monday, Elon Musk announced that SpaceX would acquire xAI, his artificial intelligence startup, in a transaction valued at $1.25 trillion, the largest corporate merger in history. The combined entity will unite launch capacity, satellite connectivity, and frontier AI development under a single corporate umbrella. Musk now commands an integrated stack that no other entity on Earth can replicate: rockets to reach orbit, a constellation of thousands of satellites providing global internet coverage, and an AI laboratory racing to build superintelligence.
The financial engineering is elegant. SpaceX, valued at approximately $1 trillion following secondary share sales in December, absorbs xAI at a $250 billion valuation. Shareholders of xAI will receive 0.1433 shares of SpaceX stock for each share they hold. The combined company is expected to pursue an initial public offering in mid-June, timed, according to reports, to coincide with Musk’s birthday and a planetary alignment. The symbolism is characteristically grandiose.
But beneath the celestial theater, something far more terrestrial is at work. The question that demands answering is not whether Musk can build data centers in space, though that remains an open engineering challenge of considerable magnitude. The question is how xAI, a company burning through approximately $1 billion per month according to Bloomberg, justified its quarter-trillion-dollar valuation in the first place.
The Product That Cannot Compete on Merit
Grok, the flagship product of xAI, is by most technical assessments the weakest of the major large language models. It trails OpenAI’s GPT-4, Anthropic’s Claude, and Google’s Gemini across virtually every benchmark that matters to enterprise customers. Its reasoning capabilities are inferior. Its factual accuracy is questionable. Its safety guardrails are, by design, nearly nonexistent.
What Grok does possess is distribution. It is integrated directly into X, the social media platform Musk acquired in 2022, which still commands hundreds of millions of monthly active users despite years of advertiser exodus and user attrition. xAI merged with X last year, with Musk claiming a combined valuation of $113 billion at the time. The thesis was clear: if you cannot build the best AI, you can still reach the most users.
But reach is not the same as value, and the methods by which Grok achieved its engagement numbers should trouble anyone paying attention.
In late December 2025 and early January 2026, xAI rolled out image generation capabilities for Grok that included a paid feature called “Spicy Mode,” which allowed users to create partially nude content. Within days, users discovered that the system’s guardrails were trivially easy to circumvent. What followed was, by Bloomberg’s assessment, the largest mass production of nonconsensual intimate imagery ever hosted on a mainstream social media platform.
X users began requesting that Grok “undress” women and girls from photographs. The AI complied. By some estimates, thousands of such images were being generated every hour. The Grok official account eventually posted an apology for generating sexualized images of minors, acknowledging a specific incident involving “two young girls (estimated ages 12-16) in sexualized attire.”
The regulatory response was swift. California Attorney General Rob Bonta issued a cease and desist order. The European Union, France, India, and Malaysia launched investigations. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer threatened to ban X entirely from the United Kingdom.
Musk’s response was to post laugh-cry emojis.
Internally, according to CNN reporting, Musk had been pushing back against guardrails for Grok, advocating publicly against what he calls “woke” AI and censorship. The xAI safety team, already smaller than those at competing companies, lost several staffers in the weeks before the scandal broke. The platform eventually limited image generation to paying subscribers, but only after the damage was done.
These are the engagement metrics that helped justify a $250 billion valuation.
The Government Connection
The timing of the SpaceX acquisition is not coincidental. Musk has become, over the past year, one of the most politically connected figures in American life. His involvement with the Department of Government Efficiency, his proximity to the current administration, and SpaceX’s indispensable role in national security launches have created a web of dependencies that would be difficult for any regulator to untangle.
SpaceX recently asked the Federal Communications Commission for authorization to launch up to one million satellites as part of what the company describes as “orbital data centers.” The vision Musk articulated in the merger announcement is characteristically ambitious: within two to three years, he estimates, the lowest cost method of generating AI compute will be in space rather than on Earth. “Global electricity demand for AI simply cannot be met with terrestrial solutions,” he wrote, “even in the near term, without imposing hardship on communities and the environment.”
The logic is not entirely speculative. Terrestrial data centers face genuine constraints. Permitting for new power generation is measured in years. Transformer production is bottlenecked globally. Water for cooling is increasingly scarce in many regions. These are real problems that Siemens Energy is investing $1 billion to address, as we report elsewhere in this issue.
But orbital data centers introduce their own constraints: launch costs, maintenance in vacuum, latency for round-trip communications, and the sheer thermodynamic challenge of dissipating heat in space where there is no atmosphere to carry it away. Musk has solved difficult engineering problems before. He has also made promises that failed to materialize.
What matters for the present analysis is that the merger positions xAI’s problems, its cash burn, its inferior product, its regulatory exposure, within the protective shell of SpaceX’s undeniable accomplishments. SpaceX generated an estimated $8 billion in profit on $15 to $16 billion in revenue in 2025. It has become the dominant provider of launch services for both commercial and government payloads. It operates Starlink, a satellite internet constellation that has proven militarily significant in Ukraine and commercially viable in underserved markets worldwide.
xAI, by contrast, has a chatbot that trails its competitors and a track record of enabling mass abuse. The merger allows the former to subsidize the latter.
The Investor Class and the Sovereignty Question
The January funding round that set xAI’s $230 billion valuation tells its own story. Among the investors were the Qatar Investment Authority, MGX (an investment arm of the Abu Dhabi government), Nvidia, and Cisco. Sovereign wealth funds from the Gulf states have determined that AI is a strategic asset class, not merely a venture bet. They are purchasing stakes in the physical infrastructure that will run the models of the future.
This is rational behavior from the perspective of nations that built their current wealth on hydrocarbons and understand that energy is always, eventually, strategic. But it raises questions for American policymakers about who will own the compute stack when AI becomes, as many expect, as consequential as electricity or telecommunications.
Musk now controls a company that provides satellite internet to the American military, launches classified payloads for the intelligence community, and operates the AI chatbot used by hundreds of millions of people globally. The same man posts laugh emojis when that chatbot generates child sexual abuse material. The same man burns approximately $1 billion monthly on an AI product that cannot compete on quality.
The market has assigned a $1.25 trillion valuation to this arrangement.
What This Means for Everyday People
For ordinary users, the implications are both abstract and immediate. The abstract concern is that AI development is consolidating into the hands of a small number of actors whose incentives may not align with the public interest. The immediate concern is that platforms you use daily are being designed by people who view safety guardrails as obstacles to engagement rather than features that protect users.
If you have a daughter, sister, mother, or friend who has ever posted a photograph to social media, xAI built a product that could be used to sexualize that image without her consent. When confronted with this reality, the company’s response was to laugh. Then it was acquired for a quarter of a trillion dollars.
The space data center vision may or may not prove viable. The engineering challenges are formidable. The timeline is aggressive. What is certain today is that the company absorbing xAI into its corporate structure is doing so at a valuation that cannot be justified by the quality of xAI’s products. It can only be justified by xAI’s reach, its government connections, and the belief that in the AI race, distribution matters more than safety.
That belief may prove correct. It will not prove admirable.
For inquiries and analysis contact laterstack@proton.me
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the SpaceX xAI merger?
SpaceX, the rocket and satellite company owned by Elon Musk, announced on February 2, 2026 that it would acquire xAI, Musk’s artificial intelligence startup, in a share exchange valued at $1.25 trillion. The deal combines SpaceX’s launch and satellite capabilities with xAI’s AI development, creating what Musk describes as an integrated platform for building orbital data centers.
Why is xAI valued at $250 billion despite Grok trailing competitors?
xAI’s valuation reflects its distribution through the X social media platform, its recent funding from sovereign wealth funds in Qatar and Abu Dhabi, and strategic investors including Nvidia. The valuation is based on reach and future potential rather than current product superiority over competitors like OpenAI, Anthropic, or Google.
What was the Grok deepfake scandal?
In late December 2025 and January 2026, xAI’s Grok AI was used to generate thousands of nonconsensual intimate images of women and minors on the X platform. The scandal prompted investigations from regulators in California, the EU, France, India, and Malaysia, and threats of platform bans from the UK government.
A new network of political action committees is quietly reshaping the debate around artificial intelligence ahead of the 2026 midterms. The bipartisan pro-AI coalition, led by the super PAC Leading the Future, has raised over $100 million from major tech investors and executives, including OpenAI president Greg Brockman and the venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz. Their first move targets candidates who favor state-level AI regulations, signaling a push for federal preemption.
The PAC’s initial focus is New York State Assemblyman Alex Bores, who sponsored legislation requiring large AI companies to publish safety data. Leading the Future ran an attack ad claiming Bores would allow a “chaotic patchwork” of state rules that could harm innovation and cost jobs. The ad also links Bores to outside groups funded by the convicted crypto executive Sam Bankman-Fried. Bores responded that Silicon Valley billionaires are attempting to influence elections to avoid accountability while he stands up for public safety and transparency.
The effort mirrors strategies used by the cryptocurrency industry in prior election cycles, where PAC-backed campaigns successfully defeated candidates opposing rapid innovation in favor of consumer protections. Leading the Future aims to support like-minded candidates nationwide while discouraging elected officials from opposing the tech industry’s agenda. Meta is running a separate but complementary pro-AI PAC, emphasizing the bipartisan push to shape AI policy.
This political strategy highlights a growing tension in American governance. Federal preemption is favored by the tech industry and supported by the Trump administration, which has proposed executive action to prevent states from regulating AI independently. State-level regulations are seen as a potential obstacle to rapid AI deployment, which aligns with national security and economic competitiveness arguments. For Trump and tech allies, centralized federal rules simplify compliance, reduce uncertainty, and ensure U.S. companies maintain a competitive edge in global AI development.
Critics argue that this approach narrows the scope of policy debate. Leading the Future and similar PACs prioritize federal rules that limit state oversight, even as public concern over AI safety, labor displacement, and privacy grows. Pew Research Center surveys show that over half of Americans see AI as a high-risk technology, while Gallup reports 80% of U.S. adults believe government regulations are needed for safety and data security. By preempting state regulation, the industry risks marginalizing these concerns and centralizing decision-making power in Washington and Silicon Valley.
For everyday people, the implications are clear. Decisions about AI safety, privacy, and the local impact of data centers could increasingly bypass local representatives. Voters may find that the systems shaping their lives are influenced more by global corporations than by elected officials in their communities. Awareness of these forces is the first step toward engaging critically with technology policy and the political structures that govern it.
Email inquiries to hello@laterstack.com.
Related Laterstack Tech Stories
Stanford Graduates Face Job Market Shift as AI Replaces Entry-Level Roles
Microsoft’s Copilot Holiday Ad Shows Everything That Doesn’t Work
FTC Forces Instacart to Refund $60 Million Over Deceptive Subscription Practices
Google Sues Web Scraper for Stealing Search Results at ‘Astonishing Scale’
New York Governor Kathy Hochul has signed the RAISE Act into law, making New York the second state in the country to pass sweeping artificial intelligence safety legislation.
State lawmakers originally passed the bill in June. After heavy lobbying from the tech industry, Hochul proposed revisions to scale back the legislation. According to the New York Times, Hochul ultimately agreed to sign the original version of the bill while lawmakers committed to revisiting her proposed changes next year.
The RAISE Act requires large AI developers operating in New York to publicly disclose details about their safety protocols and report serious AI related incidents to the state within 72 hours. The law also establishes a new office within the New York Department of Financial Services dedicated to monitoring AI development and enforcement.
Companies that fail to submit required safety reports or provide false information can face fines of up to $1 million. Repeat violations can result in penalties of up to $3 million.
Hochul referenced California’s recent AI safety law when announcing the signing, positioning New York and California as the leading states shaping AI oversight in the absence of federal action.
“This law builds on California’s recently adopted framework, creating a unified benchmark among the country’s leading tech states as the federal government lags behind,” Hochul said. “New Yorkers deserve common sense protections as AI becomes more powerful and more widespread.”
State Senator Andrew Gounardes, one of the bill’s sponsors, took a more confrontational tone. In a public post, he said major tech companies attempted to derail the legislation through lobbying efforts but failed. He described the RAISE Act as the strongest AI safety law passed in the United States so far.
Support for the law has not been uniform across the tech industry. Both OpenAI and Anthropic publicly backed the bill while also urging Congress to move faster on federal AI regulation. Anthropic’s head of external affairs, Sarah Heck, told the New York Times that the passage of AI transparency laws in two of the country’s largest states should push lawmakers in Washington to act.
At the same time, opposition has emerged from powerful venture interests. A super PAC backed by Andreessen Horowitz and OpenAI President Greg Brockman is reportedly preparing to challenge Assemblyman Alex Bores, who co sponsored the bill. Bores responded publicly by saying he appreciated how direct the opposition had been.
The law also arrives amid escalating tension between states and the federal government. President Donald Trump recently signed an executive order directing federal agencies to challenge state level AI regulations. The order, backed by Trump’s AI policy lead David Sacks, is expected to face legal challenges and has intensified debate over whether states should be allowed to regulate AI independently.
What This Means for Everyday People
For the public, the RAISE Act signals a shift toward transparency and accountability as AI systems become more embedded in daily life. From automated decision making to financial services and healthcare tools, the law aims to ensure companies disclose risks, respond quickly to failures, and face consequences when systems cause harm. While legal battles are likely, the legislation gives consumers clearer guardrails at a moment when AI is moving faster than national regulation.
For inquiries or tips
hello@laterstack.com
Related Laterstack Stories
Sequoia Partner’s False Brown Shooting Claims Put New Leadership to the Test
TikTok Hands Control of Its US Business to American Investors After Years of Pressure
Is Your Vibrator Spying on You? Understanding App-Connected Sex Toy Data
President Donald Trump signed an executive order on Thursday, aiming to centralize AI regulation at the federal level and challenge state laws that impose varying rules on artificial intelligence. Titled “Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence,” the order directs federal agencies to set up task forces to identify and potentially contest state AI laws, with the Commerce Department given 90 days to evaluate rules considered “onerous.”
While the administration frames the order as a solution to the patchwork of state laws, legal experts warn it could leave startups in legal limbo. Companies navigating differing state and federal regulations may face extended court battles, creating uncertainty for small and mid-sized innovators who lack the resources to absorb legal risks.
The order instructs the Department of Justice to challenge state laws on the grounds that AI falls under interstate commerce. The Federal Trade Commission and Federal Communications Commission are tasked with exploring standards that could preempt state rules, while the administration encourages Congress to craft a uniform AI law.
Critics say the executive order may favor large tech firms, which have the funding to weather legal uncertainty, while startups and emerging AI companies face delays and compliance costs. Arul Nigam, co-founder of Circuit Breaker Labs, warned that smaller AI firms must navigate conflicting rules without clear guidance, slowing innovation.
“Big Tech and the big AI startups have the funds to hire lawyers or hedge their bets. The uncertainty hurts startups the most,” said Andrew Gamino-Cheong, CTO of AI governance company Trustible. He added that legal ambiguity could reduce adoption among risk-sensitive customers such as financial and healthcare institutions.
Supporters of a federal framework argue a single national standard could reduce complexity, but Gary Kibel, partner at Davis + Gilbert, cautioned that an executive order is not the proper vehicle to override state laws, potentially creating a regulatory “Wild West.” Meanwhile, organizations like The App Association urge Congress to act quickly to pass a comprehensive AI framework to avoid prolonged legal battles.
As state enforcement continues until courts intervene or Congress legislates, startups face a precarious balance between innovation and compliance, navigating a landscape where AI law remains uncertain.
Related Laterstack Tech Stories
For inquiries, tips, or submissions: hello@laterstack.com
In a San Francisco courtroom, a battle is brewing that could change the way we buy things online. The Amazon Perplexity AI lawsuit challenges whether AI tools can act as personal shoppers, performing real-world tasks on behalf of users.
Amazon claims that Perplexity AI’s Comet bot violated its rules by making purchases without proper disclosure, calling it computer fraud. Perplexity argues that it was simply following user instructions, giving people a faster, smarter way to shop.
This clash is about more than a single website. It could determine whether AI agents will become everyday digital assistants or remain experimental tools restricted by corporate rules.
What is Comet doing?
Comet is a browser-based AI agent that can browse websites, compare products, and complete purchases. Amazon says Comet disguised itself as a regular browser and bypassed security blocks to shop on users’ behalf.
Perplexity insists that Comet only acted with user permission and did not scrape data or train its models on Amazon content. The startup says Amazon is trying to protect its advertising revenue and block competition.
If Amazon wins the case, AI shopping agents may be forced to stop operating on major platforms. If Perplexity wins, AI assistants could become the go-to method for buying anything online, potentially reshaping e-commerce, advertising, and consumer habits.
The stakes for everyday users
The Amazon Perplexity AI lawsuit is about control. Right now, shoppers must navigate websites themselves, compare prices, and manage checkout. AI agents could do all of that automatically.
Imagine telling your assistant to buy a gift under fifty dollars with free shipping. Today you do it manually. Tomorrow, your AI could handle every step for you, saving time and avoiding mistakes.
At the same time, this raises questions. Who is responsible if the AI buys the wrong item? Who guarantees security if the agent acts on your behalf? This case could set the rules for responsibility, liability, and user rights in the AI age.
The corporate angle
Amazon has already tested AI shopping internally. Its tools like Buy For Me and Rufus show that automated assistants can recommend and buy products. The difference is Amazon controls these agents.
Perplexity challenges that monopoly. CEO Aravind Srinivas says people should choose the AI that works best for them, not be forced to use the platform’s own tools. Perplexity also relies heavily on Amazon Web Services, creating an ironic twist: the startup is using Amazon’s infrastructure while being sued by the company.
The result of the Amazon Perplexity AI lawsuit could decide if corporations retain exclusive control over how consumers interact with digital marketplaces, or if AI will be allowed to act independently.
What it means for the future
This lawsuit is not just about shopping. It is a turning point for AI on the internet.
If AI agents are allowed to act autonomously, websites will have to adapt, and new assistants could manage research, bookings, and purchases for millions of people. If they are blocked, digital innovation may slow, and human users will remain responsible for every click.
Either way, the Amazon Perplexity AI lawsuit signals a new era where software negotiates, decides, and acts for us, and where the legal system will determine who controls the future of online action.
Read the original coverage at Bloomberg.
Explore more Laterstack sensational tech stories:
ICC drops Microsoft Office for European open source alternative
The day the Internet stopped: Inside AWS’s massive cloud collapse