3 ms·

> Unlike Google, Meta, Apple and Amazon, which are publicly traded, X is owned solely by Mr. Musk. EU regulators are considering using a piece of the law that l

> Unlike Google, Meta, Apple and Amazon, which are publicly traded, X is owned solely by Mr. Musk. EU regulators are considering using a piece of the law that lets them calculate a fine based on revenue that also includes other companies Mr. Musk privately controls, like his rocket maker, SpaceX. That increases the potential penalty to well over $1 billion, one person said. Is the NYT wrong here or is the EU? It's private but it's not "solely owned" by a longshot. Either way, this is some pretty amazing Calvinball even by EC standards.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> It's private but it's not "solely owned" You’re right. Controlled would be correct, as it invokes the legal concept of common control. (No idea if it’s a thing in the EU.)
jeltz 2y ago
It is much more likely that the NYT journalist misunderstood something. The question is what.
lambda 2y ago
While others certainly have a financial interest in it, it is not publicly traded and Musk solely controls it. For instance, he just unilaterally sold it to another of his privately held companies, xAI, for a valuation he made up. Musk's privately held companies, and to a large degree Tesla as well, are all things he treats as effectively one big company that he controls; he'll take employees from one to another at will, he sells them to each other or spins them out at will in all stock transactions, etc. The EU regulations allow seeing through such sham company boundaries that are all controlled by a single entity, and treating them as a single company.
- arandomusername 2y ago
  How do you know that the shareholders of X did not have a voice in acquisition by xAI?
  - lambda 2y ago
    In this article: https://www.reuters.com/markets/deals/musks-xai-buys-social-media-platform-x-45-billion-2025-03-28/ https://www.reuters.com/markets/deals/musks-xai-buys-social-... "Musk did not ask investors for approval but told them that the two companies had been collaborating closely and the deal would drive deeper integration with Grok, the investor said." Now, he may have only been talking about xAI investors here, but it seems pretty clear from his actions that Musk pretty much demands full control of his companies, and if he does involve the other investor's they're likely rubber-stamping without much opportunity to push back.
    - arandomusername 2y ago
      huh, didnt know, thats pretty crazy
miltonlost 2y ago
Neither NYT nor the EU is wrong. Elon's companies are, to him, fungible, with employees able to be used in any company, like when Elon borrowed engineers employed at Tesla and SpaceX to work on Twitter when he bought it. These are all separate companies on paper, but Elon treats the workers as interchangeable. He acts as if they are all owned by him, so the EU is treating them as he treats them.
- jdminhbg 2y ago
  That’s a good explanation of how Elon is also wrong, I guess, but the NYT or EU is still wrong too.
  - marcosdumay 2y ago
    If the other shareholder are ok with this behavior, than there's nothing wrong with it. If they complain, it's a very serious crime, he's basically stealing, but if they are don't, than it's not.
- root_axis 2y ago
  And not just the workers, Elon threatened to take all of Tesla's AI stack to xAI if they didn't give him the 55B pay package.
- immibis 2y ago
  Most countries' company law has a clause that says if you violate company boundaries like this, they're effectively one company. Otherwise you could use this sort of thing to limit your liability well in excess of intended (the primary purpose of company law is to establish carve-outs in which you can perform business with limited liability).
josteink 2y ago
> Either way, this is some pretty amazing Calvinball even by EC standards. Call it by its name. It’s lawfare. The EU is trying to coerce X to limit freedom of speech for everyone worldwide, including Americans. Talk about a nice NATO ally eh, trying to lawfare your constitutionally granted freedoms away?

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> It's private but it's not "solely owned" You’re right. Controlled would be correct, as it invokes the legal concept of common control. (No idea if it’s a thing in the EU.)

jeltz 2y ago

It is much more likely that the NYT journalist misunderstood something. The question is what.

lambda 2y ago

While others certainly have a financial interest in it, it is not publicly traded and Musk solely controls it. For instance, he just unilaterally sold it to another of his privately held companies, xAI, for a valuation he made up. Musk's privately held companies, and to a large degree Tesla as well, are all things he treats as effectively one big company that he controls; he'll take employees from one to another at will, he sells them to each other or spins them out at will in all stock transactions, etc. The EU regulations allow seeing through such sham company boundaries that are all controlled by a single entity, and treating them as a single company.

arandomusername 2y ago
How do you know that the shareholders of X did not have a voice in acquisition by xAI?
- lambda 2y ago
  In this article: https://www.reuters.com/markets/deals/musks-xai-buys-social-media-platform-x-45-billion-2025-03-28/ https://www.reuters.com/markets/deals/musks-xai-buys-social-... "Musk did not ask investors for approval but told them that the two companies had been collaborating closely and the deal would drive deeper integration with Grok, the investor said." Now, he may have only been talking about xAI investors here, but it seems pretty clear from his actions that Musk pretty much demands full control of his companies, and if he does involve the other investor's they're likely rubber-stamping without much opportunity to push back.
  - arandomusername 2y ago
    huh, didnt know, thats pretty crazy

miltonlost 2y ago

Neither NYT nor the EU is wrong. Elon's companies are, to him, fungible, with employees able to be used in any company, like when Elon borrowed engineers employed at Tesla and SpaceX to work on Twitter when he bought it. These are all separate companies on paper, but Elon treats the workers as interchangeable. He acts as if they are all owned by him, so the EU is treating them as he treats them.

jdminhbg 2y ago
That’s a good explanation of how Elon is also wrong, I guess, but the NYT or EU is still wrong too.
- marcosdumay 2y ago
  If the other shareholder are ok with this behavior, than there's nothing wrong with it. If they complain, it's a very serious crime, he's basically stealing, but if they are don't, than it's not.
root_axis 2y ago
And not just the workers, Elon threatened to take all of Tesla's AI stack to xAI if they didn't give him the 55B pay package.
immibis 2y ago
Most countries' company law has a clause that says if you violate company boundaries like this, they're effectively one company. Otherwise you could use this sort of thing to limit your liability well in excess of intended (the primary purpose of company law is to establish carve-outs in which you can perform business with limited liability).

josteink 2y ago

> Either way, this is some pretty amazing Calvinball even by EC standards. Call it by its name. It’s lawfare. The EU is trying to coerce X to limit freedom of speech for everyone worldwide, including Americans. Talk about a nice NATO ally eh, trying to lawfare your constitutionally granted freedoms away?