TheChek News Flow

DAX:

MDAX:

SDAX:

The Takeaway

Humanoid robotics startup 1X has told investors and employees it is trying to raise as much as $1 billion, according to three people who spoke to CEO Bernt Øivind. The decade-old company is aiming for a valuation of at least $10 billion, Børnich said, or more than 12 times its previous valuation from a January financing, according to one of the people.

The move comes as large firms such as Tesla, Amazon and OpenAI develop their own hardware or software for humanoid robots in homes or factories, and several other humanoid startups raised capital despite little to no revenue. That list includes Figure AI, which this month said it had $1 billion in commitments to invest at a $39 billion valuation.

It isn’t clear whether 1X has started to generate any revenue from sales of its robots and whether it will succeed in its funding efforts. It could also end up raising a smaller amount. It’s discussed raising money from existing investor EQT Ventures, the venture arm of Swedish investment manager EQT AB, one of the people said.

A representative from 1X declined to comment.

The humanoid robot developers are relying on newfound artificial intelligence, similar to the type developed by OpenAI for chatbots. 1X has used OpenAI models for voice capabilities and is developing its own AI model, called Redwood, that it trained on its robots’ actions.

1X, founded in Norway as Halodi Robotics, in February announced a new robot, Neo Gamma, that has a soft exterior and can squat down to pick up things from the ground or sit in chairs, a feat that other humanoids such as Tesla’s Optimus are also trying to achieve.

The startup has done some initial trials in the San Francisco area and plans to have the robot in a few hundred or thousand homes by the end of this year, Øivind has said. One challenge with developing robots for homes is guaranteeing their safety, such as making sure they don’t fall and crush a nearby toddler or pet.

Most humanoid robots also don’t operate autonomously all the time. In some demonstrations of Neo Gamma earlier this year, a remote technician controlled the robot’s hands and voice.

The company has also developed a two-wheeled robot called Eve that it tested in a Norwegian hospital.

1X has raised more than $100 million from OpenAI’s Startup Fund, EQT Ventures and Tiger Global Management. It moved from Norway to Palo Alto, Calif., this summer to hire top talent and “foster even closer collaboration with our partners and investors.”

The valuation it is seeking would be far higher than a previously unreported financing in January that valued the company at about $820 million, said one of the people who spoke to the CEO.

It takes a lot of computing power to run an AI product – and as the tech industry races to tap the power of AI models, there’s a parallel race underway to build the infrastructure that will power them. On a recent earnings call, Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang estimated that between $3 and $4 trillion will be spent on AI infrastructure by the end of the decade – with much of that money coming from AI companies themselves. Along the way, they’re placing immense strain on power grids, and pushing the industry’s building capacity to its limit.

Below, we’ve laid out everything we know about the biggest AI infrastructure projects, including major spending from Meta, Oracle, Microsoft, Google, and OpenAI. We’ll keep it updated as the boom continues, and the numbers climb even higher.

This is arguably the deal that kicked off the whole contemporary AI boom: in 2019, Microsoft made a $1 billion investment in a buzzy non-profit called OpenAI, known mostly for its association with Elon Musk. Crucially, the deal made Microsoft the exclusive cloud provider for OpenAI – and as the demands of model-training became more intense, more of Microsoft’s investment started to come in the form of Azure cloud credit rather than cash. It was a great deal for both sides: Microsoft was able to claim more Azure sales, and OpenAI got more money for its biggest single expense. In the years that followed, Microsoft would build its investment up to nearly $14 billion – a move that is set to pay off enormously when OpenAI converts into a for-profit company.

The partnership between the two companies has unwound more recently. In January, OpenAI announced it would no longer be using Microsoft’s cloud exclusively, instead giving the company a right of first refusal on future infrastructure demands but pursuing others if Azure couldn’t meet their needs. More recently, Microsoft began exploring other foundation models to power its AI products, establishing even more independence from the AI giant.

OpenAI’s arrangement with Microsoft was so successful that it’s become a common practice for AI services to sign on with a particular cloud provider. Anthropic has received $8 billion in investment from Amazon, while making kernel-level modifications on the company’s hardware to make it better-suited for AI training. Google Cloud has also signed on smaller AI companies like Loveable and Windsurf as “primary computing partners,” although those deals did not involve any investment. And even OpenAI has gone back to the well, receiving a $100 billion investment from Nvidia in September, giving it capacity to buy even more of the company’s GPUs.

On June 30th 2025, Oracle revealed in an SEC filing that it had signed a $30 billion cloud services deal with an unnamed partner, more than the company’s cloud revenues for all of the previous fiscal year. OpenAI was eventually revealed as the partner, securing Oracle a spot alongside Google as one of the OpenAI’s string of post-Microsoft hosting partners. Unsurprisingly, the company’s stock went shooting up.

A few months later, it happened again. On September 10th, Oracle revealed a five-year, $300 billion deal for compute power, set to begin in 2027. Oracle’s stock climbed even higher, briefly making founder Larry Ellison the richest man in the world. The sheer scale of the deal is stunning: OpenAI does not have $300 billion to spend, so the figure presumes immense growth for both companies, and more than a little faith. But before a single dollar is spent, the deal has already cemented Oracle as one of the leading AI infrastructure providers – and a financial force to be reckoned with.

For companies like Meta that already have significant legacy infrastructure, the story is more complicated – although equally expensive. Mark Zuckerberg has said that Meta plans to spend $600 billion on US infrastructure through the end of 2028. In just the first half of 2025, the company spent $30 billion more than the previous year, driven largely by the company’s growing AI ambitions. Some of that spending goes toward big ticket cloud contracts, like a recent $10 billion deal with Google Cloud, but even more resources are being poured into two massive new data centers. A new 2,250-acre site in Louisiana, dubbed Hyperion, will cost an estimated $10 billion to build out and provide an estimated 5 gigawatts of compute power. Notably, the site includes an arrangement with a local nuclear power plant to handle the increased energy load. A smaller site in Ohio, called Prometheus, is expected to come online in 2026, powered by natural gas.

That kind of buildout comes with real environmental costs. Elon Musk’s xAI built its own hybrid data center and power-generation plant in South Memphis, Tennessee. The plant has quickly become one of the county’s largest emitters of smog-producing chemicals, thanks to a string of natural gas turbines that experts say violate the Clean Air Act.

Just two days after his second inauguration, President Trump announced a joint venture between SoftBank, OpenAI and Oracle, meant to spend $500 billion building AI infrastructure in the United States. Named “Stargate” after the 1994 film, the project arrived with incredible amounts of hype, with Trump calling it “the largest AI infrastructure project in history. Sam Altman seemed to agree, saying, ​​”I think this will be the most important project of this era.”

In broad strokes, the plan was for SoftBank to provide the funding, with Oracle handling the buildout with input from OpenAI. Overseeing it all was Trump, who promised to clear away any regulatory hurdles that might slow down the build. But there were doubts from the beginning, including from Elon Musk, Altman’s business rival, who claimed the project did not have the available funds.

As the hype has died down, the project has lost some momentum. In August, Bloomberg reported that the partners were failing to reach consensus. Nonetheless, the project has moved forward with the construction of eight data centers in Abilene, Texas, with construction on the final building set to be finished by the end of 2026.

The Trump administration warned about the risk of use during pregnancy, which the company disputes

Kenvue is preparing for an explosion of litigation over its popular pain reliever Tylenol after the Trump administration warned that the drug’s active ingredient is a potential cause of autism.

The finding by President Trump’s health officials, which Kenvue and some medical societies dispute, could provide ammunition to plaintiffs’ attorneys who are seeking to reverse losses in older lawsuits alleging the medicine caused the neurodevelopmental disorders. And it could unleash thousands of new lawsuits in the coming years, people familiar with the matter say.

Trump and Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said Monday that prenatal exposure to acetaminophen—the active ingredient of Tylenol and other medications—is a potential cause of autism.

“Don’t take it,” said Trump several times at a press conference, occasionally adding a qualifier that pregnant women could take it if absolutely necessary.

The Food and Drug Administration is notifying physicians of the potential link, and recommending that pregnant women use the lowest dose and for the shortest duration if their doctors determine it is necessary for pain or fever. The FDA also will begin the process to change the safety warnings in the product label for acetaminophen medicines.

The FDA is acknowledging that there are contrary studies showing no association, and that there can be risks for untreated fever in pregnancy for both the mother and the fetus.

Kenvue is the over-the-counter products company that was spun out of Johnson & Johnson in 2023. Tylenol, one of the most widely used OTC medicines, is a top-selling product for Kenvue, generating an estimated 10% of the company’s $15 billion in annual sales, according to BNP Paribas analyst Navann Ty.

While the new federal warning on the link to autism could hurt sales, the sales impact might be modest because pregnant women’s use of Tylenol makes up only a small part of the product’s sales.

The bigger complication for Kenvue may be an increase in the lawsuits alleging Tylenol caused autism in children whose mothers used it during pregnancy.

About 500 lawsuits were filed against J&J and later Kenvue—and other companies selling private-label products—starting in 2022 alleging prenatal exposure to acetaminophen caused autism or attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. Kenvue inherited the Tylenol-related litigation as a stand-alone company.

But to date, Kenvue has been successful in fending off the lawsuits. In 2023, a federal judge ruled there wasn’t sufficient evidence that acetaminophen caused autism, and the lawsuits were dismissed.

Plaintiffs’ lawyers have appealed that 2023 ruling in a bid to revive the federal lawsuits. They will now likely include the Trump administration’s warning in their argument to the appellate court that the lower court dismissals should be reserved. A hearing in the appeal was originally scheduled for early October but on Monday the court notified lawyers it was being pushed back to mid-November.

Even if the federal lawsuits aren’t revived, the new federal warning could prompt thousands of lawsuits to be filed in state courts. Plaintiffs’ attorneys represent tens of thousands of families with autistic children who haven’t yet filed lawsuits, according to Ashley Keller, a senior partner with the law firm of Keller Postman, who represents families in the Tylenol-autism litigation. Under the law, the statute of limitations for filing lawsuits on behalf of minors is paused until they turn 18, which means the lawsuits could roll in for many years to come.

“If there’s a call to action or a change in public health guidelines, of course plaintiffs’ lawyers are going to take note of that and see if that influences their decision to represent clients harmed,” said Keller.

A label change warning of the potential risk could pose a challenge for Kenvue because it could strengthen plaintiffs’ arguments that the company failed to warn of the risk.

Kenvue says Tylenol is safe and that the science shows no clear link between it and autism.

Kenvue said in a written statement Monday that it believes “independent, sound science clearly shows that taking acetaminophen does not cause autism. We strongly disagree with any suggestion otherwise and are deeply concerned with the health risk this poses for expecting mothers.”

Kenvue said acetaminophen is the safest pain reliever option for pregnant women as needed through their pregnancy. If they don’t take it, there is a risk that an untreated fever could cause a miscarriage or autism or birth defects in their children.

“We will continue to explore all options to protect the health interests of American women and children,” the company said.

Kenvue shares fell 7.5% Monday in regular trading, but rose about 5% in after-hours trading after Trump released the news.

During Trump’s press conference, the Department of Health and Human Services released written statements about the moves that used more tempered language than Trump’s and Kennedy’s comments. The letter from FDA Commissioner Martin Makary to doctors, for instance, said that “a causal relationship has not been established,” and it described acetaminophen as the “safest over-the-counter alternative in pregnancy.”

The move follows the agency’s decision to cancel an annual hunger report

The team of federal economists and researchers responsible for producing the government survey that measures hunger in America were put on indefinite paid leave Monday, according to the union that represents the workers.

The move comes two days after The Wall Street Journal reported that the Trump administration abruptly canceled the report, which has been produced by the Agriculture Department every year since the mid-1990s.

Around a dozen employees, all involved with economic research at the USDA, were put on leave, said Laura Dodson, vice president of the union that represents some of the workers.

Not all of the workers placed on leave were directly involved in the hunger report, but they were all present at meetings last week during which they learned that the hunger survey was being canceled, Dodson said.

According to a letter from a USDA human resources official obtained by the Journal, the leave “is not a disciplinary action.” It bars the employees from conducting any government business until further notice.

Dodson, a chapter vice president of the American Federation of Government Employees, said the workers were told by managers that they were being placed on leave while “an unauthorized disclosure” was being investigated. Staff were ordered to turn in their laptop computers, she said.

“Several employees represented by AFGE were placed on administrative leave today after the public learned of USDA’s cancellation of food security data collection,” Dodson said. “The American people deserve transparency and honest data—not retaliation against the workers who provide it.”

A spokesman for the USDA said employees who work for such federal statistical agencies “are trusted with confidential information. An unauthorized disclosure of non-public information shows questionable judgement and any employee willing to break that public trust undermines the integrity of the agency.”

The food insecurity survey is used by policymakers to make funding decisions for food-assistance programs and to evaluate how well those programs work.

USDA spokesman Alec Varsamis said Saturday that the department was canceling the survey and the report it produces because it had become “overly politicized and upon subsequent review, was unnecessary to carry out the work of the Department.”

A subsequent statement by the Agriculture Department called the annual report “liberal fodder” used to justify expanding federal food assistance programs.

Judge issues preliminary injunction lifting Trump administration order that halted construction of project

A federal judge in the US has allowed Ørsted to restart work on a major offshore wind farm in the US, in a boost to the troubled Danish company after several setbacks.

Judge Royce Lamberth of the district court in Washington granted Ørsted’s request for an injunction to block a “stop work order” issued by the Trump administration against the company’s $1.5bn Revolution Wind project off the coast of Rhode Island.

In a statement, the offshore wind developer said the preliminary injunction would allow it to restart work while the lawsuit continued, adding it would “continue to [ . . .] work towards a prompt resolution”.

“Revolution Wind will resume impacted construction work as soon as possible, with safety as the top priority,” it added.

While the ruling is expected to be followed by further litigation, including potential appeals, it will be a relief to Ørsted executives.

They had warned of high costs and huge disruption if the stop work order was not lifted this month, because the company could have to renegotiate supply contracts or face penalties from customers.

Revolution Wind, which Ørsted is developing in a joint venture with Skyborn Renewables, a unit of BlackRock’s Global Infrastructure Partners, is 80 per cent complete, with 45 out of its 65 wind turbines installed.

Ørsted’s US-listed shares were up almost 10 per cent on Monday following the ruling by Lamberth.

The preliminary injunction highlights how US President Donald Trump’s hostility to offshore wind, which has already caused damage to Ørsted’s business, will not go unchallenged in the courts.

Trump has repeatedly criticised the sector, calling it the “worst form of energy”. He placed a freeze on using seabed leases for offshore wind developments after he returned to the White House in January.

In August, the US Bureau of Ocean Energy Management ordered Ørsted to stop work on Revolution Wind, citing the need to protect unspecified “national security interests”.

The order came weeks after Ørsted said it needed to raise about $9.4bn from shareholders, mainly to help it finish building another US offshore wind farm, Sunrise Wind, located off the coast of New York.

Investors subsequently approved the rights issue by Ørsted, which launched last week at a heavily discounted price, but they are watching developments in the US closely.

Ørsted took legal action to challenge the stop work order in September, calling it “arbitrary and capricious”.

A Department of Interior spokesperson said the court’s decision would allow a resumption of construction of the Revolution Wind project while it continued its investigation into possible impacts, including to national security and the prevention of other uses on the outer continental shelf.

“The Department of the Interior remains committed to ensuring that prior decisions are legally and factually sound,” they added.

Last week Chris Wright, US secretary for energy, told the Financial Times that approvals for offshore wind farms were rushed through, and that multiple government departments were looking at legitimate and serious concerns.

While Trump has made Ørsted’s planned offshore wind projects in the US far more difficult, its troubles predate his administration.

In 2023, the company had to walk away from two large projects in the US because of rising costs that have affected the entire industry.

Resolution Foundation also suggests chancellor should cut employee national insurance to ease burden on workers

An influential think-tank has urged chancellor Rachel Reeves to break one of Labour’s key manifesto pledges by raising income tax in her November Budget, while at the same time providing workers with some relief by cutting national insurance.

The Resolution Foundation has proposed increasing income tax by 2 percentage points, but also reducing the rate of employee national insurance by the same amount, saying the changes would raise £6bn a year for the Treasury.

The think-tank, whose former head is now a Treasury minister, argued that the measures would shift the tax burden away from workers and on to pensioners, landlords and the self-employed.

However, the move would be politically hazardous, given that Labour’s election manifesto promised not to increase income tax, national insurance and value added tax.

Many economists predict Reeves will have to take tough decisions at her November 26 Budget in a bid to plug a fiscal hole estimated at more than £20bn.

“Significant tax rises will be needed for the chancellor to send a clear signal that the UK’s public finances are under control,” said Adam Corlett, principal economist at the Resolution Foundation, on Tuesday.

He added Reeves could raise revenue without “loading further pain on to workers’ pay packets” by “switching our tax base away from employee national insurance and on to income tax, which is paid by a far broader group in society”.

The Resolution Foundation’s “tax switch” would leave employee tax rates unchanged but mean those who pay income tax but not employee national insurance, such as pensioners, would be hit by higher taxes.

“This proposal would break the Labour manifesto policy of not raising the existing rates of income tax, but, importantly, this policy would not increase tax rates on working-age employees,” said the think-tank’s report about its proposals.

The basic rate of income tax is 20 per cent, while employees start to pay national insurance when they earn more than £242.01 a week.

Reeves has handed a role in preparing the Budget to Torsten Bell, the pensions minister who led the Resolution Foundation before he was elected a Labour MP last year. Fellow Treasury minister Dan Tomlinson also previously worked at the think-tank. 

The foundation’s report urged the chancellor to go further on levelling the tax playing field by extending employer national insurance to limited liability partnerships, such as big law firms.

The government could also raise taxes on dividends, where the basic rate is only 8.75 per cent, the think-tank said. Together, these two measures could raise £2.5bn.

The foundation also said extending an existing freeze on income tax band thresholds into 2028 and 2029 “would be sensible” and secure £7.5bn.

Other suggested revenue-raising measures include addressing “worrying” growth in unpaid small-business corporation tax, which could raise £2bn.

Reeves has vowed to stick by her fiscal rule of funding day-to-day spending entirely from taxes by 2029-30.

The totality of the measures outlined in the Resolution Foundation’s report would increase tax revenues by more than £30bn by that year.

“If the challenge proves less than expected then we would not suggest pursuing them all in one event,” the report said.

The Treasury said: “The chancellor makes tax policy decisions at fiscal events. We do not comment on speculation around future changes to tax policy.”