On Thursday, Elon Musk saw his lawsuit — which accused advertisers of violating antitrust laws by colluding on an ad boycott after he took control of Twitter, gutting content-moderation teams and disbanding the Trust and Safety Council — dismissed.

In her opinion, US District Judge Jane Boyle said the case was thrown out for failing to state a claim. Musk’s assertion that advertisers harmed their own interests by steering clear of his platform, now called X, did not include factual allegations showing consumer injury. The judge explained that without consumer harm there is no antitrust injury, and thus the alleged ad boycott was lawful.

“The very nature of the alleged conspiracy does not state an antitrust claim, and the Court therefore has no qualm dismissing with prejudice,” Boyle wrote. She also stressed that “the question underlying antitrust injury is whether consumers—not competitors—have been harmed.”

The defeat is likely a major setback for Musk. He had argued that advertisers should be “criminally prosecuted” after allies in Congress published a report alleging they conspired to depress Twitter’s revenue with the aim of censoring conservative voices.

The suit was one piece of a broader “thermonuclear” legal campaign Musk launched against Media Matters for America over reporting he said sparked the boycott. That case is still pending but could be weakened by the court’s finding that no illegal boycott occurred.

As of this writing, Musk had not responded to the ruling, and X did not answer Ars’ request for comment.

Given Musk’s incendiary public remarks about the litigation, an appeal from X now appears likely.

Starzak said that “it’s called authoritative because it’s the side that provides the information. The resolver then takes that information and returns it to you as a user, allowing you to connect to the content. It isn’t part of the actual content… the resolver asks for directions and receives instructions on how to reach it from the authoritative DNS server.”

Under the proposed permanent injunction, domain registrars would be required to disable Anna’s Archive domain names and nameservers. Hosting providers would have to “cease any hosting services for Defendant’s Websites or any other websites that host the infringing content or directly facilitate its distribution.”

The proposed limits would also cover “Internet service providers for Defendant’s Websites.” That would apparently stop ISPs from offering services that keep Anna’s Archive online, though the proposed order does not direct ISPs to block broadband customers from accessing any Anna’s Archive URL that remains available on the web.

Spotify and record labels asked the court to extend the requested permanent injunction to the Public Interest Registry, Cloudflare, the Switch Foundation, the Swedish Internet Foundation, the National Internet Exchange of India, Njalla SRL, IQWeb FZ-LLC, Immaterialism Ltd., Hosting Concepts B.V., Tucows Domains, and OwnRegistrar, Inc. It would also apply to any other domain, hosting, or internet companies that have previously provided or could potentially provide services to the Anna’s Archive websites.

Although Anna’s Archive continues for now, Spotify and the record labels note the founder has conceded facing a risk of arrest and criminal charges that could ultimately dismantle the operation.

“Defendant has admitted that its shadow library business model is illegal and that it ‘deliberately violate[s] the copyright law in most countries,’” Spotify and record labels wrote. “Defendant also admits that it is intentionally ‘very careful’ to remain anonymous and ‘not leave any trace,’ because those who operate pirate libraries (like Defendant) are ‘at high risk of being arrested’ and ‘could face decades of prison time.’”

“If Guardian emitted a siren tuned to the speaker’s resonant frequency while a police car played the same tone beside it, Guardian would register about three times the loudness,” he said.

Seattle-founded BRINC manufactures drones that are now deployed in more than 900 U.S. municipalities — from Laredo, Texas, to Chattanooga, Tennessee — as components of the expanding “drone as first responder” (DFR) programs.

Typically, cities pay a few hundred thousand dollars annually for each drone—while deals can climb into the millions when jurisdictions buy more aircraft or add features. A year ago, Newport Beach, California, revealed a $2.17 million, five-year agreement with BRINC to acquire seven drones. (Per Forbes, BRINC was estimated to be worth roughly $480 million last year.)

An existing client, the Redmond Police Department in Washington state, told Ars that the new model represents a “completely new and different airframe.”

“This is a major advance in DFR innovation and potential,” Jill Green, a police spokesperson, wrote by email.

However, veteran drone observer and analyst Faine Greenwood was less impressed.

“Even if those assertions hold up (which I’m skeptical of currently), the gains in speed and battery life are only incremental compared with similar drone platforms,” Greenwood told Ars via email. “This isn’t a game-changer, and I don’t think it will alter the decision-making for police departments still wavering over drone adoption.”

Beyond improved efficiency, a nuclear-electric propulsion arrangement also benefits from using conventional plasma thrusters. Rather than relying on solar panels to power the thrusters’ xenon propellant, SR-1 will draw electricity from an onboard nuclear reactor.

“Our SR-1 nuclear program isn’t about going out and lobbying for billions to fund an entirely new mission,” Isaacman said. “Frankly, after roughly $20 billion in failed programs over time, we haven’t earned the right to do that. That’s why we’re leveraging hardware we already have—a reactor that’s largely built and fuel that’s mostly paid for over time.”

Gateway’s Power and Propulsion Element, pictured under construction last year, will serve as the focal point of the SR-1 Freedom mission.

Credit:
Lanteris Space Systems

NASA officials did not reveal an estimated cost for the SR-1 mission.

“Once you demonstrate that nuclear propulsion works, then you can come back and perhaps request more [funding] down the line when you’ve shown it can be done,” Isaacman said.

“SR-1 Freedom mostly introduces a single new component, the reactor, onto a spacecraft bus that already exists,” Sinacore said. “The schedule must align with the next Mars launch window in December 2028. Orbital mechanics won’t negotiate, so the project’s scope has to conform to that deadline.”

Significant obstacles remain. Preparing any large space mission—particularly a novel nuclear propulsion demonstration—for launch in under three years will demand intense focus, resistance to mission creep, and near‑flawless execution. Sinacore outlined an aggressive timeline for SR-1, with mission design finished by June and large‑scale assembly beginning at the start of 2028. If the mission misses the late‑2028 launch opportunity, the next Earth‑Mars alignment won’t occur until early 2031.

“We’re not attempting to do everything,” Sinacore said. “We’re aiming to tackle the difficult task: operating a coupled nuclear reactor, power‑conversion system, and electric propulsion thruster assembly beyond Earth orbit for the first time.”

Although NASA will serve as the “prime integrator” for SR-1, launching radioactive fuel into space requires coordination with multiple federal agencies, including the Department of Energy. Any rocket chosen to carry a nuclear‑powered payload must receive special certification. SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy, which NASA originally contracted to launch the Gateway core module, is undergoing a nuclear certification to launch NASA’s Dragonfly mission to Saturn’s moon Titan.