New York Knicks are in the NBA, The New York Knicks, a rival team in the Atlantic Division of the Philadelphia 76ers, are returning to the postseason for the first time in two years.
Even though the Knicks had a chance to win on Saturday night, they didn’t have any assistance from their rivals. The Miami Heat’s victory over the Dallas Mavericks could have benefited the Knicks as they had the night off.
The Knicks had to wait at least another day to secure their postseason spot, while the Mavericks laboured to defeat Jimmy Butler and the Heat.
New York Knicks are in the NBA
The Knicks had a preliminary game against the Washington Wizards on Sunday’s schedule. The Knicks would improve to 46-33 on the year with a win over the Wizards, giving New York a chance to qualify for the postseason.
Julius Randle was absent due to his ongoing ankle injury, but the Knicks still enjoyed a strong performance from Quentin Grimes and Jalen Brunson, who combined for 27 points. Together, Immanuel Quickly and Obi Toppin scored 43 points.
Wizards were defeated by the Knicks 118–109. They entered the Eastern Conference Finals as the sixth team. The Knicks would play the fourth-seeded Cleveland Cavaliers if the season ended tonight. The Brooklyn Nets are the sixth-seeded team, so the Sixers would play the other New York-based team.
At the Sports Illustrated channel All76ers, Justin Grasso writes about the Philadelphia 76ers. For real-time information, you can follow him on Twitter:
In a landmark decision, U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers has ruled that Apple can no longer impose fees on purchases made outside its App Store or restrict developers from directing users to alternative payment methods. The ruling, effective immediately, marks a significant victory for Epic Games in its ongoing legal battle against Apple.
Apple has announced plans to appeal the decision, but the court’s order is a clear rebuke of the tech giant’s previous attempts to circumvent antitrust regulations.
Key Takeaways from the Ruling
Judge Gonzalez Rogers found that Apple “willfully” defied her 2021 injunction, which required the company to allow developers to link to external payment options. In her latest ruling, she stated:
“That [Apple] thought this Court would tolerate such insubordination was a gross miscalculation.”
The judge also referred the case to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for potential criminal contempt proceedings, signaling the severity of Apple’s non-compliance.
What Apple Can No Longer Do:
Charge commissions on purchases made outside of apps.
Restrict how developers design, format, or place links to external payment options.
Block or limit buttons, calls to action, or other methods that direct users to alternative payment systems.
Interfere with users leaving an app—except for a neutral warning about third-party transactions.
Apple’s Response & Industry Reactions
Apple’s Senior Director of Corporate Communications, Olivia Dalton, stated:
“We strongly disagree with the decision. We will comply with the court’s order and we will appeal.”
Meanwhile, Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney announced that Fortnite will return to the U.S. App Store next week. He also extended a “peace proposal” to Apple:
“If Apple extends the court’s friction-free, Apple-tax-free framework worldwide, we’ll return Fortnite to the App Store worldwide and drop current and future litigation on the topic.”
Spotify, another vocal critic of Apple’s policies, hailed the ruling as:
“A victory for developers everywhere.”
Why This Ruling Matters
For years, Apple has enforced a 30% commission on in-app purchases, a policy that sparked backlash from developers and regulators. Even after the 2021 ruling, Apple introduced a 27% fee on external transactions—a move the court deemed an attempt to maintain its revenue stream unlawfully.
Judge Gonzalez Rogers revealed internal tensions at Apple, noting that App Store chief Phil Schiller advocated for compliance, while CEO Tim Cook and CFO Luca Maestri chose defiance.
What’s Next?
Apple’s appeal could prolong the legal battle, but the immediate ruling forces significant changes.
Developers gain more freedom to steer users toward cheaper payment alternatives.
Consumers may benefit from lower prices if developers pass on the savings from avoiding Apple’s fees.
This case sets a major precedent in the fight against Big Tech’s monopolistic practices, reinforcing the need for fair competition in digital marketplaces.
A new Senate investigation has found that Elon Musk’s empire of companies—including Tesla, SpaceX, Neuralink, The Boring Company, and xAI—may avoid over $2.37 billion in potential legal liabilities due to his unprecedented influence over U.S. government policy.
The report, compiled by Democratic staff on the Senate Homeland Security’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations (PSI), highlights how Musk’s close ties with former President Donald Trump and his role in shaping the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) have shielded his businesses from regulatory scrutiny.
Key Findings: How Musk’s Influence Shields His Companies
1. Estimated $2.37 Billion in Avoided Legal Exposure
The report identifies 65 “actual or potential” legal actions across 11 federal agencies that Musk’s companies faced as of Trump’s inauguration. Of these, 40 cases had quantifiable financial risks, including:
Tesla: Up to $1.19 billion in liabilities for misleading claims about self-driving capabilities.
Neuralink: $281 million in potential penalties for understating risks in brain-implant trials.
SpaceX: $630,000+ in fines for allegedly skirting rocket launch regulations.
2. Regulatory Agencies Weakened Under DOGE
Many agencies overseeing Musk’s companies—such as the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration), SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission), and NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration)—have faced budget cuts and reduced enforcement power under DOGE’s restructuring.
3. Alleged Interference in Investigations
The report cites instances where legal actions against Musk’s companies were allegedly stalled or dismissed, including:
The abrupt resignation of an FAA official after clashing with SpaceX.
Delayed investigations into Tesla’s Autopilot safety concerns.
Reduced scrutiny of Neuralink’s medical trial disclosures.
“Mr. Musk’s position may allow him to evade oversight, derail investigations, and make litigation disappear whenever he so chooses—on his terms and at his command.” — Senate PSI Report
Senate Democrats Demand Transparency
Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), the subcommittee’s ranking member, has sent letters to all five Musk-led companies, demanding:
Full disclosure of ongoing federal investigations.
Details on safeguards preventing government influence over legal matters.
Preservation of communications between Musk’s firms and federal officials.
The companies have until May 11th to respond. However, subpoena power rests with the Republican majority, meaning further action depends on bipartisan support.
Why the $2.37 Billion Figure May Be an Underestimate
The report warns that the true financial benefit to Musk could be far higher because: ✔ 25 additional legal actions couldn’t be quantified. ✔ Legal fees and compliance costs (potentially billions more) may be avoided. ✔ New government contracts (like SpaceX’s NASA deals) could bring additional revenue. ✔ Competitive intelligence advantages from insider access.
The Bigger Concern: Unseen Consequences
The most troubling implication? “The cases never filed, investigations quietly neglected, and potential witnesses silenced will be harder—if not impossible—to detect.”
What This Means for Corporate Accountability
This report raises critical questions about: 🔹 Corporate influence over regulatory bodies 🔹 The erosion of checks and balances in government oversight 🔹 Potential conflicts of interest when tech moguls shape policy affecting their own industries
Will Congress Take Action?
If Republicans block further investigation, Musk’s companies may continue operating with reduced oversight.
If Democrats gain more leverage, expect hearings, subpoenas, and stricter enforcement.
Final Thoughts: A Test for Democracy or Just Business as Usual?
Elon Musk’s case is a litmus test for corporate power in government. While some argue his disruptive innovations deserve flexibility, others warn that no billionaire should be above the law.
What do you think? ✅ Should Musk’s companies face stricter oversight? ✅ Is this a dangerous precedent, or just smart business?
