There has been a new update to the ongoing Stratasys v. Bambu Lab patent infringement lawsuit.  Both parties have agreed to consolidate the lead and member cases (2:24-CV-00644-JRG and 2:24-CV-00645-JRG) into a single case under Case No. 2:25-cv-00465-JRG.  Industrial 3D printing OEM Stratasys filed the request late last month. According to an official court document, Shenzhen-based Bambu Lab did not oppose the motion. Stratasys argued that this non-opposition amounted to the defendants waiving their right to challenge the request under U.S. patent law 35 U.S.C. § 299(a). On June 2, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, ordered Bambu Lab to confirm in writing whether it agreed to the proposed case consolidation. The court took this step out of an “abundance of caution” to ensure both parties consented to the procedure before moving forward. Bambu Lab submitted its response on June 12, agreeing to the consolidation. The company, along with co-defendants Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd., Shanghai Lunkuo Technology Co., Ltd., and Tuozhu Technology Limited, waived its rights under 35 U.S.C. § 299(a). The court will now decide whether to merge the cases. This followed U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap’s decision last month to deny Bambu Lab’s motion to dismiss the lawsuits.  The Chinese desktop 3D printer manufacturer filed the motion in February 2025, arguing the cases were invalid because its US-based subsidiary, Bambu Lab USA, was not named in the original litigation. However, it agreed that the lawsuit could continue in the Austin division of the Western District of Texas, where a parallel case was filed last year.  Judge Gilstrap denied the motion, ruling that the cases properly target the named defendants. He concluded that Bambu Lab USA isn’t essential to the dispute, and that any misnaming should be addressed in summary judgment, not dismissal.        A Stratasys Fortus 450mc (left) and a Bambu Lab X1C (right). Image by 3D Printing industry. Another twist in the Stratasys v. Bambu Lab lawsuit  Stratasys filed the two lawsuits against Bambu Lab in the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, in August 2024. The company claims that Bambu Lab’s X1C, X1E, P1S, P1P, A1, and A1 mini 3D printers violate ten of its patents. These patents cover common 3D printing features, including purge towers, heated build plates, tool head force detection, and networking capabilities. Stratasys has requested a jury trial. It is seeking a ruling that Bambu Lab infringed its patents, along with financial damages and an injunction to stop Bambu from selling the allegedly infringing 3D printers. Last October, Stratasys dropped charges against two of the originally named defendants in the dispute. Court documents showed that Beijing Tiertime Technology Co., Ltd. and Beijing Yinhua Laser Rapid Prototyping and Mould Technology Co., Ltd were removed. Both defendants represent the company Tiertime, China’s first 3D printer manufacturer. The District Court accepted the dismissal, with all claims dropped without prejudice. It’s unclear why Stratasys named Beijing-based Tiertime as a defendant in the first place, given the lack of an obvious connection to Bambu Lab.  Tiertime and Stratasys have a history of legal disputes over patent issues. In 2013, Stratasys sued Afinia, Tiertime’s U.S. distributor and partner, for patent infringement. Afinia responded by suing uCRobotics, the Chinese distributor of MakerBot 3D printers, also alleging patent violations. Stratasys acquired MakerBot in June 2013. The company later merged with Ultimaker in 2022. In February 2025, Bambu Lab filed a motion to dismiss the original lawsuits. The company argued that Stratasys’ claims, focused on the sale, importation, and distribution of 3D printers in the United States, do not apply to the Shenzhen-based parent company. Bambu Lab contended that the allegations concern its American subsidiary, Bambu Lab USA, which was not named in the complaint filed in the Eastern District of Texas. Bambu Lab filed a motion to dismiss, claiming the case is invalid under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19. It argued that any party considered a “primary participant” in the allegations must be included as a defendant.    The court denied the motion on May 29, 2025. In the ruling, Judge Gilstrap explained that Stratasys’ allegations focus on the actions of the named defendants, not Bambu Lab USA. As a result, the official court document called Bambu Lab’s argument “unavailing.” Additionally, the Judge stated that, since Bambu Lab USA and Bambu Lab are both owned by Shenzhen Tuozhu, “the interest of these two entities align,” meaning the original cases are valid.   In the official court document, Judge Gilstrap emphasized that Stratasys can win or lose the lawsuits based solely on the actions of the current defendants, regardless of Bambu Lab USA’s involvement. He added that any potential risk to Bambu Lab USA’s business is too vague or hypothetical to justify making it a required party. Finally, the court noted that even if Stratasys named the wrong defendant, this does not justify dismissal under Rule 12(b)(7). Instead, the judge stated it would be more appropriate for the defendants to raise that argument in a motion for summary judgment. The Bambu Lab X1C 3D printer. Image via Bambu Lab. 3D printing patent battles  The 3D printing industry has seen its fair share of patent infringement disputes over recent months. In May 2025, 3D printer hotend developer Slice Engineering reached an agreement with Creality over a patent non-infringement lawsuit.  The Chinese 3D printer OEM filed the lawsuit in July 2024 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida, Gainesville Division. The company claimed that Slice Engineering had falsely accused it of infringing two hotend patents, U.S. Patent Nos. 10,875,244 and 11,660,810. These cover mechanical and thermal features of Slice’s Mosquito 3D printer hotend. Creality requested a jury trial and sought a ruling confirming it had not infringed either patent. Court documents show that Slice Engineering filed a countersuit in December 2024. The Gainesville-based company maintained that Creaility “has infringed and continues to infringe” on both patents. In the filing, the company also denied allegations that it had harassed Creality’s partners, distributors, and customers, and claimed that Creality had refused to negotiate a resolution.   The Creality v. Slice Engineering lawsuit has since been dropped following a mutual resolution. Court documents show that both parties have permanently dismissed all claims and counterclaims, agreeing to cover their own legal fees and costs.  In other news, large-format resin 3D printer manufacturer Intrepid Automation sued 3D Systems over alleged patent infringement. The lawsuit, filed in February 2025, accused 3D Systems of using patented technology in its PSLA 270 industrial resin 3D printer. The filing called the PSLA 270 a “blatant knock off” of Intrepid’s DLP multi-projection “Range” 3D printer.   San Diego-based Intrepid Automation called this alleged infringement the “latest chapter of 3DS’s brazen, anticompetitive scheme to drive a smaller competitor with more advanced technology out of the marketplace.” The lawsuit also accused 3D Systems of corporate espionage, claiming one of its employees stole confidential trade secrets that were later used to develop the PSLA 270 printer. 3D Systems denied the allegations and filed a motion to dismiss the case. The company called the lawsuit “a desperate attempt” by Intrepid to distract from its own alleged theft of 3D Systems’ trade secrets. Who won the 2024 3D Printing Industry Awards? Subscribe to the 3D Printing Industry newsletter to keep up with the latest 3D printing news.You can also follow us on LinkedIn, and subscribe to the 3D Printing Industry Youtube channel to access more exclusive content.Featured image shows a Stratasys Fortus 450mc (left) and a Bambu Lab X1C (right). Image by 3D Printing industry.

DNA testing service 23andMe has undergone serious upheaval in recent months, creating concerns for the 15 million customers who entrusted the company with their personal biological information. After filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in March, the company became the center of a bidding war that ended Friday when co-founder Anne Wojcicki said she’d successfully reacquired control through her nonprofit TTAM Research Institute for $305 million. The bankruptcy proceedings had sent shockwaves through the genetic testing industry and among privacy advocates, with security experts and lawmakers urging customers to take immediate action to safeguard their data. The company’s interim CEO revealed this week that 1.9 million people, around 15% of 23andMe’s customer base, have already requested their genetic data be deleted from the company’s servers. The situation became even more complex last week after more than two dozen states filed lawsuits challenging the sale of customers’ private data, arguing that 23andMe must obtain explicit consent before transferring or selling personal information to any new entity. While the company’s policies mean you cannot delete all traces of your genetic data — particularly information that may have already been shared with research partners or stored in backup systems — if you’re one of the 15 million people who shared their DNA with 23andMe, there are still meaningful steps you can take to protect yourself and minimize your exposure. How to delete your 23andMe data To delete your data from 23andMe, you need to log in to your account and then follow these steps: Navigate to the Settings section of your profile. Scroll down to the selection labeled 23andMe Data.  Click the View option and scroll to the Delete Data section. Select the Permanently Delete Data button. You will then receive an email from 23andMe with a link that will allow you to confirm your deletion request.  You can choose to download a copy of your data before deleting it. There is an important caveat, as 23andMe’s privacy policy states that the company and its labs “will retain your Genetic Information, date of birth, and sex as required for compliance with applicable legal obligations.” The policy continues: “23andMe will also retain limited information related to your account and data deletion request, including but not limited to, your email address, account deletion request identifier, communications related to inquiries or complaints and legal agreements for a limited period of time as required by law, contractual obligations, and/or as necessary for the establishment, exercise or defense of legal claims and for audit and compliance purposes.” This essentially means that 23andMe may keep some of your information for an unspecified amount of time.  How to destroy your 23andMe test sample and revoke permission for your data to be used for research If you previously opted to have your saliva sample and DNA stored by 23andMe, you can change this setting. To revoke your permission, go into your 23andMe account settings page and then navigate to Preferences.  In addition, if you previously agreed to 23andMe and third-party researchers using your genetic data and sample for research, you can withdraw consent from the Research and Product Consents section in your account settings.  While you can reverse that consent, there’s no way for you to delete that information. Check in with your family members Once you have requested the deletion of your data, it’s important to check in with your family members and encourage them to do the same because it’s not just their DNA that’s at risk of sale — it also affects people they are related to.  And while you’re at it, it’s worth checking in with your friends to ensure that all of your loved ones are taking steps to protect their data.  This story originally published on March 25 and was updated June 11 with new information.

Published June 14, 2025 10:00am EDT close Top lawmaker on cybersecurity panel talks threats to US agriculture Senate Armed Services Committee member Mike Rounds, R-S.D., speaks to Fox News Digital NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles! Your home address might be easier to find online than you think. A quick search of your name could turn up past and current locations, all thanks to people finder sites. These data broker sites quietly collect and publish personal details without your consent, making your privacy vulnerable with just a few clicks.Sign up for my FREE CyberGuy ReportGet my best tech tips, urgent security alerts, and exclusive deals delivered straight to your inbox. Plus, you’ll get instant access to my Ultimate Scam Survival Guide — free when you join. A woman searching for herself online. (Kurt "CyberGuy" Knutsson)How your address gets exposed online and who’s using itIf you’ve ever searched for your name and found personal details, like your address, on unfamiliar websites, you’re not alone. People finder platforms collect this information from public records and third-party data brokers, then publish and share it widely. They often link your address to other details such as phone numbers, email addresses and even relatives.11 EASY WAYS TO PROTECT YOUR ONLINE PRIVACY IN 2025While this data may already be public in various places, these sites make it far easier to access and monetize it at scale. In one recent breach, more than 183 million login credentials were exposed through an unsecured database. Many of these records were linked to physical addresses, raising concerns about how multiple sources of personal data can be combined and exploited.Although people finder sites claim to help reconnect friends or locate lost contacts, they also make sensitive personal information available to anyone willing to pay. This includes scammers, spammers and identity thieves who use it for fraud, harassment, and targeted scams. A woman searching for herself online. (Kurt "CyberGuy" Knutsson)How do people search sites get your home address?First, let’s define two sources of information; public and private databases that people search sites use to get your detailed profile, including your home address. They run an automated search on these databases with key information about you and add your home address from the search results. 1. Public sourcesYour home address can appear in:Property deeds: When you buy or sell a home, your name and address become part of the public record.Voter registration: You need to list your address when voting.Court documents: Addresses appear in legal filings or lawsuits.Marriage and divorce records: These often include current or past addresses.Business licenses and professional registrations: If you own a business or hold a license, your address can be listed.WHAT IS ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE (AI)?These records are legal to access, and people finder sites collect and repackage them into detailed personal profiles.2. Private sourcesOther sites buy your data from companies you’ve interacted with:Online purchases: When you buy something online, your address is recorded and can be sold to marketing companies.Subscriptions and memberships: Magazines, clubs and loyalty programs often share your information.Social media platforms: Your location or address details can be gathered indirectly from posts, photos or shared information.Mobile apps and websites: Some apps track your location.People finder sites buy this data from other data brokers and combine it with public records to build complete profiles that include address information. A woman searching for herself online. (Kurt "CyberGuy" Knutsson)What are the risks of having your address on people finder sites?The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) advises people to request the removal of their private data, including home addresses, from people search sites due to the associated risks of stalking, scamming and other crimes.People search sites are a goldmine for cybercriminals looking to target and profile potential victims as well as plan comprehensive cyberattacks. Losses due to targeted phishing attacks increased by 33% in 2024, according to the FBI. So, having your home address publicly accessible can lead to several risks:Stalking and harassment: Criminals can easily find your home address and threaten you.Identity theft: Scammers can use your address and other personal information to impersonate you or fraudulently open accounts.Unwanted contact: Marketers and scammers can use your address to send junk mail or phishing or brushing scams.Increased financial risks: Insurance companies or lenders can use publicly available address information to unfairly decide your rates or eligibility.Burglary and home invasion: Criminals can use your location to target your home when you’re away or vulnerable.How to protect your home addressThe good news is that you can take steps to reduce the risks and keep your address private. However, keep in mind that data brokers and people search sites can re-list your information after some time, so you might need to request data removal periodically.I recommend a few ways to delete your private information, including your home address, from such websites.1. Use personal data removal services: Data brokers can sell your home address and other personal data to multiple businesses and individuals, so the key is to act fast. If you’re looking for an easier way to protect your privacy, a data removal service can do the heavy lifting for you, automatically requesting data removal from brokers and tracking compliance.While no service can guarantee the complete removal of your data from the internet, a data removal service is really a smart choice. They aren’t cheap — and neither is your privacy. These services do all the work for you by actively monitoring and systematically erasing your personal information from hundreds of websites. It’s what gives me peace of mind and has proven to be the most effective way to erase your personal data from the internet. By limiting the information available, you reduce the risk of scammers cross-referencing data from breaches with information they might find on the dark web, making it harder for them to target you. Check out my top picks for data removal services here. Get a free scan to find out if your personal information is already out on the web2. Opt out manually : Use a free scanner provided by a data removal service to check which people search sites that list your address. Then, visit each of these websites and look for an opt-out procedure or form: keywords like "opt out," "delete my information," etc., point the way.Follow each site’s opt-out process carefully, and confirm they’ve removed all your personal info, otherwise, it may get relisted.3. Monitor your digital footprint: I recommend regularly searching online for your name to see if your location is publicly available. If only your social media profile pops up, there’s no need to worry. However, people finder sites tend to relist your private information, including your home address, after some time.4. Limit sharing your address online: Be careful about sharing your home address on social media, online forms and apps. Review privacy settings regularly, and only provide your address when absolutely necessary. Also, adjust your phone settings so that apps don’t track your location.Kurt’s key takeawaysYour home address is more vulnerable than you think. People finder sites aggregate data from public records and private sources to display your address online, often without your knowledge or consent. This can lead to serious privacy and safety risks. Taking proactive steps to protect your home address is essential. Do it manually or use a data removal tool for an easier process. By understanding how your location is collected and taking measures to remove your address from online sites, you can reclaim control over your personal data.CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APPHow do you feel about companies making your home address so easy to find? Let us know by writing us at Cyberguy.com/ContactFor more of my tech tips and security alerts, subscribe to my free CyberGuy Report Newsletter by heading to Cyberguy.com/NewsletterAsk Kurt a question or let us know what stories you'd like us to cover.Follow Kurt on his social channels:Answers to the most-asked CyberGuy questions:New from Kurt:Copyright 2025 CyberGuy.com. All rights reserved.   Kurt "CyberGuy" Knutsson is an award-winning tech journalist who has a deep love of technology, gear and gadgets that make life better with his contributions for Fox News & FOX Business beginning mornings on "FOX & Friends." Got a tech question? Get Kurt’s free CyberGuy Newsletter, share your voice, a story idea or comment at CyberGuy.com.

As AI faces court challenges from Disney and Universal, legal battles are shaping the industry's future | Opinion Silicon advances and design innovations do still push us forward – but the future landscape of the industry is also being sculpted in courtrooms and parliaments Image credit: Disney / Epic Games Opinion by Rob Fahey Contributing Editor Published on June 13, 2025 In some regards, the past couple of weeks have felt rather reassuring. We've just seen a hugely successful launch for a new Nintendo console, replete with long queues for midnight sales events. Over the next few days, the various summer events and showcases that have sprouted amongst the scattered bones of E3 generated waves of interest and hype for a host of new games. It all feels like old times. It's enough to make you imagine that while change is the only constant, at least it's we're facing change that's fairly well understood, change in the form of faster, cheaper silicon, or bigger, more ambitious games. If only the winds that blow through this industry all came from such well-defined points on the compass. Nestled in amongst the week's headlines, though, was something that's likely to have profound but much harder to understand impacts on this industry and many others over the coming years – a lawsuit being brought by Disney and NBC Universal against Midjourney, operators of the eponymous generative AI image creation tool. In some regards, the lawsuit looks fairly straightforward; the arguments made and considered in reaching its outcome, though, may have a profound impact on both the ability of creatives and media companies (including game studios and publishers) to protect their IP rights from a very new kind of threat, and the ways in which a promising but highly controversial and risky new set of development and creative tools can be used commercially. A more likely tack on Midjourney's side will be the argument that they are not responsible for what their customers create with the tool I say the lawsuit looks straightforward from some angles, but honestly overall it looks fairly open and shut – the media giants accuse Midjourney of replicating their copyrighted characters and material, and of essentially building a machine for churning out limitless copyright violations. The evidence submitted includes screenshot after screenshot of Midjourney generating pages of images of famous copyrighted and trademarked characters ranging from Yoda to Homer Simpson, so "no we didn't" isn't going to be much of a defence strategy here. A more likely tack on Midjourney's side will be the argument that they are not responsible for what their customers create with the tool – you don't sue the manufacturers of oil paints or canvases when artists use them to paint something copyright-infringing, nor does Microsoft get sued when someone writes something libellous in Word, and Midjourney may try to argue that their software belongs in that tool category, with users alone being ultimately responsible for how they use them. If that argument prevails and survives appeals and challenges, it would be a major triumph for the nascent generative AI industry and a hugely damaging blow to IP holders and creatives, since it would seriously undermine their argument that AI companies shouldn't be able to include copyrighted material into training data sets without licensing or compensation. The reason Disney and NBCU are going after Midjourney specifically seems to be partially down to Midjourney being especially reticent to negotiate with them about licensing fees and prompt restrictions; other generative AI firms have started talking, at least, about paying for content licenses for training data, and have imposed various limitations on their software to prevent the most egregious and obvious forms of copyright violation (at least for famous characters belonging to rich companies; if you're an individual or a smaller company, it's entirely the Wild West out there as regards your IP rights). In the process, though, they're essentially risking a court showdown over a set of not-quite-clear legal questions at the heart of this dispute, and if Midjourney were to prevail in that argument, other AI companies would likely back off from engaging with IP holders on this topic. To be clear, though, it seems highly unlikely that Midjourney will win that argument, at least not in the medium to long term. Yet depending on how this case moves forward, losing the argument could have equally dramatic consequences – especially if the courts find themselves compelled to consider the question of how, exactly, a generative AI system reproduces a copyrighted character with such precision without storing copyright-infringing data in some manner. The 2020s are turning out to be the decade in which many key regulatory issues come to a head all at once AI advocates have been trying to handwave around this notion from the outset, but at some point a court is going to have to sit down and confront the fact that the precision with which these systems can replicate copyrighted characters, scenes, and other materials requires that they must have stored that infringing material in some form. That it's stored as a scattered mesh of probabilities across the vertices of a high-dimensional vector array, rather than a straightforward, monolithic media file, is clearly important but may ultimately be considered moot. If the data is in the system and can be replicated on request, how that differs from Napster or The Pirate Bay is arguably just a matter of technical obfuscation. Not having to defend that technical argument in court thus far has been a huge boon to the generative AI field; if it is knocked over in that venue, it will have knock-on effects on every company in the sector and on every business that uses their products. Nobody can be quite sure which of the various rocks and pebbles being kicked on this slope is going to set off the landslide, but there seems to be an increasing consensus that a legal and regulatory reckoning is coming for generative AI. Consequently, a lot of what's happening in that market right now has the feel of companies desperately trying to establish products and lock in revenue streams before that happens, because it'll be harder to regulate a technology that's genuinely integrated into the world's economic systems than it is to impose limits on one that's currently only clocking up relatively paltry sales and revenues. Keeping an eye on this is crucial for any industry that's started experimenting with AI in its workflows – none more than a creative industry like video games, where various forms of AI usage have been posited, although the enthusiasm and buzz so far massively outweighs any tangible benefits from the technology. Regardless of what happens in legal and regulatory contexts, AI is already a double-edged sword for any creative industry. Used judiciously, it might help to speed up development processes and reduce overheads. Applied in a slapdash or thoughtless manner, it can and will end up wreaking havoc on development timelines, filling up storefronts with endless waves of vaguely-copyright-infringing slop, and potentially make creative firms, from the industry's biggest companies to its smallest indie developers, into victims of impossibly large-scale copyright infringement rather than beneficiaries of a new wave of technology-fuelled productivity. The legal threat now hanging over the sector isn't new, merely amplified. We've known for a long time that AI generated artwork, code, and text has significant problems from the perspective of intellectual property rights (you can infringe someone else's copyright with it, but generally can't impose your own copyright on its creations – opening careless companies up to a risk of having key assets in their game being technically public domain and impossible to protect). Even if you're not using AI yourself, however – even if you're vehemently opposed to it on moral and ethical grounds (which is entirely valid given the highly dubious land-grab these companies have done for their training data), the Midjourney judgement and its fallout may well impact the creative work you produce yourself and how it ends up being used and abused by these products in future. This all has huge ramifications for the games business and will shape everything from how games are created to how IP can be protected for many years to come – a wind of change that's very different and vastly more unpredictable than those we're accustomed to. It's a reminder of just how much of the industry's future is currently being shaped not in development studios and semiconductor labs, but rather in courtrooms and parliamentary committees. The ways in which generative AI can be used and how copyright can persist in the face of it will be fundamentally shaped in courts and parliaments, but it's far from the only crucially important topic being hashed out in those venues. The ongoing legal turmoil over the opening up of mobile app ecosystems, too, will have huge impacts on the games industry. Meanwhile, the debates over loot boxes, gambling, and various consumer protection aspects related to free-to-play models continue to rumble on in the background. Because the industry moves fast while governments move slow, it's easy to forget that that's still an active topic for as far as governments are concerned, and hammers may come down at any time. Regulation by governments, whether through the passage of new legislation or the interpretation of existing laws in the courts, has always loomed in the background of any major industry, especially one with strong cultural relevance. The games industry is no stranger to that being part of the background heartbeat of the business. The 2020s, however, are turning out to be the decade in which many key regulatory issues come to a head all at once, whether it's AI and copyright, app stores and walled gardens, or loot boxes and IAP-based business models. Rulings on those topics in various different global markets will create a complex new landscape that will shape the winds that blow through the business, and how things look in the 2030s and beyond will be fundamentally impacted by those decisions.

Meta is looking to up its weakening AI game with a key talent grab. Following days of speculation, the social media giant has confirmed that Scale AI’s founder and CEO, Alexandr Wang, is joining Meta to work on its AI efforts. Meta will invest $14.3 billion in Scale AI as part of the deal, and will have a 49% stake in the AI startup, which specializes in data labeling and model evaluation services. Other key Scale employees will also move over to Meta, while CSO Jason Droege will step in as Scale’s interim CEO. This move comes as the Mark Zuckerberg-led company goes all-in on building a new research lab focused on “superintelligence,” the next step beyond artificial general intelligence (AGI). The arrangement also reflects a growing trend in big tech, where industry giants are buying companies without really buying them — what’s increasingly being referred to as “acqui-hiring.” It involves recruiting key personnel from a company, licensing its technology, and selling its products, but leaving it as a private entity. “This is fundamentally a massive ‘acqui-hire’ play disguised as a strategic investment,” said Wyatt Mayham, lead AI consultant at Northwest AI Consulting. “While Meta gets Scale’s data infrastructure, the real prize is Wang joining Meta to lead their superintelligence lab. At the $14.3 billion price tag, this might be the most expensive individual talent acquisition in tech history.” Closing gaps with competitors Meta has struggled to keep up with OpenAI, Anthropic, and other key competitors in the AI race, recently even delaying the launch of its new flagship model, Behemoth, purportedly due to internal concerns about its performance. It has also seen the departure of several of its top researchers.  “It’s not really a secret at this point that Meta’s Llama 4 models have had significant performance issues,” Mayham said. “Zuck is essentially betting that Wang’s track record building AI infrastructure can solve Meta’s alignment and model quality problems faster than internal development.” And, he added, Scale’s enterprise-grade human feedback loops are exactly what Meta’s Llama models need to compete with ChatGPT and Claude on reliability and task-following. Data quality, a key focus for Wang, is a big factor in solving those performance problems. He wrote in a note to Scale employees on Thursday, later posted on X (formerly Twitter), that when he founded Scale AI in 2016 amidst some of the early AI breakthroughs, “it was clear even then that data was the lifeblood of AI systems, and that was the inspiration behind starting Scale.” But despite Meta’s huge investment, Scale AI is underscoring its commitment to sovereignty: “Scale remains an independent leader in AI, committed to providing industry-leading AI solutions and safeguarding customer data,” the company wrote in a blog post. “Scale will continue to partner with leading AI labs, multinational enterprises, and governments to deliver expert data and technology solutions through every phase of AI’s evolution.” Allowing big tech to side-step notification But while it’s only just been inked, the high-profile deal is already raising some eyebrows. According to experts, arrangements like these allow tech companies to acquire top talent and key technologies in a side-stepping manner, thus avoiding regulatory notification requirements. The US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) requires mergers and acquisitions totaling more than $126 million be reported in advance. Licensing deals or the mass hiring-away of a company’s employees don’t have this requirement. This allows companies to move more quickly, as they don’t have to undergo the lengthy federal review process. Microsoft’s deal with Inflection AI is probably one of the highest-profile examples of the “acqui-hiring” trend. In March 2024, the tech giant paid the startup $650 million in licensing fees and hired much of its team, including co-founders Mustafa Suleyman (now CEO of Microsoft AI) and Karén Simonyan (chief scientist of Microsoft AI). Similarly, last year Amazon hired more than 50% of Adept AI’s key personnel, including its CEO, to focus on AGI. Google also inked a licensing agreement with Character AI and hired a majority of its founders and researchers. However, regulators have caught on, with the FTC launching inquiries into both the Microsoft-Inflection and Amazon-Adept deals, and the US Justice Department (DOJ) analyzing Google-Character AI. Reflecting ‘desperation’ in the AI industry Meta’s decision to go forward with this arrangement anyway, despite that dicey backdrop, seems to indicate how anxious the company is to keep up in the AI race. “The most interesting piece of this all is the timing,” said Mayham. “It reflects broader industry desperation. Tech giants are increasingly buying parts of promising AI startups to secure key talent without acquiring full companies, following similar patterns with Microsoft-Inflection and Google-Character AI.” However, the regulatory risks are “real but nuanced,” he noted. Meta’s acquisition could face scrutiny from antitrust regulators, particularly as the company is involved in an ongoing FTC lawsuit over its Instagram and WhatsApp acquisitions. While the 49% ownership position appears designed to avoid triggering automatic thresholds, US regulatory bodies like the FTC and DOJ can review minority stake acquisitions under the Clayton Antitrust Act if they seem to threaten competition. Perhaps more importantly, Meta is not considered a leader in AGI development and is trailing OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google, meaning regulators may not consider the deal all that concerning (yet). All told, the arrangement certainly signals Meta’s recognition that the AI race has shifted from a compute and model size competition to a data quality and alignment battle, Mayham noted. “I think the [gist] of this is that Zuck’s biggest bet is that talent and data infrastructure matter more than raw compute power in the AI race,” he said. “The regulatory risk is manageable given Meta’s trailing position, but the acqui-hire premium shows how expensive top AI talent has become.”