Choice can get this wrong — tell us if something's off.
NVIDIA recalled European plug heads sold with power adaptors because of an electric shock hazard.
NVIDIA Recalls European Plug Heads Sold with Power Adaptors Due to Electric Shock Hazard
NVIDIA Recalls European Plug Heads Sold with Power Adaptors Due to Electric Shock Hazard
Nvidia is accused of punishing customers with shipment delays, with former AMD VP labeling it a "GPU cartel".
Nvidia is allegedly punishing customers with shipment delays, former AMD VP labels it a "GPU cartel" | TechSpot
Nvidia is accused of violating anti-monopoly laws during a trade standoff with the United States.
A sign to a Nvidia office building is shown in Santa Clara, Calif., Wednesday, May 31, 2023.
Rivals have accused Wall Street darling Nvidia of abusing its market dominance in selling chips that power artificial intelligence — and the U.S. Justice Department is now investigating these complaints, technology news site The Information reported.
NVIDIA faces increased antitrust scrutiny, including an ongoing antitrust investigation in China.
U.S. government is investigating Nvidia for anticompetitive practices: Report | Fortune
Rivals have accused Wall Street darling Nvidia of abusing its market dominance in selling chips that power artificial intelligence — and the U.S. Justice Department is now investigating these complaints, technology news site The Information reported.
The potential use of exclusionary rebates is likely another reason the DOJ could be investigating Nvidia for antitrust violations.
DOJ investigates Nvidia's deal with Groq
The Justice Department is investigating Nvidia's $20 billion non-exclusive" licensing agreement with Groq to determine if it "tried to skirt antitrust scrutiny," according to the NY Times.
China significantly escalated its trade standoff with the United States Monday, saying that tech giant Nvidia, the most valuable company on the US stock market and a key provider of artificial-intelligence chips, had violated anti-monopoly laws.
As well as being a trillion-dollar, planet-dominating force in the AI chip market under a charismatic leader, semiconductor manufacturer Nvidia may also be flexing its giant business muscles in ways that abuse its competition or customers, according to the U.S. Department of Justice.
Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) opened a new investigation into NVIDIA and pressed its CEO, Jensen Huang, on whether the company’s new deal with Groq, an AI chip startup and competitor, is an attempt to skirt antitrust laws.
Nvidia violated the terms of the regulator's conditional approval for its acquisition of Mellanox Technologies, according to China's State Administration for Market Regulation.
Nvidia was found to have violated the terms of the regulator’s conditional approval of its acquisition of Israeli chip designer Mellanox Technologies, China’s State Administration for Market Regulation said in a statement, without providing further details.
NVIDIA recalled tablet computers due to a documented fire hazard.
NVIDIA Recalls Tablet Computers Due to Fire Hazard
NVIDIA Recalls Tablet Computers Due to Fire Hazard
NVIDIA is accused of issuing false disclosures misrepresenting it had not trained AI with copyrighted and biometric data.
Nvidia is sued by authors over AI use of copyrighted works
In a similar vein, the statements in the Proxy contained material omissions because the Proxy failed to disclose the material fact that NVIDIA had trained its AI using vast amounts of data for which it had not obtained the necessary licenses or permissions, and thus that the Company was at material risk of lawsuits from copyright holders These statements and omissions were made at a time when all Defendants knew or should have known that other AI developers had been sued by copyright holders for using datasets that included unlicensed materials, and that the datasets used by NVIDIA were not subjected to “principles [that] reflect our core values and our Code of Conduct,” and that Defendants did not “endeavor to deliver trustworthy AI models that comply with privacy and data protection laws [or] perform safely and as intended.” At best, the Director Defendants acted recklessly in making representations regarding NVIDIA’s practices given the copyright claims associated with The Pile, Books3, Anna’s Archive, RedPajama, LibGen, SciHub, Z-Library, and Panda- 70M, datasets comprised of YouTube videos, and human speech recordings.
The Director Defendants knowingly approved and/or permitted a business model to train NVIDIA’s AI products on a dataset that included copyrighted materials, YouTube videos, commercial voice models, and knew of the falsity of the misleading statements in SEC filings at the time they were made.
As explained above, the Individual Defendants caused NVIDIA to issue numerous false and misleading disclosures during the Relevant Period, misrepresenting that NVIDIA had not trained its AI with any copyrighted material and biometric information and concealing the extent to which NVIDIA had improperly used the copyrights and biometric information of other persons and companies.
CEO Jensen Huang demanded automation wherever AI can be applied after Nvidia's record earnings.
After Nvidia $NVDA’s recent record earnings, an internal all-hands meeting — part pep-talk and part culture intervention — reportedly turned sharp when CEO Jensen Huang responded to an employee question about managers telling people to use AI less by demanding automation anywhere the technology can reach.
The Groq agreement is not NVIDIA’s first reverse acquihire: in September 2025, NVIDIA licensed the technology of the chip interconnect startup Enfabrica, which provides integrated systems to more efficiently connect large quantities of AI chips together.
The Groq agreement is not NVIDIA’s first reverse acquihire: in September 2025, NVIDIA licensed the technology of the chip interconnect startup Enfabrica, which provides integrated systems to more efficiently connect large quantities of AI chips together.
Five months later, no deal has closed, Nvidia’s CEO now says the $100 billion figure was “never a commitment,” and Reuters reports that OpenAI has been quietly seeking alternatives to Nvidia chips since last year.
Five months later, no deal has closed, Nvidia’s CEO now says the $100 billion figure was “never a commitment,” and Reuters reports that OpenAI has been quietly seeking alternatives to Nvidia chips since last year.
Pledge to invest $100 billion in OpenAI was ‘never a commitment,’ says Nvidia's Huang | Fortune
Nvidia's stock fell in early trading Monday after reports emerged that the chipmaker's plans to invest $100 billion into OpenAI were stalled.
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 12/21/2021 | Document No. 603500 | PAGE Page 1 of 49 * PUBLIC *; PUBLIC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES In the Matter of NVIDIA Corporation, a corporation SoftBank Group Corp., a corporation, and Arm Ltd., a corporation.
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 12/21/2021 | Document No. 603500 | PAGE Page 1 of 49 * PUBLIC *; PUBLIC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES In the Matter of NVIDIA Corporation, a corporation SoftBank Group Corp., a corporation, and Arm Ltd., a corporation.
The criminal charges were filed as part of a wider SEC investigation of employees and acquaintances who may have illegally profited by using information from an e-mail sent by Nvidia Chief Executive Officer Jen-Hsun Huang.
The criminal charges were filed as part of a wider SEC investigation of employees and acquaintances who may have illegally profited by using information from an e-mail sent by Nvidia Chief Executive Officer Jen-Hsun Huang.
These sources include firsthand accounts from former Nvidia executives in the United States, China, India, and Russia—all describing Nvidia’s and Huang’s constant internal tracking of crypto sales; a report by the Royal Bank of Canada independently concluding that Nvidia in fact earned $1.95 billion from crypto-mining during the boom—$1.35 billion more than it told the public; an analysis by economists with cryptocurrency expertise who confirmed these findings; contemporaneous analyst reports and market reactions; Nvidia’s own public statements and SEC filings; internal documents and data sources; and the circumstances surrounding Nvidia’s eventual disclosures and the resulting stock price drop.
Nvidia had argued that the investors’ lawsuit should be thrown out because it does not measure up to a 1995 law, the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, that is intended to bar frivolous complaints.
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court is allowing a class-action lawsuit that accuses Nvidia of misleading investors about its past dependence on selling computer chips for the mining of volatile cryptocurrency to proceed.
In 2022, Nvidia, which is based in Santa Clara, California, paid a $5.5 million fine to settle charges by the Securities and Exchange Commission that it failed to disclose that cryptomining was a significant source of revenue growth from the sale of graphics processing units that were produced and marketed for gaming. The company did not admit to any wrongdoing as part of the settlement.
Supreme Court allows investors' lawsuit against Nvidia to proceed | AP News
In May 2022, NVIDIA agreed to pay a $5.5 million penalty to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) for inadequate disclosures concerning the impact of crypto mining on the company's gaming business.
Nvidia faces lawsuit over $1 billion in undisclosed crypto mining revenue
On March 25, a California federal judge certified an investor class in a securities lawsuit against Nvidia Corporation (Nasdaq: NVDA) and its founder and CEO, Jensen Huang.
NVIDIA is under pressure from the Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission, which has backed the lawsuit.
US Supreme Court dismisses Nvidia's bid to avoid securities fraud suit
The plaintiffs accused Nvidia and its CEO Jensen Huang of violating a 1934 federal law called the Securities Exchange Act by making statements in 2017 and 2018 that falsely downplayed how much of Nvidia's revenue growth came from crypto-related purchases.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The U.S. Supreme Court dismissed on Wednesday an appeal by artificial intelligence chipmaker Nvidia seeking to avoid a securities fraud lawsuit by shareholders who accused the company of misleading investors about how much of its sales depended on the volatile cryptocurrency market.
Nvidia in 2022 agreed to pay $5.5 million to U.S. authorities to settle charges that it did not properly disclose the impact of cryptomining on its gaming business, but without admitting or denying the findings of federal regulators.
Nvidia asked the Supreme Court to reverse a lower appeals court’s decision that a suit brought by company stockholders met the high legal bar to move forward with securities fraud allegations against the chipmaker.
The case before the high court comes nearly two years after Nvidia reached a $5.5 million settlement with the Securities and Exchange Commission, which alleged the company failed to disclose in two filings that crypto mining was a major source of revenue growth from GPU sales designed and marketed for gaming.
Nvidia has pushed back, arguing Swedish investment firm Ohman J:or Fonder — the lead plaintiff — did not meet the legal bar set by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, a 1995 federal law designed to prevent frivolous securities litigation.
The suit claims NVIDIA misclassified massive crypto-driven revenue under its Gaming segment, downplaying exposure to the volatile crypto market and misleading shareholders about the sustainability of its explosive growth.
NVIDIA Accused of Hiding $1B Crypto Mining Revenue as 'Gaming' | CCN.com
law called the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making statements in 2017 and 2018 that falsely downplayed how much of Nvidia's revenue growth came from crypto-related purchases.
U.S. Supreme Court to hear Nvidia bid to scuttle shareholder lawsuit
In addition, NVIDIA violated Exchange Act Rule 13a-15(a), which requires every issuer of a security registered pursuant to Section 12 of the Exchange Act to maintain disclosure controls and procedures designed to ensure that information required to be disclosed by an issuer in reports it files or submits under the Exchange Act is recorded, processed, summarized, and reported within the time periods specified in the Commission’s rules and forms.
SEC Charges NVIDIA Corporation with Inadequate Disclosures about Impact of Cryptomining
The order also finds that NVIDIA failed to maintain adequate disclosure controls and procedures.
The SEC’s order finds that NVIDIA violated Section 17(a)(2) and (3) of the Securities Act of 1933 and the disclosure provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
SEC.gov | SEC Charges NVIDIA Corporation with Inadequate Disclosures about Impact of Cryptomining
The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced settled charges against technology company NVIDIA Corporation for inadequate disclosures concerning the impact of cryptomining on the company’s gaming business.
16 FY 20181 FY 2019 2Q18 3Q18 4Q18 1Q19 2Q19 Total NVIDIA’s Reported Revenues for Crypto SKU $150m $70m $75m $289m $18m $602m Actual Cryptocurrency-Related Revenues $349m $299m $541m $364m $175m $l,728m Difference Between Reported Revenues for Crypto SKU and Actual Cryptocurrency- Related Revenues $199m $229m $466m $75m $157m $l,126m 23.
This investigation includes review and analysis of, among other things: (i) NVIDIA’s public filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”); (ii) research reports by securities and financial analysts; (iii) videos and transcripts of NVIDIA’s conference calls with analysts and investors; (iv) Company presentations, press releases, and reports; (v) news and media reports concerning NVIDIA and other facts related to this action; (vi) price and volume data for NVIDIA securities; (vii) information from consultations with relevant experts; and (viii) information provided by former NVIDIA employees, some of whom expressed concern about providing Lead Counsel with information for fear of retaliation by NVIDIA.
16 FY 20181 FY 2019 2Q18 3Q18 4Q18 1Q19 2Q19 Total NVIDIA’s Reported Revenues for Crypto SKU $150m $70m $75m $289m $18m $602m Actual Cryptocurrency-Related Revenues $349m $299m $541m $364m $175m $l,728m Difference Between Reported Revenues for Crypto SKU and Actual Cryptocurrency- Related Revenues $199m $229m $466m $75m $157m $l,126m 23.
This investigation includes review and analysis of, among other things: (i) NVIDIA’s public filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”); (ii) research reports by securities and financial analysts; (iii) videos and transcripts of NVIDIA’s conference calls with analysts and investors; (iv) Company presentations, press releases, and reports; (v) news and media reports concerning NVIDIA and other facts related to this action; (vi) price and volume data for NVIDIA securities; (vii) information from consultations with relevant experts; and (viii) information provided by former NVIDIA employees, some of whom expressed concern about providing Lead Counsel with information for fear of retaliation by NVIDIA.
COMPLAINT FOR
That the SEC charged Nvidia—and reached a settlement for millions of dollars in civil penalties —over the same deception first identified in this private action further undermines any suggestion that this is the type of frivolous suit that the PSLRA was meant to screen out.
These sources include firsthand accounts from former Nvidia executives in the United States, China, India, and Russia—all describing Nvidia’s and Huang’s constant internal tracking of crypto sales; a report by the Royal Bank of Canada independently concluding that Nvidia in fact earned $1.95 billion from crypto-mining during the boom—$1.35 billion more than it told the public; an analysis by economists with cryptocurrency expertise who confirmed these findings; contemporaneous analyst reports and market reactions; Nvidia’s own public statements and SEC filings; internal documents and data sources; and the circumstances surrounding Nvidia’s eventual disclosures and the resulting stock price drop.
“All issuers, including those that pursue opportunities involving emerging technology, must ensure that their disclosures are timely, complete, and accurate.” The SEC’s order finds that NVIDIA violated Section 17(a)(2) and (3) of the Securities Act of 1933 and the disclosure provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The SEC’s cease-and-desist order found that Nvidia had “information indicating that cryptomining was a significant factor” in its record sales and that its own “sales personnel, in particular in China, reported” on “significant increases in demand” from “cryptomining.” App.
In 2022—years after the plaintiffs filed their complaint—the SEC investigated and reached a civil settlement with Nvidia over the same core conduct: misleading investors about the impact of crypto currency mining on profits in its gaming business.
Consistent with RBC’s findings, Prysm concluded that Nvidia earned $1.7 billion in mining-related revenue during the class period—not its claimed $602 million— confirming that Nvidia “grossly understated its crypto - related sales” by $1.1 billion during that period.
-1a- APPENDIX A PRESS RELEASE SEC CHARGES NVIDIA CORPORATION WITH INADEQUATE DISCLOSURES ABOUT IMPACT OF CRYPTOMINING For Immediate Release | 2022-79 Washington D.C., May 6, 2022 — The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced settled charges against technology company NVIDIA Corporation for inadequate disclosures concerning the impact of cryptomining on the company’s gaming business.
As a result of the conduct described above, NVIDIA violated Sections 17(a)(2) and (3) of the Securities Act, which prohibit any person from directly or indirectly obtaining money or property by means of any untrue statement of a material fact or any om ission to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading, or engaging in any transaction, practice, or course of business which operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon the purchaser, in the offer or sales of securities.
Press Release, SEC Charges NVIDIA Corporation with Inadequate Disclosures about Impact of Cryptomining (May 6, 2022) (App.
Without admitting or denying the SEC’s findings, NVIDIA agreed to a cease-and -desist order and to pay a $5.5 million penalty.
These statements, taken as true, support a strong inference that he “reviewed sales data showing that a large share of [] 3 “Without admitting or denying the SE C’s findings, NVIDIA agreed to a cease-and-desist order and to pay a $5.5 million penalty.” App.
As demand for and interest in crypto rose in 2017, NVIDIA customers increasingly used its gaming GPUs for cryptomining.
The SEC’s cease-and-desist order found that Nvidia had “information indicating that cryptomining was a significant factor” in its record sales and that its own “sales personnel, in particular in China, reported” on “significant increases in demand” from “cryptomining.” App.
Without admitting or denying the SEC’s findings, NVIDIA agreed to a cease-and -desist order and to pay a $5.5 million penalty.
These statements, taken as true, support a strong inference that he “reviewed sales data showing that a large share of [] 3 “Without admitting or denying the SE C’s findings, NVIDIA agreed to a cease-and-desist order and to pay a $5.5 million penalty.” App.
In 2022—years after the plaintiffs filed their complaint—the SEC investigated and reached a civil settlement with Nvidia over the same core conduct: misleading investors about the impact of crypto currency mining on profits in its gaming business.
That the SEC charged Nvidia—and reached a settlement for millions of dollars in civil penalties —over the same deception first identified in this private action further undermines any suggestion that this is the type of frivolous suit that the PSLRA was meant to screen out.
As demand for and interest in crypto rose in 2017, NVIDIA customers increasingly used its gaming GPUs for cryptomining.
2, 22 Press Release, SEC Charges NVIDIA Corporation with Inadequate Disclosures about Impact of Cryptomining (May 6, 2022) ..........................................
Press Release, SEC Charges NVIDIA Corporation with Inadequate Disclosures about Impact of Cryptomining (May 6, 2022) (App.
As a result of the conduct described above, NVIDIA violated Sections 17(a)(2) and (3) of the Securities Act, which prohibit any person from directly or indirectly obtaining money or property by means of any untrue statement of a material fact or any om ission to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading, or engaging in any transaction, practice, or course of business which operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon the purchaser, in the offer or sales of securities.
-1a- APPENDIX A PRESS RELEASE SEC CHARGES NVIDIA CORPORATION WITH INADEQUATE DISCLOSURES ABOUT IMPACT OF CRYPTOMINING For Immediate Release | 2022-79 Washington D.C., May 6, 2022 — The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced settled charges against technology company NVIDIA Corporation for inadequate disclosures concerning the impact of cryptomining on the company’s gaming business.
“All issuers, including those that pursue opportunities involving emerging technology, must ensure that their disclosures are timely, complete, and accurate.” The SEC’s order finds that NVIDIA violated Section 17(a)(2) and (3) of the Securities Act of 1933 and the disclosure provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
These sources include firsthand accounts from former Nvidia executives in the United States, China, India, and Russia—all describing Nvidia’s and Huang’s constant internal tracking of crypto sales; a report by the Royal Bank of Canada independently concluding that Nvidia in fact earned $1.95 billion from crypto-mining during the boom—$1.35 billion more than it told the public; an analysis by economists with cryptocurrency expertise who confirmed these findings; contemporaneous analyst reports and market reactions; Nvidia’s own public statements and SEC filings; internal documents and data sources; and the circumstances surrounding Nvidia’s eventual disclosures and the resulting stock price drop.
Consistent with RBC’s findings, Prysm concluded that Nvidia earned $1.7 billion in mining-related revenue during the class period—not its claimed $602 million— confirming that Nvidia “grossly understated its crypto - related sales” by $1.1 billion during that period.
Nvidia in 2022 agreed to pay $5.5 million to U.S. authorities to settle charges that it did not properly disclose the impact of cryptomining on its gaming business, but without admitting or denying the findings of federal regulators.
Supreme Court dismissed on Wednesday an appeal by artificial intelligence chipmaker Nvidia seeking to avoid a securities fraud lawsuit by shareholders who accused the company of misleading investors about how much of its sales depended on the volatile cryptocurrency market.
The plaintiffs accused Nvidia and its CEO Jensen Huang of violating a 1934 federal law called the Securities Exchange Act by making statements in 2017 and 2018 that falsely downplayed how much of Nvidia's revenue growth came from crypto-related purchases.