What would police investigators possibly have to gain from making this up?
It’s not even an outlandish claim. Knowing the technology and the region this force covers it sounds perfectly reasonable to me that a least some thieves are experimenting with this technique.
Putting aside the fact that headlines are usually chosen by editors, not writers – this is where it comes up in the article itself:
> When the stock market was sky-high in January [...] Palihapitiya was tweeting, “Tell me what to buy tomorrow and if you convince me I’ll throw a few 100 k’s at it to start. Ride or die.” [...]
> Such peacocking, [financial historian Irene] Finel-Honigman told me, is fun to watch and potentially useful: “These kinds of scam artists are really important, because, though maybe they go too far, they’re the ones who convince everyone else to start paying attention. They’re Pied Pipers. They notice things other people miss.” Then, as these fanciful tales are replaced with legal fine print, living happily ever after becomes having a 401(k).
The deal has been announced but it hasn't actually been completed yet. Though obviously the layoffs are part of the process before the sale is final.
News reports very frequently treat deals that have been announced as complete long before they are finalized, even if government approval is not guaranteed (e.g., some of the early coverage of the proposed Comcast-TWC merger said "Comcast has bought...").
Some of the nuance has been lost in the media coverage. The National Geographic Society will still exist as a non-profit, but it is selling control of its media assets to Fox (and presumably would use the proceeds to fund its remaining charitable work).
Does the IRS look into sales like this to ensure that the assets were sold for a reasonable price? It seems like that would be a pretty big loophole if not.
Per the USPTO trademark database (on mobile so can't readily link), FiftyThree has a trademark on "Pencil by FiftyThree", not on "Pencil". Moreover the trademark they do have specifically disclaims exclusive rights to the word "pencil" by itself. (IANAL but typically USPTO will ask for these sorts of disclaimers if part of the trademark is deemed generic/descriptive.)
Similarly Apple's product is officially named "Apple Pencil".
U.S. cable/satellite-only channels like Fox News do not have FCC licenses. There may be a few general regulations they have to abide by – things like closed captioning – but they do not have to answer directly to the FCC (unlike local broadcast stations).
Theoretically the Federal _Trade_ Commission could go after them if they had proof they were advertising falsely, though I think people have tried to bring complaints in the past along those lines and failed.
