Delaware Judge Reassigns High-Profile Tesla Cases Amid Bias Allegations

by THEFUTURE.TEAM

March 31, 2026

Judge Kathaleen McCormick reassigned three cases involving Elon Musk after a motion alleging judicial bias, while rejecting a request for her recusal. The dispute centers on a social media interaction that Musk’s legal team cited as evidence of bias.

Case Reassignment Amid Legal Controversy

The Delaware Court of Chancery is reviewing multiple cases involving Musk and Tesla. The reassignment follows concerns raised by Musk’s attorneys regarding the judge’s impartiality. Three cases linked to Musk were transferred to other judges, while McCormick continues to preside over related matters.

Follow THE FUTURE on LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram, X and Telegram

Accusations And Judicial Response

Musk’s legal team filed a motion seeking recusal, citing a LinkedIn interaction related to a post about a court ruling involving Musk. The post referenced a case that could have resulted in losses of up to $2 billion. In a letter to legal counsel, McCormick denied bias and said the interaction was unintentional. She added that unusual activity on her account had been reported.

Ruling And Broader Implications

In an order issued Monday, McCormick rejected the recusal request and stated that the motion was based on incorrect assumptions. She also noted that she had previously dismissed a lawsuit against Musk. The decision follows an earlier ruling in which McCormick ordered Tesla to rescind Musk’s 2018 compensation package, valued at about $56 billion in stock options, in a shareholder case. Following that ruling, Musk said he would move parts of his business operations, including Tesla, to Texas and Nevada.

Ongoing Litigation And Future Prospects

Litigation involving Musk and Tesla continues in Delaware courts. Ongoing cases include disputes over director compensation and a consolidated shareholder lawsuit related to fiduciary duties and the launch of xAI. McCormick said reassignment of the cases does not affect the judicial process and expressed confidence in other judges handling the matters.

The Future Forbes Realty Global Properties

Meta’s $18 Billion Settlement Limits State Claims Over Children’s Data

by News Editor

August 28, 2026

Meta’s $18 billion settlement with attorneys general from 29 U.S. states includes a provision limiting future state claims over the company’s use of children’s data for age-assurance systems.

Under the agreement, Meta must develop, train and begin testing a system to identify users under 13 within a year of the settlement taking effect. The company already uses AI-based age-detection tools, although the agreement does not require the new system to use AI.

Follow THE FUTURE on LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram, X and Telegram

States Agree To Limits On Future Claims

The Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) generally restricts the collection and retention of personal data from children under 13. Under the settlement, the 29 state attorneys general agreed not to bring past, present or future claims under COPPA or similar state laws over the specified use of children’s data.

Meta will not be permitted to use information from users under 13 for advertising, marketing or algorithmic optimisation.

Federal Enforcement Remains Unclear

COPPA is primarily enforced by the Federal Trade Commission, which is not a party to the agreement. That leaves open the possibility of separate federal action over how Meta collects or uses children’s data.

Another issue is whether Meta can keep age-assurance data isolated from its other systems. An independent auditor will monitor compliance, but the settlement does not fully specify what data Meta can retain for training, how long it can be stored or whether derived insights can be used elsewhere.

Legal Risks Remain

Joshua Wurtzel, a partner at Schlam Stone & Dolan, said states could still pursue claims if Meta uses the data outside the settlement’s limits. Such cases could depend on how those limits are interpreted.

Peter Jackson, a data and intellectual property attorney at Greenberg Glusker, said the provision could “disincentivize future enforcement actions.”

The agreement gives Meta greater legal certainty around using children’s data for age assurance, but questions remain over federal enforcement, data retention and secondary use.

Breaking news