Useful information
Prime News delivers timely, accurate news and insights on global events, politics, business, and technology
The Supreme Court of the United States dismissed an NVIDIA case that it previously agreed to hear as “unforeseenly granted.” In other words: “Oops, we should have never taken this one.” The decision allows most of the lawsuit, filed by shareholders against the chipmaker, to proceed.
An investment firm and a pension fund brought the case against NVIDIA, alleging that the company misled investors about its dependence on the crypto mining industry. The lawsuit claims NVIDIA hid its reliance on the market before a 2018 crash that tanked the chipmaker’s stock prices. (For better or worse, cryptocurrencies have recovered and Bitcoin recently surpassed the $100,000 plateau for the first time.)
The court’s unanimous dismissal reflected its apparent aversion to hearing the complex technical details of the case. “The writ of certiorari is dismissed as recklessly granted,” is all the decision says. That language was identical to one remarkably similar. dismissal in a case SCOTUS heard last month against Meta, which also accused her of misleading investors.
Washington Post information that the justices hinted at NVIDIA’s dismissal when they heard arguments in mid-November. “It is becoming less and less clear why we took this case… and… why you should win it,” Justice Elena Kagan reportedly said. The New York Times He says court members from across the ideological spectrum seemed frustrated with the arguments. “This is a very technical issue,” Judge Samuel Alito said at one point. “It just seems to me that you’re asking us to do a type of analysis that we’re not very good at and that we didn’t expect when we took this case,” Kagan said.
As the thorny, high-stakes legal and ethical questions of AI loom, we can take solace in the fact that the highest court of the most powerful nation in the world seems… completely uninterested in diving into the technical details at will. often confusing aspects of big technology. At least the stakes are much lower in this case and only affects the finances of one incredibly wealthy corporation and a group of (probably wealthy) Wall Street investors.
