As prediction markets’ volumes grow at a ruthless pace, their businesses are being challenged by states across the country. The federal government is fighting a multifront battle to stop the state actions and assert its regulatory authority. 

Sixteen states are involved in legal proceedings against prediction market platform companies, while one state has moved to ban them entirely.

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission argues it’s the only entity that can regulate these platforms, and the agency has sued six states to defend what it describes as its “exclusive jurisdiction” over prediction markets.

Minnesota became the latest in the government’s crosshairs Tuesday, when the commission sued the state after Gov. Tim Walz signed a law as part of a broader online safety package that would ban prediction markets from operating in the state — a first in the country.

Jeff Le Riche, a former chief trial attorney at the CFTC and now a partner at Husch Blackwell, said the aggressive strategy isn’t typical of the federal agency. “The suing of states is unusual,” he said. “That’s definitely a different tactic.”

CFTC Chair Michael Selig has been clear since his confirmation by the U.S. Senate in December about his views on the agency’s oversight of prediction markets. He also is, for now, the only member on the commission, which typically is a body of five. 

“States cannot circumvent the clear directive of Congress,” Selig said in an April press release announcing a lawsuit against Wisconsin. “Our message to Wisconsin is the same as to New York, Arizona, and others: if you interfere with the operation of federal law in regulating financial markets, we will sue you.”

Scrambling partisan divides

The battle between states and the federal government for oversight of prediction markets has scrambled typical partisan divides.

Eleven states that have ongoing legal proceedings against prediction markets have Democratic attorneys general, while five have Republican ones. Minnesota, where state legislators moved to ban prediction markets, passed the law in both its state House and Senate by wide majorities, despite those chambers being divided narrowly by party. 

“I wouldn’t say that it’s that surprising just because of the state versus federal issues,” said Jon Ammons, a partner at law firm Reed Smith who focuses on regulatory matters related to commodities, derivatives and digital assets. “I think that states have this idea that they are the ones who regulate gaming and things that look like gaming.”

While regulators in the 16 states involved in legal proceedings over prediction markets come from both sides of the aisle, the six states the CFTC has sued so far — Wisconsin, New York, Connecticut, Illinois, Arizona and Minnesota — all have Democratic attorneys general. 

“I cannot answer for the Trump Administration as to why they would have chosen to sue only certain states with Democratic leadership, bypassing others who have taken similar enforcement postures,” said Connecticut Attorney General William Tong, a Democrat, in a statement to CNBC.

The only action the CFTC has taken against a state with a Republican attorney general is in Ohio, where it filed an amicus brief defending its sole jurisdiction rationale. 

Richie Taylor, a spokesperson for Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes, said in an email he is limited in his ability to comment due to the ongoing litigation but noted the bipartisan nature of the action by states. 

“Like red states and blue states alike, AG Mayes believes the CFTC is improperly encroaching on the right of states to enforce their gambling laws,” Taylor said. 

The battle for oversight of events contracts

States argue that prediction market platforms are running illegal sports betting operations, thanks to their related event contracts, which drive the majority of volume on the platforms. The CFTC argues that its right to regulate swaps and derivatives places all event contracts, no matter the content, under its purview. 

A spokesperson for the CFTC denied that there’s anything involved in the commission’s legal strategy beyond an attempt to defend its regulatory power. 

“These states sought to regulate or prosecute lawful, CFTC‑regulated exchanges that were operating fully in accordance with federal statutes, requiring the CFTC to intervene,” an agency spokesperson said in a statement. “It is based solely on the CFTC’s responsibility to ensure that states do not interfere with the trading of event contracts regulated under federal law.”

In its lawsuits so far, the CFTC won a preliminary injunction in Arizona to stop the state from pursuing criminal charges against Kalshi, the largest domestic prediction market platform. In the other five states, cases are still ongoing and no initial rulings have been made. 

Separately, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled that New Jersey can’t enforce gambling laws on prediction markets. But the legal battles are in the early days, and many of those who follow them say the final verdict will likely be determined at the nation’s highest court. 

“It has the makings of a real circuit split, which does seem to indicate a high likelihood that this would go to the Supreme Court,” Ammons said.

Disclosure: CNBC and Kalshi have a commercial relationship that includes customer acquisition and a minority investment.

Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella took the stand to testify in the Musk v. Altman trial in federal court in Oakland, California, on Monday. 

Nadella, wearing a navy suit with a blue tie, began his testimony by answering questions about his role at Microsoft and the early days of the company’s strategic partnership with OpenAI.

In 2024, Elon Musk sued OpenAI, its CEO, Sam Altman, and its president, Greg Brockman, alleging that they went back on their vow to protect the artificial intelligence company’s nonprofit structure and follow its charitable mission. Microsoft is named as a defendant in the lawsuit, as Musk accuses the company of aiding and abetting OpenAI’s purported breach of charitable trust. 

Microsoft has been one of OpenAI’s major backers since 2019, years before the company rocketed into the mainstream with the launch of its ChatGPT chatbot in late 2022. Microsoft’s more than $13 billion worth of investments in OpenAI, including a $1 billion investment in 2019, a $2 billion investment in 2021 and $10 billion in 2023, have come up repeatedly over the course of the trial. 

Musk, who testified late last month, said Microsoft’s $10 billion investment was the key tipping point that made him believe OpenAI was violating its nonprofit mission. He testified that the scale of the investment bothered him, and it prompted him to open a legal investigation into OpenAI. 

“I was concerned they were really trying to steal the charity,” Musk said from the stand.

Musk co-founded OpenAI alongside Altman, Brockman and a handful of other executives and researchers in 2015. After a number of disagreements about OpenAI’s direction, including a failed effort to join it with his automaker Tesla, Musk left the OpenAI board in 2018. He went on to launch a competing AI startup, xAI, which he merged with SpaceX earlier this year. 

OpenAI established a for-profit subsidiary in the months following Musk’s departure, which allowed the company to raise outside funding more easily. Investors, including Microsoft, have since poured billions of dollars into OpenAI’s for-profit arm, and the company’s valuation has swelled to more than $850 billion. 

In October, OpenAI completed a recapitalization that cemented its structure as a nonprofit with an equity stake in its for-profit business. As part of that announcement, Microsoft disclosed that it held a roughly 27% stake in OpenAI’s for-profit unit that was valued at around $135 billion.

The relationship between OpenAI and Microsoft has shown signs of strain in recent months, even as both companies continue to tout it as strategic and core to their businesses. Late last month, the same day that jury selection kicked off in Musk v. Altman, the companies announced a revamped partnership agreement that allows OpenAI to cap revenue share payments and serve customers across any cloud provider.

OpenAI said in a release that the agreement aimed to “simplify our partnership and the way we work together.”

Musk testified that he is not entirely against OpenAI having a for-profit unit, but he said it became “the tail wagging the dog.” He repeatedly accused Altman and Brockman of enriching themselves from a charity while also reaping the positive associations that come from running a nonprofit.

“Microsoft has their own motivations, and that would be different from the motivations of the charity,” Musk said from the stand. “All due respect to Microsoft, do you really want Microsoft controlling digital superintelligence?”

During a videotaped deposition shown in court last week, former OpenAI director Tasha McCauley recalled a discussion with Nadella and her fellow board members after the 2023 decision to dismiss Altman as OpenAI’s CEO.

“To the best of my recollection, Satya wanted to restore things to as they had been,” McCauley said. The board members didn’t think that was the right move, she said.

— CNBC’s Jordan Novet contributed to this report.

WATCH: The Musk vs. OpenAI trial is underway — here’s where things stand

A week into the Musk v. Altman trial, which features two towering figures in the tech industry facing off in a case that could have major implications for OpenAI, the plaintiff has made his central message clear to the jury. 

“You can’t just steal a charity,” Elon Musk, the world’s richest person, said repeatedly during his time on the stand at a federal courthouse in Oakland, California. 

Musk’s testimony was the centerpiece of the trial’s first week. It comes two years after the Tesla and SpaceX CEO first sued OpenAI CEO Sam Altman and Greg Brockman, the company’s president, alleging they went back on their promises to keep the artificial intelligence startup a nonprofit and to follow its charitable mission.

Musk, who helped start OpenAI in 2015 as a nonprofit, claims that the roughly $38 million he donated to the project was used for unauthorized commercial purposes. OpenAI, now valued at over $850 billion by private investors, has called Musk’s allegations “baseless.” Musk left OpenAI’s board in 2018, and five years later started xAI as a competitor, before merging that business with SpaceX in February. 

The trial began Monday with the seating of a nine-person jury. Attorneys for both parties presented opening arguments on Tuesday. The main event was Musk’s testimony, which stretched over the course of three days, wrapping up on Thursday. 

The courtroom was dark on Friday, and proceedings will resume next week, with Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, presiding over the case. Altman and Brockman are expected to testify later this month.

After Musk left OpenAI, the AI lab began moving more towards commercialization, creating a for-profit subsidiary in 2018. The business started booming after the launch of ChatGPT in late 2022, and the subsequent raising of $10 billion in equity from Microsoft. 

Musk testified that he is not entirely against OpenAI having a for-profit unit, but he said it became “the tail wagging the dog.” He repeatedly accused Altman and Brockman of enriching themselves from a charity while also reaping the positive associations that come from running a nonprofit.

“What you can’t do is have your cake and eat it too,” Musk said from the stand.

Musk said he started OpenAI to serve as a “counterweight” to Google, which he viewed as having insufficient concerns surrounding AI safety. Musk said he got into an argument about the subject with Google co-founder Larry Page, a former friend, who called him a “speciesist for being pro-human.”

Musk said OpenAI wouldn’t exist without him. 

“I came up with the idea, the name, recruited the key people, taught them everything I know, provided all the initial funding,” Musk said.

In a January filing, Musk’s attorneys said their client should receive up to $134 billion in damages from OpenAI and Microsoft, which is also named as a defendant. Musk’s team now says any “ill-gotten gains” should be returned to OpenAI’s foundation.

Musk is also seeking to have Altman and Brockman removed from their roles and to “unwind OpenAI’s for-profit conversion and restructuring.” 

All that’s happening while Musk and Altman are pushing their respective companies towards public offerings that could be the largest in history. SpaceX has already filed confidentially with the SEC and is reportedly expected to launch its roadshow in mid-June for an IPO that could value the company in the trillions of dollars.

Following the end of Musk’s testimony on Thursday, his lawyers called Jared Birchall, who manages Musk’s family office, as their next witness.

Birchall testified about the specific donations Musk made to OpenAI, as well as his knowledge about Musk’s multibillion-dollar bid to acquire OpenAI last year. In February of 2025, Musk led a group of investors in offering to buy control of OpenAI for $97.4 billion, an effort that Altman immediately rejected.

Before the proceedings kicked off on Monday, Gonzalez Rogers opted to split the trial into two parts: a liability phase to determine whether any wrongdoing occurred, and a remedies phase to decide the appropriate outcomes and next steps. Gonzalez Rogers expects the former to conclude by May 21

The jury will weigh in during the liability phase only, and its verdict will be advisory, which means Gonzalez Rogers will make the final decision.

—CNBC’s Lora Kolodny contributed to this report.

WATCH: Musk fires back at OpenAI attorney

The nine-person jury was seated on Monday in the high-stakes legal battle between longtime friends turned rivals Elon Musk and Sam Altman at a federal courthouse in Oakland, California.

Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers is overseeing the proceedings between the world’s richest person and the CEO of OpenAI. Opening arguments are scheduled to begin on Tuesday, and CNBC is in the courtroom for the proceedings. 

Musk, who co-founded OpenAI in 2015, sued the company, Altman and Greg Brockman, OpenAI’s president, in 2024, alleging they reneged on their commitments to keep the artificial intelligence lab a nonprofit and follow its charitable mission. OpenAI has repeatedly dismissed Musk’s lawsuit as “baseless.” Musk left OpenAI’s board in 2018, and five years later started xAI as a rival, merging that company with SpaceX earlier this year.

Musk has sought a number of different remedies over the course of the case, including the removal of Altman and Brockman from their roles at OpenAI. Musk’s lawyers said in January that he should receive up to $134 billion in “wrongful gains,” though he has since asked to funnel those funds back into the OpenAI charity. 

Gonzalez Rogers opted to divide the trial into two parts: a liability phase to decide if any wrongdoing occurred, and a remedies phase to determine the appropriate damages and next steps. The jury will weigh in during the liability phase only, and its verdict will be advisory, which means Gonzalez Rogers will make the final decision in both sections of the trial. 

The liability phase of the trial is expected to wrap up by May 21, Gonzalez Rogers said Monday.

Gonzalez Rogers started the proceedings by welcoming the prospective jurors to the courtroom. She cracked some jokes as she explained the case laid out the trial’s schedule.

Lawyers grilled prospective jurors on their views on AI, Musk and Altman. Some confessed to holding negative views of Musk due to his political ideology.

“The reality is people don’t like him,” Gonzales Rogers said at one point. She expressed confidence that the jurors selected will respect the judicial process and the facts of the case.

Altman and Brockman were in the courtroom on Monday.

Musk alleges in his lawsuit that he was “assiduously manipulated” and “deceived” by OpenAI, Altman and Brockman and their promises to “chart a safer, more open course than profit-driven tech giants.” He has asked the judge to consider unwinding the company’s recent restructuring, which cemented its structure as a nonprofit with a controlling stake in its for-profit business.

Musk and Altman have been in a public war of words for months leading up to the trial. That continued on Monday, with Musk writing in a post on X, “Scam Altman and Greg Stockman stole a charity. Full stop.”

The comment followed a post from the OpenAI Newsroom account.

“We can’t wait to make our case in court where both the truth and the law are on our side,” OpenAI wrote. “This lawsuit has always been a baseless and jealous bid to derail a competitor.”

Of the 26 claims that Musk asserted in 2024, only two remain: unjust enrichment and breach of charitable trust. Musk’s lawyers dismissed two of the claims, fraud and constructive fraud, ahead of the trial in an effort to “streamline the case,” according to a filing

The trial lands as Musk prepares to take SpaceX public in what’s likely to be a record IPO and as OpenAI gears up for its own expect public offering later this year. The two companies combined are valued at over $2 trillion on the private market.

— CNBC’s Lora Kolodny contributed to this report.

WATCH: Elon Musk and Sam Altman go to court next week — here’s what to expect from the trial

Elon Musk is seeking to have OpenAI CEO Sam Altman and President Greg Brockman removed from their roles as officers in the company as part of a case that’s expected to go to trial later this month.

In a legal filing on Tuesday, Musk’s lawyers laid out specific remedies their client is seeking if a judge and jury determine that Altman and OpenAI defrauded Musk, the world’s richest person.

Musk sued Altman and OpenAI in 2024, claiming the artificial intelligence company that he helped start almost a decade earlier “assiduously manipulated” and “deceived” him into donating $38 million, based on promises that the entity would remain a nonprofit. The two sides have since been embroiled in a public war of words, in addition to their legal battle and budding business rivalry.

“Plaintiff will seek an order removing Altman as a director from the OpenAI nonprofit board and removing both Altman and Brockman as officers of the OpenAI for-profit,” Musk’s lawyers said in Tuesday’s filing. “Removal of a charity’s officers and directors is a common remedy where those individuals fail to protect or carry out the charity’s public mission.”

Musk is also asking the court to make OpenAI revert to operating as an actual nonprofit, according to the filing. The company completed a restructuring in October, and is now run as a nonprofit with a 26% stake in the for-profit arm, which includes ChatGPT.

Jury selection for the case is slated to begin on April 27, in a federal court in Oakland, California.

Following Tuesday’s filing, OpenAI said in a post on X that Musk is “pretending to change his tune about attacking the nonprofit OpenAI Foundation.”

“The truth is that this case has always been about Elon generating more power and more money for what he wants,” OpenAI said. “His lawsuit remains nothing more than a harassment campaign that’s driven by ego, jealousy and a desire to slow down a competitor.”

Musk, Altman and others co-founded OpenAI as a nonprofit AI lab in 2015. Musk left OpenAI in 2018, after trying to convince executives there to merge it with Tesla, his electric vehicle company.

In 2023, Musk launched a competing company called xAI, which developed the AI image generator and chatbot Grok. In February, Musk’s SpaceX acquired xAI, which also owns X (formerly Twitter) in a deal that valued the combined entity at $1.25 trillion. SpaceX recently filed confidential paperwork with the SEC for what will likely be a record IPO.

On Monday, OpenAI sent a letter to the California and Delaware attorneys general, urging them to investigate “improper and anti-competitive behavior” by Musk and his associates ahead of the trial. In the letter, OpenAI strategy chief Jason Kwon alleged that Musk has been working to undermine OpenAI through various “attacks” on the company, including by “coordinating his efforts” with Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg.

Musk’s attorneys previously said, in a January filing, that their client should receive up to $134 billion in damages from OpenAI ⁠and lead investor Microsoft, calling them “wrongful gains” that the companies had received as a result of his early work with and financial support of OpenAI.

In Tuesday’s filing, Musk’s lawyers said their client is seeking “to return all ill-gotten gains, including Microsoft’s, to the OpenAI charity.”

— CNBC’s Ashley Capoot contributed to this report.

WATCH: OpenAI is chasing Anthropic

A victim of notorious sex predator Jeffrey Epstein filed a class action lawsuit Thursday on behalf of herself and other survivors against the Trump administration and Google for allegedly wrongfully disclosing and publishing personal information about them.

The suit, filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, where Google is headquartered, claims the Justice Department “outed” about 100 Epstein survivors in late 2025 and early 2026, and that even after the government acknowledged the mistake and withdrew the information, “online entities like Google continuously republish it, refusing victim’s pleas to take it down.”

With respect to Google, the suit says the company’s core search engine and its artificial intelligence summary feature called AI mode were responsible for publishing victims’ personal information.

“Survivors now face renewed trauma,” the suit says. “Strangers call them, email them, threaten their physical safety, and accuse them of conspiring with Epstein when they are, in reality, Epstein’s victims.”

The complaint was filed by an Epstein victim who used the pseudonym Jane Doe.

After months of pressure, the DOJ earlier this year released more than 3 million additional pages of documents related to Epstein, including images and videos. In August 2019, Epstein killed himself in a jail in New York City, weeks after being arrested on federal child sex trafficking charges.

In taking on Google, the plaintiffs are testing whether a major safety net for internet companies and social media sites has its limitations. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act governs internet speech and has long allowed major platforms in the U.S. to avoid liability for content appearing on their websites and apps.

With the explosion of AI-generated content and new controversies emerging regarding the publishing of non-consensual sexual images, including so-called deepfake porn, internet giants face a fresh new challenge in defending their turf. Earlier this month, Google was sued in a wrongful death case by a 36-year-old man’s father, who alleged the company’s Gemini chatbot convinced his son to attempt a “mass casualty attack” and to eventually commit suicide.

The lawsuit from Epstein survivors alleges Google “intentionally,” through its design, fueled harassment by hosting information about the victims, and said its AI Mode feature “is not a neutral search index.” The complaint comes after two jury verdicts this week — both against Meta and one involving Google’s YouTube — concluded that the online platforms are failing to adequately police their sites for content that’s causing real-life harm.

New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez, who spearheaded his state’s case against Meta, told CNBC this week that “there’s a distinct possibility that these cases motivate Congress to re-examine Section 230 and, if not eliminate it, dramatically revise it.”

The latest suit claims Google’s AI-generated content revealed personal information about the victims. It said Google’s AI Mode responded to queries asking for such details.

The complaint alleges that the government has failed to force tech platforms to take down materials in the past, allowing for the exposure of victims’ information.

“As a part of this response, generated repeatedly on multiple platforms and across various devices, Google’s AI Mode included Plaintiff’s full name, displayed her full email address, and generated a hypertext link allowing anyone to send direct email to Plaintiff with the click of a button,” the suit says.

Representatives from Google and the Trump administration did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

— CNBC’s Dan Mangan and Jonathan Vanian contributed to this report.

WATCH: Top Goldman Sachs attorney steps down

Elon Musk’s legal team is demanding that a judge in the Delaware Court of Chancery, Kathaleen McCormick, recuse herself from two Tesla lawsuits, alleging she showed bias in supporting a LinkedIn post that was critical of Musk.

“In light of the Court’s recent public support of LinkedIn posts that create a perception of bias against Mr. Musk in these cases, recusal is necessary and warranted,” Musk’s attorney’s wrote in their motion for recusal on Wednesday. “These cases should be re-assigned to another random-drawn judicial officer of this Court.”

The post that McCormick allegedly responded to with an emoji had touted a verdict from a San Francisco federal court that could cost Musk upwards of $2 billion. In that case, a jury found Musk had defrauded Twitter investors in the lead up to his buyout of the social network.

McCormick sent a letter to Musk’s attorneys saying she did not read the full text of the LinkedIn post referenced, did not support it, or intend to click any emoji expressing support of the post, and would have only accidentally clicked that indicator. She also said in the letter that she had reported “suspicious activity” on her account to LinkedIn.

Quinn Emanuel partner Alex Spiro, an attorney for Musk, told CNBC in an email that he’s inquired with LinkedIn on the matter, and said “I don’t believe there’s any basis for the claim it was a ‘glitch.'”

LinkedIn, which is owned by Microsoft, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

McCormick became the target of Musk’s ire after she ordered Tesla to rescind his 2018 CEO pay package, worth about $56 billion in options, when she presided over the shareholder suit Tornetta v. Musk.

Musk moved his businesses, including Tesla, out of Delaware, incorporating them in Texas and Nevada and encouraging others to do the same.

In 2025, Delaware’s Supreme Court said Musk’s 2018 pay package must be restored, deciding that the lower court’s decision by McCormick was too extreme a remedy and did not give Tesla a chance to say what a fair compensation for Musk ought to be.

Tesla and Musk still have two cases proceeding through Delaware courts before McCormick. One concerns Tesla directors’ compensation, and the other is a consolidated shareholder suit filed by investors alleging that Musk breached his fiduciary duties to Tesla when he started a potential competitor in artificial intelligence, xAI,

Earlier this year, Tesla invested $2 billion into xAI. Musk’s aerospace and defense company, SpaceX, then acquired xAI, converting Tesla’s stock into SpaceX holdings.

WATCH: Elon Musk teases pair of giant chip factories

A jury in California found that Elon Musk defrauded Twitter shareholders during the runup to his $44 billion acquisition of the social media company, according to a verdict issued on Friday.

Total damages could reach up to $2.6 billion, attorneys for the plaintiffs said.

The class action lawsuit, Pampena v. Musk, was originally filed in October 2022, after Musk completed his purchase of Twitter for $54.20 per share. He later renamed the company X, before merging it with his artificial intelligence company xAI, and then with SpaceX, his reusable rocket manufacturer.

“This is a great example of what you cannot do to the average investor — people that have 401ks, kids, pension funds, teachers, firemen, nurses,” Joseph Cotchett, an attorney for the Twitter investors, told CNBC at the San Francisco courthouse. “That’s what this case was all about. This was not about Musk. It was about the whole operation.”

In an emailed statement, Musk attorneys with Quinn Emanuel said, “We view today’s verdict, where the jury found both for and against the plaintiffs and found no fraud scheme, as a bump in the road. And we look forward to vindication on appeal.”

After Musk bid to buy Twitter in April 2022, his sentiment towards the deal quickly soured as he cast doubt on the company’s claimed level of bots, spam and fake accounts on its platform. Musk wrote in a tweet the following month that his acquisition was “temporarily on hold” until Twitter’s CEO could prove its inauthentic account levels were around the 5% reported in the company’s SEC filings.

Musk’s tweets and additional comments sent shares of Twitter sliding by almost 10% in a single session. The jury deliberated for four days and unanimously found that Musk’s tweets on May 13 and May 17 were materially false or misleading.

Former Twitter shareholders, including retail investors and options traders, argued that Musk’s remarks amounted to a scheme to pressure the company’s board to sell to him for a lower price than his original offer. They claimed he was motivated by stock price declines at Tesla, which would require him to sell even more shares in the automaker than he’d intended in order to finance the buyout.

The plaintiffs in the suit said they sold shares below $54.20 following and in response to Musk’s posts and comments during press interviews. The potential damages figure is based on expert estimates of how much Musk’s flip-flopping affected the share price during the class period.

Attorneys for the Twitter investors said it will be about 90 days before claims administration is set up, and it will then take a couple of months for the government to process claims and for investors to begin to recoup some of their losses.

Musk’s attorneys argued their client’s remarks were based on well-founded concerns about bots, spam and fake accounts on Twitter, and did not amount to securities fraud or a scheme to depress the company’s stock price.

The jury said that though Musk had made false and misleading statements that harmed some Twitter shareholders, he did not engage in a specific scheme to defraud investors.

While the verdict marks a stinging rebuke for Musk, the financial implications are minimal considering his net worth, which currently sits at about $650 billion, according to Bloomberg.

WATCH: Why Tesla is pivoting

New York Attorney General Letitia James and the top prosecutors of 23 other states are planning to once again sue to block President Donald Trump’s global tariff regime, just days after a landmark Supreme Court decision struck down his previous effort.

Their lawsuit, expected to be filed Thursday in the Court of International Trade, will seek to deem Trump’s latest tariffs illegal and order refunds to states.

Last month, the Supreme Court invalidated most of Trump’s sweeping “Liberation Day” tariffs implemented last year, saying that his use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose duties was improper.

But the president sought to keep his signature policy alive by immediately announcing a new wave of tariffs, these based on another law, Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. That global tariff rate is currently set at 10%, but the Trump administration has said it plans to raise it to 15%.

“After the Supreme Court rejected his first attempt to impose sweeping tariffs, the president is causing more economic chaos and expecting Americans to foot the bill,” James said in a statement provided to CNBC.

“President Trump is ignoring the law and the Constitution to effectively raise taxes on consumers and small businesses,” she said.

The move from the coalition of state attorneys general — most of whom were part of the successful effort to block Trump’s original tariffs — will add to the ongoing international uncertainty created by the president’s tariff policies. On Wednesday, a federal court ruled that companies that paid tariffs struck down last month by the Supreme Court are due billions of dollars in refunds.

Last year, James and 11 other states sued the Trump administration to halt his original round of tariffs. That effort was eventually combined with suits from small businesses affected by tariffs in the Supreme Court case that handed Trump one of the biggest legal setbacks of his second term.

Trump and James have had their own legal entanglements.

His administration’s Justice Department indicted James in October on two counts, bank fraud and making false statements to a financial institution.

James, however, faces no charges after a judge threw out her indictment and two grand juries separately declined to revive those efforts.

Correction: The lawsuit from James and other state attorneys general is expected to be filed Thursday. A previous version misstated the timing.