Google’s blowout earnings report in April, which sparked the biggest rally in Alphabet shares since 2015 and pushed its market cap past $2 trillion for the first time, tempered fear that the company was falling behind in artificial intelligence.

As executives enthusiastically talked about the results with Google’s employees at an all-hands meeting the following week, it was clear that Wall Street viewed things differently than the company’s workforce.

“We’ve noticed a significant decline in morale, increased distrust and a disconnect between leadership and the workforce,” one employee wrote in a comment that was read by executives at the meeting. “How does leadership plan to address these concerns and regain the trust, morale and cohesion that have been foundational to our company’s success?”

The comment was highly rated on an internal forum.

“Despite the company’s stellar performance and record earnings, many Googlers have not received meaningful compensation increases” another top-rated employee question read.

That meeting set the stage for what would be a year of contrasting takes from the company’s vocal workforce. As Google faced some of the most intense pressure its experienced since going public two decades ago, so too did CEO Sundar Pichai, who took the helm in 2015.

Pichai oversaw a steady stream of revenue growth this year in key areas like search ads and cloud. The company rolled out groundbreaking technologies, rounded out its AI strategy despite a slew of embarrassing product incidents and saw its stock price rise more than 40% as of Thursday’s close, ahead of the S&P 500 but trailing rivals Meta and Amazon.

Over the course of 2024, many staffers questioned Pichai’s vision following product mishaps in the first half of the year as well as internal shake-ups and layoffs, according to conversations with more than a dozen employees, audio recordings and internal correspondence. 

As the second half of the year progressed and Google rolled out a number of eye-catching AI products, Pichai’s standing improved, though some skepticism remains, sources told CNBC.

After the introduction of ChatGPT in late 2022, the tech industry saw an influx of AI products from Microsoft, with its Copilot AI assistant, and Meta, which placed its Meta AI chatbot in the search functions of its apps, as well as from hot startups like OpenAI and Perplexity.

The popularity of those tools has eaten into Google’s grip on U.S. search. The company’s share of the search advertising market is expected to dip below 50% in 2025, which would be the first time falling below that mark in more than a decade, according to research firm eMarketer.

Google responded to the pressures from new AI tools with offerings of its own. The company in 2024 rebranded its family of AI models as Gemini and released a number of products that were well received. But in its scramble to play catch-up, the company also released a pair of AI products that initially proved embarrassing. 

In February, Google launched Imagen 2, which turned user prompts into AI-generated images. Immediately after it was introduced, the product came under scrutiny for historical inaccuracies discovered by users. Notably, when one user asked it to show a German soldier in 1943, the tool depicted a racially diverse set of soldiers wearing German military uniforms of the era. 

The company pulled the feature, and Pichai told employees the company had “offended our users and shown bias,” according to a memo. Google said it would take a few weeks to relaunch Imagen 2, but it ended up being six months before it was revived as Imagen 3 in August. 

“We definitely messed up on the image generation,” Google co-founder Sergey Brin told a small crowd at a hacker house in March, in a video posted to YouTube. “It was mostly due to just not thorough testing.” 

The launch of AI Overview in May caused a similar reaction. 

That product showed users AI summaries atop Google’s traditional search results. Pichai hyped the product, calling it the biggest change to search in 25 years. Once again, users were quick to find problems.

When asked “How many rocks should I eat each day,” the tool said, “According to UC Berkeley geologists, people should eat at least one small rock a day.” AI Overview also listed the vitamins and digestive benefits of rocks.

Google responded by saying it would add more guardrails to AI Overview for health-related queries but said the mistakes weren’t hallucinations, and were rather just rare edge cases. Search Vice President Liz Reid told employees at an all-hands meeting in June that AI Overview’s launch shouldn’t discourage them from taking risks. 

“We should act with urgency,” Reid said. “When we find new problems, we should do the extensive testing but we won’t always find everything and that just means that we respond.”

Beyond its AI blunders, Google also saw its greatest regulatory challenges to date in 2024.

In August, a federal judge ruled that the company illegally holds a monopoly in the search market. The Justice Department in November asked that Google be forced to divest its Chrome internet browser unit as a remedy for the ruling

The DOJ’s request represents the agency’s most aggressive attempt to break up a tech company since its antitrust case against Microsoft, which reached a settlement in 2001.

The remedies are expected to be decided next summer, and Google has said it will appeal, likely dragging out the situation a couple more years, but the company faces more antitrust hurdles. 

In a separate case, the DOJ accused the company of illegally dominating online ad technology. That trial closed in September and awaits a judge ruling. In October, a U.S. judge issued a permanent injunction that will force Google to offer alternatives to its Google Play app store for Android phones. After the ruling in October, Google won a temporary pause on the ruling, meaning it won’t have to open up Android to more app stores yet.

Amid the external pressure, Google notched some notable victories particularly toward the end of 2024, leading to a more positive sentiment from people within and outside the company.

Google successfully launched its most powerful suite of new Gemini models that underpin all of the company’s AI products, including its lightweight model Gemini Flash, which has been popular among developers. YouTube’s combined ad and subscription revenue over the past four quarters surpassed $50 billion. 

In the third quarter, Google saw the fastest-growing cloud business across the big tech players, up 35% over last year, with operating margins of 17%. The company has also seen double-digit revenue growth for each of the past four quarters and launched Trillium, its powerful sixth generation Tensor Processing Units, or TPUs, which were also found to have powered Apple’s AI models. 

Despite the blunders, AI Overview reached nearly 1 billion monthly users by the end of October. Demand for AI software has also driven consistent growth for the company’s cloud infrastructure. And Google launched an impressive video generation product, Veo 2, this month as well as an updated AI note-taking product, NotebookLM.

Beyond AI, Google in December announced Willow, a chip the company calls its biggest step in the march toward commercially viable quantum computing. The Waymo self-driving car unit was also a bright spot, expanding its robotaxi service to three cities and laying the groundwork for even more expansion in 2025. The company has delivered 4 million fully autonomous rides this year, with plans to commercially launch in Austin, Texas, and Atlanta next year.  

But as Pichai approaches a decade running Google and starts his sixth year as CEO of parent Alphabet, questions remain about his ability to guide the company into the future.

Internally, employees routinely criticize leadership on the company’s Memegen messaging board, and some have aired their grievances publicly. 

“Google does not have one single visionary leader,” a Google software engineer wrote in a LinkedIn post earlier this year that received more than 8,500 reactions. “Not a one. From the C-suite to the SVPs to the VPs, they are all profoundly boring and glassy-eyed.”

In October, Google announced it would shake up the leadership of its ads and search division.

The company replaced longtime search boss Prabhakar Raghavan with Nick Fox, a deputy of Raghavan’s and a career Google employee. Raghavan was given the title of “chief scientist,” but internally, he is now listed as an “IC,” or individual contributor. 

Google also shifted the team working on its Gemini AI app to the Google DeepMind division, under AI head Demis Hassabis. Employees praised Pichai’s leadership shuffle, but some complained that the moves should’ve happened sooner.

Notably, some employees were perturbed when Raghavan addressed employees at an all-hands meeting in April, when he urged them to move faster, according to several people who spoke with CNBC. Raghavan noted that the staffers working to fix the failed Imagen 2 tool had increased their workloads from 100 hours a week to 120 hours to correct it in a timely manner.

Pichai has made efforts to get Google back to its nimble startup-like culture. 

When addressing employees, Pichai often name-checked co-founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page to remind them of Google’s scrappy roots. He’s flattened the company, removing 10% of middle management, according to audio of a December all-hands meeting. And in the spring, Pichai greenlit a hackathon, allowing employees to build using Google products that have yet to be announced. Pichai has also personally joined meetings with Google’s Labs team and enabled them to move quickly on products like NotebookLM, one of the company’s hit AI products in 2024.

After Brin’s hacker house appearance in March, some employees internally joked he should retake the helm, nostalgic for what they perceived as a visionary leader devoid of corporate speak. 

Brin co-founded Google with Page in 1998, but he stepped down as president of Alphabet in 2019. Brin, who remains a board member and a principal shareholder with a stake worth more than $140 billion, began appearing more frequently on campus starting in 2023, as part of an effort to help ramp up Google’s position in the hypercompetitive AI market. Employees, particularly working in AI and DeepMind said they’ve seen Brin walking around the company’s Mountain View, California, headquarters throughout the year and have been able to ask him questions for projects they’re pursuing.

Despite Brin’s reemergence, several employees told CNBC they’re doubtful he could adequately run what has become an increasingly larger and complex corporation. 

Employees said that although Pichai didn’t strike them as particularly visionary or as a wartime leader, it’s hard to find someone better suited for the job, given all the complexities of Alphabet. The key quandary remains: move too early and risk widespread criticism; move too late and risk missing the boat.

Through the year, morale inside Google wavered. Efforts to cut costs across the company in order to invest more in AI resulted in some teams feeling bifurcated and created yet another challenge for Pichai.

Within the company’s AI and DeepMind divisions, morale is mostly high, according to employees, boosted by hefty investments. Elsewhere, the vibes have been marred by cost cuts, bureaucracy and declining trust in leadership, employees said. 

DeepMind and AI teams have held off-sites, team-building activities, and have much bigger travel and recruiting budgets, people familiar with the matter said. In the spring, the company moved employees out of an eight-story office on San Francisco’s waterfront Embarcadero street and replaced them with AI and AI adjacent teams. 

A meme posted internally in November summed it up. 

The meme featured a photo of the cast of “Wicked” actors, where one, labeled “execs” looked longingly at one fellow actor labeled “Gemini” while ignoring the other beside her, which was labeled as “users.”

A Google spokesperson contested the idea that AI workers are receiving favorable treatment and said higher travel and recruiting budgets are not exclusive to AI teams or DeepMind. 

“Most Googlers, regardless of team, continue to feel positively about our mission and the company’s future, and are proud to work here,” the spokesperson said. 

A few employees say they’re no longer incentivized by the prospects of landing a promotion, which have become harder to achieve, and rather by the hope of avoiding layoffs. 

Despite slashing 12,000 jobs, or roughly 6% of its workforce, in 2023, Google has continued eliminating roles this year. In her first public statements as Google’s CFO, Anat Ashkenazi, told Wall Street in October that one of her top priorities would be to drive more “cost efficiencies” across the company in order to invest more in AI.

“I think any organization can always push a little further and I’ll be looking at additional opportunities,” Ashkenazi said.

That month, Google posted a job listing for a “Central Reorg Support Team Partner.” The responsibilities of that fixed-term contract position would include consulting with local HR teams and noted the need for the support staff’s “ability to operate with empathy and diffuse/de-escalate challenging conversations/situations.” 

“Hire the smartest people so they can tell us what to do,” one employee wrote on the internal forum in meme-style font atop the images of Brin and Page. “Hire a reorg consultant so they can tell us how to layoff the smartest people,” another said. 

Google ultimately took the job listing down.

Touting its AI technology to clients, Pichai’s leadership team has been aggressively pursuing federal government contracts, which has caused a heightened strain in some areas within the outspoken workforce since the beginning of the year.

Google terminated more than 50 employees after a series of protests against Project Nimbus, a $1.2 billion joint contract with Amazon that provides the Israeli government and military with cloud computing and AI services. Executives repeatedly said the contract didn’t violate any of the company’s “AI principles.”

However, documents and reports show the company’s agreement allowed for giving Israel AI tools that included image categorization, object tracking, as well as provisions for state-owned weapons manufacturers. Earlier this month, a New York Times report found that four months prior to signing on to Nimbus, officials at the company worried that signing the deal would harm its reputation and that “Google Cloud services could be used for, or linked to, the facilitation of human rights violations.”

In an all-hands meeting in April, a highly rated question asked why employees who did not participate in the protests were also fired, which was reported and cited in a National Labor Relations Board complaint from affected employees. Chris Rackow, Google’s security chief, took the stage at the all-hands and rebutted those claims.

“This was a very clear case of employees disrupting and occupying work spaces, and making other employees feel unsafe,” a Google spokesperson told CNBC, adding that the company “carefully confirmed” that every person terminated was involved in the protests. “By any standard, their behavior was completely unacceptable.”

That round of job eliminations underscored Google’s clampdown on internal discussions related to hot-button topics, including politics and geopolitical conflicts, which was encouraged by executives several years prior.

One internal meme that got more than 2,000 likes, compared Google to Star Wars’ Anakin Skywalker. The meme shows an image of a smiling childhood Skywalker, framed by one of the company’s original, colorful employee badges. The meme progresses Skywalker’s age in two later versions of the badge. 

The final badge shows Darth Vader working for “Google,” spelled out in the font of IBM’s logo.

The advertising market has positive momentum going into 2025 — especially for media companies with sports rights and tentpole live programming.

Sports and live events such as awards shows reigned supreme in conversations with media executives who weighed in on their expectations for the advertising market in the year ahead. The end of the uncertainty surrounding the election has helped the outlook improve, too, they said.

And despite consumers fleeing the traditional TV bundles, with more ad dollars going toward streaming, executives emphasized that traditional TV is still important in discussions with advertisers, especially when it comes to sports.

Overall, executives said they expect stability in the market and are hoping to move past the slowdown in ad spending in recent years.

“Normalization is the right way to say it with the advertising market,” said Mark Marshall, NBCUniversal’s chairman of global advertising and partnerships. “With the election settled, a lot of companies feel the uncertainty over that has gone away.”

He added that the company has seen more so-called scatter market budgets come in during the fourth quarter, which is what the industry calls the buying and selling of ads closer to their airdate versus ads that are bought further out.

“Our first quarter is looking really strong. I think that any election year is challenging for anyone in the fourth quarter because a lot of marketers end up sitting on their hands since the airwaves and digital are crowded,” said Dan Porter, CEO of sports media company Overtime. “I think that’s true for us and it’s true for everyone.”

Yet despite the uptick in ad revenue following the election and the forecast stability, Natalie Bastian, global chief marketing officer at Teads, said she expects a lot of the same trends.

Bastian noted that 2024 included major moments like the Summer Olympics and presidential election, which strengthened TV ad revenue. She expects the same budgets to carry over into the new year, however.

“What we’ve heard in general from some of our closest partners … media budgets aren’t growing, and so there’s just more selection into where [advertisers are] spending their money,” said Bastian. This makes sports and live programming that much more important to media companies.

Overall, the global advertising industry is expected to surpass $1 trillion in total revenue for the first time this year, excluding U.S. political advertising, and will grow 7.7% in 2025 to reach $1.1 trillion, according to a recent report from GroupM, WPP’s media investment group. Advertising on digital platforms — which includes retail media as a segment — is what’s driving that increase.

TV, considered “the most effective form of advertising,” is expected to grow nearly 2% in 2025 to $169.1 billion in total global ad revenue. In comparison, ad revenue for “pure-play digital,” which excludes “the digital extensions of traditional media” like streaming but includes platforms like YouTube and TikTok, is expected to grow by 10% to $813.3 billion globally in 2025, according to GroupM.

Sports keep attracting big audiences and advertisers, leading media companies to pay hefty sums for the rights to games.

Commercials during live sports generated 24% more engagement than other programming, according to EDO, an advertising data company.

“Live event coverage will continue to be a cornerstone of media engagement, and streaming services must step up their game,” said Tim Hurd, vice president of media at Goodway Group. “As more streaming platforms dive into sports, the challenge will be to keep viewers engaged, not just by offering content, but by enhancing the overall experience with personalized, non-disruptive ad units.”

Comcast’s NBCUniversal said the Summer Olympics in Paris generated a record $1.2 billion in ad revenue. It appeared to have paid off, with the company reporting a total audience delivery of more than 30 million people on NBC’s TV and streaming platforms.

Fox Corp. executives have said the company already sold out of Super Bowl ads for this coming February, which reportedly cost about $7 million each. The 2024 Super Bowl had an estimated 123.7 million viewers.

And Disney said it had sold out of ads for its Christmas Day NBA games two weeks before they aired. The company added that it’s “pacing up substantially” for the full NBA season when it comes to ad revenue compared with last year, and that it’s “already seen early movement” for the postseason in the scatter market.

The audience for women’s sports, driven by the WNBA in particular, also ramped up in the last year, meaning more opportunities for advertisers.

“This is beyond Caitlin Clark, even though she is a massive catalyst,” said Josh Mattison, Disney Advertising’s executive vice president of digital revenue pricing, planning and operations. “This was a transformational year in terms of audiences.”

The audience for the WNBA hit a record in 2024, and consumers were 16% more likely to engage with ads during these games compared with last year, according to EDO. But while advertisers spent $8.5 billion on sports TV ads in 2024, women’s sports only made up 3% of that number, according to EDO, leaving plenty of room for growth next year.

The growing popularity of women’s sports and its importance for media companies was evident this month when Netflix secured the U.S. rights to the FIFA Women’s World Cup in 2027 and 2031. The streaming giant has been bulking up its sports portfolio, as have its peers across the legacy and digital media space.

While consumers are cutting the cord and streaming services are now snapping up sports rights, linear TV’s audience still significantly outpaces streaming.

“There’s still declines in linear TV in a lot of markets, but not in all markets,” said Kate Scott-Dawkins, GroupM’s global president of business intelligence, noting there are international markets that are seeing growth. “When we talk about total TV, there is still a lot of opportunity and hopefully a renewed appreciation for how effective that can be as a medium [for advertisers].”

Amy Leifer, DirecTV Advertising’s chief ad sales officer, said the company predicts continued growth in programmatic ad spending, or automated digital ad buying, in streaming.

“Despite the shift towards streaming, linear TV still holds a significant advantage in terms of ad impressions, generating six times more than streaming,” said Leifer.

Executives said they have been talking with advertisers about how to look at linear and streaming together when disbursing ad dollars.

Leifer said DirecTV Advertising’s mantra is that “TV is TV,” no matter the distribution method. “Our focus for 2025 is to unify digital and linear television advertising by adopting a comprehensive approach and developing convergent TV solutions,” she added.

Both Marshall of NBCUniversal and Mattison of Disney said advertisers used to be focused on linear “versus” streaming. That’s not the case anymore.

“The pitch [we made to advertisers] last year is you really can’t look at one versus the other. When it’s rolled out into one platform, it’s how do you look at digital and linear together. That’s made a huge difference,” said Marshall, noting that older audiences are more present on linear TV, while younger generations have gravitated toward streaming.

Marshall said that NBCUniversal’s Peacock “hasn’t been cannibalizing linear,” because there’s little overlap between the content on both distribution outlets. “It’s actually two distinct, different audiences,” Marshall said.

Mattison noted Disney’s expansive sports portfolio and its various platforms across linear and streaming, with TV networks like ABC and ESPN, and streaming service ESPN+, which has content being added to Disney+, have been an advantage.

“The convergence [of the streaming apps] is really good for consumers, which leads to growth for advertisers,” he said. “We’re fortunate we spent years building our streaming ad tech, and we’re able to maximize audience reach as well as targeting and performance.”

“Maybe a few years ago it was linear versus streaming. I think now it’s linear AND streaming,” Mattison continued. “They’re kind of planned together. It’s true on both the media side and the advertiser side.”

Disclosure: Comcast owns CNBC parent NBCUniversal. NBCUniversal owns NBC Sports and NBC Olympics. NBC Olympics is the U.S. broadcast rights holder to all Summer and Winter Games through 2032.

Richard Parsons, who helped Time Warner divorce from AOL after what was considered one of the worst takeovers in history, has died. He was 76.

His death was confirmed by Lazard, where he was a longtime board member.

Parsons became CEO of AOL Time Warner in 2002, replacing Gerald Levin, who stepped aside two years after the media giant’s disastrous $165 billion merger with the upstart internet company.

As CEO and later chairman, he led Time Warner’s turnaround, dropping “AOL” from the corporation’s name and shrinking the company’s $30 billion in debt to $16.8 billion by selling Warner Music and other properties.

“The merger did not work out quite the way many of us expected. The internet bubble burst and we had to fix the leaks,” Parsons told The Independent in 2004. “It was not as monumental a task as many people thought, as the fundamental businesses of the old Time Warner — like publishing, the cable networks and movies — was running well.”

He said that after the merger, AOL’s business had collapsed and Warner Music Group was declining, along with the entire music industry. “So we sold our music business, as well as other nonstrategic assets, to strengthen our balance sheet and put in new management.”

Parsons stepped down from Time Warner in 2007.

Richard Dean “Dick” Parsons was born into a working-class family on April 4, 1948, in Brooklyn’s Bedford-Stuyvesant section and grew up in South Ozone Park in Queens, New York. He was a middle child among five siblings.

He attended public school, skipping two grades, and at age 16, the 6-foot-4 Parsons enrolled at the University of Hawaii, where he played basketball and met his future wife, Laura Ann Bush, whom he married in 1968.

After graduation, he returned to New York state to attend Albany Law School, moonlighting as a part-time janitor to help pay his tuition and finishing at the top of his class. During an internship at the New York state legislature, he developed ties to moderate Republican Gov. Nelson Rockefeller, who became vice president under Gerald Ford in 1974 in the wake of President Richard Nixon’s resignation. Parsons became associate director of President Ford’s domestic policy council.

“The old-boy network lives,” Parsons told The New York Times in a 1994 interview. “I didn’t grow up with any of the old boys. I didn’t go to school with any of the old boys. But by becoming a part of that Rockefeller entourage, that created for me a group of people who’ve looked out for me ever since.”

After Ford’s defeat by Jimmy Carter in the 1976 election, Parsons returned to New York and joined the law firm of Patterson, Belknap, Webb & Tyler in 1977, as did his friend Rudy Giuliani. Parsons and his wife and three children moved to Rockefeller country, Briarcliff Manor in Westchester County. Coincidentally, his maternal grandfather had been a groundskeeper on John D. Rockefeller’s nearby estate, Kykuit.

Parson’s clients included Rockefeller’s widow, Happy, and the Dime Savings Bank of New York. In 1988, he accepted an offer to head Dime Bancorp, which had been struggling through the savings & loan crisis after aggressively approving high-risk mortgages as housing prices crashed. In 1989, it posted a $92.3 million loss. By the end of 1993, after ordering massive layoffs, Parsons helped the bank complete a $300 million recapitalization. In 1995, he helped engineer Dime’s merger with Anchor Savings, creating one of the nation’s largest thrift institutions.

Parsons joined the Time Warner board on the recommendation of Rockefeller’s brother Laurance. He became president of Time Warner in 1995.

As a Rockefeller Republican, Parsons considered himself a fiscal conservative and a social liberal. Parsons worked for Giuliani’s campaign for New York mayor but kept a behind-the-scenes profile. ″I didn’t want to be positioned as the Mayor’s Black guy,″⁣ he told the Times a few years later.

Giuliani put him in charge of the mayoral transition team in 1993 but Parsons turned down an offer to become deputy mayor for fiscal affairs. His relationship with Giuliani later soured after the mayor tried to pressure Time Warner Cable to carry the then-fledgling Fox News Channel in New York.

Richard Parsons on Capitol Hill in 2008.Tim Sloan / AFP / Getty Images file

Two years after stepping down from Time Warner, Parsons became chairman of Citigroup in 2009, helping to stabilize the banking giant in the wake of the financial crisis. In May 2014, he was named interim CEO of the Los Angeles Clippers after the NBA banned owner Donald Sterling for life because he had made racist remarks.“Like most Americans, I have been deeply troubled by the pain the Clippers’ team, fans and partners have endured,” Parsons said.

Parsons played down race as a factor of his success.

“For a lot of people, race is a defining issue. It just isn’t for me,” he told the Times in 1997. “It is … like air. It’s like height. I have other things that I’m focused on.″

He later came out of retirement to briefly serve as CBS chairman in the wake of Les Moonves’ ouster following sexual harassment and assault allegations during the #MeToo movement.

After only a month as CBS’ interim chairman, Parsons stepped down suddenly in October 2018, citing health concerns.

“When I agreed to join the board and serve as the interim chair, I was already dealing with a serious health challenge — multiple myeloma — but I felt that the situation was manageable,” Parsons said in a CBS statement announcing he had been replaced by Strauss Zelnick. “Unfortunately, unanticipated complications have created additional new challenges, and my doctors have advised that cutting back on my current commitments is essential to my overall recovery.”

Parsons was active in many charities, including playing leading roles for the Jazz Foundation of America, the Apollo Theater Foundation and the Smithsonian National Museum of African American History and Culture. During his years on the Apollo Theater board, he helped the historic Harlem entertainment venue raise nearly $100 million. Parsons and his wife also donated 40 works of art to the American Folk Art Museum in July 2021 to help celebrate its 60th anniversary.

The U.S. Treasury Department has delayed the deadline for millions of small businesses to Jan. 13, 2025, to file a new form, known as a Beneficial Ownership Information report.

The Treasury had initially required many businesses to file the report to the agency’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, known as FinCEN, by Jan. 1. Noncompliance carries potential fines that could exceed $10,000.

This delay comes as a result of legal challenges to the new reporting requirement under the Corporate Transparency Act.

The rule applies to about 32.6 million businesses, including certain corporations, limited liability companies and others, according to federal estimates.

Businesses and owners that didn’t comply would potentially face civil penalties of up to $591 a day, adjusted for inflation, according to FinCEN. They could also face up to $10,000 in criminal fines and up to two years in prison.

However, many small businesses are exempt. For example, those with over $5 million in gross sales and more than 20 full-time employees may not need to file a report.

The Treasury delayed the compliance deadline following a recent court ruling.

A federal court in Texas on Dec. 3 had issued a nationwide preliminary injunction that temporarily blocked FinCEN from enforcing the rule. However, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that injunction on Monday.

“Because the Department of the Treasury recognizes that reporting companies may need additional time to comply given the period when the preliminary injunction had been in effect, we have extended the reporting deadline,” according to the FinCEN website.

FinCEN didn’t return a request from CNBC for comment about the number of businesses that have filed a BOI report to date.

Some data, however, suggests few have done so.

The federal government had received about 9.5 million filings as of Dec. 1, according to statistics that FinCEN provided to the office of Rep. French Hill, R-Ark. That figure is about 30% of the estimated total.

Hill has called for the repeal of the Corporate Transparency Act, passed in 2021, which created the BOI requirement. Hill’s office provided the data to CNBC.

“Most non-exempt reporting companies have not filed their initial reports, presumably because they are unaware of the requirement,” Daniel Stipano, a partner at law firm Davis Polk & Wardwell, wrote in an e-mail.

There’s a potential silver lining for businesses: It’s “unlikely” FinCEN would impose financial penalties “except in cases of bad faith or intentional violations,” Stipano said.

“In its public statements, FinCEN has made clear that its primary goal at this point is to educate the public about the requirement, as opposed to taking enforcement actions against noncompliant companies,” he said.

The BOI filing isn’t an annual requirement. Businesses only need to resubmit the form to update or correct information.

Many exempt businesses — such as large companies, banks, credit unions, tax-exempt entities and public utilities — already furnish similar data.

Businesses have different compliance deadlines depending on when they were formed.

For example, those created or registered before 2024 have until Jan. 13, 2025, to file their initial BOI reports, according to FinCEN. Those that do so on or after Jan. 1, 2025, have 30 days to file a report.

There will likely be additional court rulings that could impact reporting, Stipano said.

For one, litigation is ongoing in the 5th Circuit, which hasn’t formally ruled on the constitutionality of the Corporate Transparency Act.

“Judicial actions challenging the law have been brought in multiple jurisdictions, and these actions may eventually reach the Supreme Court,” he wrote. “As of now, it is unclear whether the incoming Trump administration will continue to support the Government’s position in these cases.”

If the Covid era marked a boom time for digital health companies, 2024 was the reckoning.

In a year that saw the Nasdaq jump 32%, surpassing 20,000 for the first time this month, health tech providers largely suffered. Of 39 public digital health companies analyzed by CNBC, roughly two-thirds are down for the year. Others are now out of business.

There were some breakout stars, like Hims & Hers Health, which was buoyed by the success of its popular new weight loss offering and its position in the GLP-1 craze. But that was an exception.

While there were some company-specific challenges in the industry, overall it was a “year of inflection,” according to Scott Schoenhaus, an analyst at KeyBanc Capital Markets covering health-care IT companies. Business models that appeared poised to break out during the pandemic haven’t all worked as planned, and companies have had to refocus on profitability and a more muted growth environment.

“The pandemic was a huge pull forward in demand, and we’re facing those tough, challenging comps,” Schoenhaus told CNBC in an interview. “Growth clearly slowed for most of my names, and I think employers, payers, providers and even pharma are more selective and more discerning on digital health companies that they partnered with.” 

In 2021, digital health startups raised $29.1 billion, blowing past all previous funding records, according to a report from Rock Health. Almost two dozen digital health companies went public through an initial public offering or special purpose acquisition company, or SPAC, that year, up from the previous record of eight in 2020. Money was pouring into themes that played into remote work and remote health as investors looked for growth with interest rates stuck near zero.

But as the worst waves of the pandemic subsided, so did the insatiable demand for new digital health tools. It’s been a rude awakening for the sector.  

“What we’re still going through is an understanding of the best ways to address digital health needs and capabilities, and the push and pull of the current business models and how successful they may be,” Michael Cherny, an analyst at Leerink Partners, told CNBC. “We’re in a settling out period post Covid.”

Progyny, which offers benefits solutions for fertility and family planning, is down more than 60% year to date. Teladoc Health, which once dominated the virtual-care space, has dropped 58% and is 96% off its 2021 high.

When Teladoc acquired Livongo in 2020, the companies had a combined enterprise value of $37 billion. Teladoc’s market cap now sits at under $1.6 billion.

GoodRx, which offers price transparency tools for medications, is down 33% year to date. 

Schoenhaus says many companies’ estimates were too high this year.

Progyny cut its full-year revenue guidance in every earnings report in 2024. In February, Progyny was predicting $1.29 billion to $1.32 billion in annual revenue. By November, the range was down to $1.14 billion to $1.15 billion.

GoodRx also repeatedly slashed its full-year guidance for 2024. What was $800 million to $810 million in May shrank to $794 million by the November.

In Teladoc’s first-quarter report, the company said it expected full-year revenue of $2.64 billion to $2.74 billion. The company withdrew its outlook in its second quarter, and reported consecutive year-over year declines.

“This has been a year of coming to terms with the growth outlook for many of my companies, and so I think we can finally look at 2025 as maybe a better year in terms of the setups,” Schoenhaus said.  

While overzealous forecasting tells part of the digital health story this year, there were some notable stumbles at particular companies. 

Dexcom, which makes devices for diabetes and glucose management, is down more than 35% year to date. The stock tumbled more than 40% in July — its steepest decline ever — after the company reported disappointing second-quarter results and issued weak full-year guidance. 

CEO Kevin Sayer attributed the challenges to a restructuring of the sales team, fewer new customers than expected and lower revenue per user. Following the report, JPMorgan Chase analysts marveled at “the magnitude of the downside” and the fact that it “appears to mostly be self-inflicted.” 

Genetic testing company 23andMe had a particularly rough year. The company went public via a SPAC in 2021, valuing the business at $3.5 billion, after its at-home DNA testing kits skyrocketed in popularity. The company is now worth less than $100 million and CEO Anne Wojcicki is trying to keep it afloat.

In September, all seven independent directors resigned from 23andMe’s board, citing disagreements with Wojcicki about the “strategic direction for the company.” Two months later, 23andMe said it planned to cut 40% of its workforce and shutter its therapeutics business as part of a restructuring plan. 

Wojcicki has repeatedly said she intends to take 23andMe private. The stock is down more than 80% year to date. 

Investors in Hims & Hers had a much better year.

Shares of the direct-to-consumer marketplace are up more than 200% year to date, pushing the company’s market cap to $6 billion, thanks to soaring demand for GLP-1s. 

Hims & Hers began prescribing compounded semaglutide through its platform in May after launching a new weight loss program late last year. Semaglutide is the active ingredient in Novo Nordisk’s blockbuster medications Ozempic and Wegovy, which can cost around $1,000 a month without insurance. Compounded semaglutide is a cheaper, custom-made alternative to the brand drugs and can be produced when the brand-name treatments are in shortage.

Hims & Hers will likely have to contend with dynamic supply and regulatory environments next year, but even before adding compounded GLP-1s to its portfolio, the company said in its February earnings call that it expects its weight loss program to bring in more than $100 million in revenue by the end of 2025. 

Doximity, a digital platform for medical professionals, also had a strong 2024, with its stock price more than doubling. The company’s platform, which for years has been likened to a LinkedIn for doctors, allows clinicians to stay current on medical news, manage paperwork, find referrals and carry out telehealth appointments with patients. 

Doximity primarily generates revenue through its hiring solutions, telehealth tools and marketing offerings for clients like pharmaceutical companies.

Leerink’s Cherny said Doximity’s success can be attributed to its lean operating model, as well as the “differentiated mousetrap” it’s created because of its reach into the physician network. 

“DOCS is a rare company in healthcare IT as it is already profitable, generates strong incremental margins, and is a steady grower,” Leerink analysts, including Cherny, wrote in a November note. The firm raised its price target on the stock to $60 from $35. 

Another standout this year was Oscar Health, the tech-enabled insurance company co-founded by Thrive Capital Management’s Joshua Kushner. Its shares are up nearly 50% year to date. The company supports roughly 1.65 million members and plans to expand to around 4 million by 2027. 

Oscar showed strong revenue growth in its third-quarter report in November. Sales climbed 68% from a year earlier to $2.4 billion.

Additionally, two digital health companies, Waystar and Tempus AI, took the leap and went public in 2024. 

The IPO market has been largely dormant since late 2021, when soaring inflation and rising interest rates pushed investors out of risk. Few technology companies have gone public since then, and no digital health companies held IPOs in 2023, according to a report from Rock Health. 

Waystar, a health-care payment software vendor, has seen its stock jump to $36.93 from its IPO price of $21.50 in June. Tempus, a precision medicine company, hasn’t fared as well. It’s stock has slipped to $34.91 from its IPO price of $37, also in June.

“Hopefully, the valuations are more supportive of opportunities for other companies that have been lingering in the background as private companies for the last several years.” Schoenhaus said. 

Several digital health companies exited the public markets entirely this year. 

Cue Health, which made Covid tests and counted Google as an early customer, and Better Therapeutics, which used digital therapeutics to treat cardiometabolic conditions, both shuttered operations and delisted from the Nasdaq. 

Revenue cycle management company R1 RCM was acquired by TowerBrook Capital Partners and Clayton, Dubilier & Rice in an $8.9 billion deal. Similarly, Altaris bought Sharecare, which runs a virtual health platform, for roughly $540 million.

Commure, a private company that offers tools for simplifying clinicians’ workflows, acquired medical AI scribing company Augmedix for about $139 million.

“There was a lot of competition that entered the marketplace during the pandemic years, and we’ve seen some of that being flushed out of the markets, which is a good thing,” Schoenhaus said.

Cherny said the sector is adjusting to a post-pandemic period, and digital health companies are figuring out their role.

“We’re still cycling through what could be almost termed digital health 1.1 business models,” he said. “It’s great to say we do things digitally, but it only matters if it has some approach toward impacting the ‘triple aim’ of health care: better care, more convenient, lower cost.”

A Starbucks barista strike is expanding to 5,000 workers at what organizers said was more than 300 stores in 45 states, just as the company’s busy holiday stretch begins.

Though it still represents only about 3% of all U.S. Starbucks locations, it’s an expansion of an action that began last week in three cities.

Organized by the Service Employees International Union and Starbucks Workers United, the strike aims to draw attention to allegations of unfair labor practices and stalled negotiations over a contract that would cover thousands of workers. The workers are seeking an immediate increase in Starbucks’ minimum hourly wage by as much as 64% and over 77% over the life of a three-year contract.

“After all Starbucks has said about how they value partners throughout the system, we refuse to accept zero immediate investment in baristas’ wages and no resolution of the hundreds of outstanding unfair labor practices,’ Lynne Fox, president of the Workers Union, said in a statement. ‘Baristas know their value, and they’re not going to accept a proposal that doesn’t treat them as true partners.”

Starbucks said only around 170 Starbucks stores did not open as planned. It said 98% of its over 10,000 company-operated stores and nearly 200,000 employees continued to work as normal.

In a memo to employees posted by the company, a Starbucks executive called the union’s demands ‘not sustainable’ and touted the overall benefits package workers can receive, noting employees who work at least 20 hours a week get $30 an hour, on average, in combined pay and benefits.

‘The union chose to walk away from bargaining last week,’ said Sara Kelly, a Starbucks executive vice president. ‘We are ready to continue negotiations when the union comes back to the bargaining table.’ 

Starbucks enjoyed a surge in investor sentiment after it poached Chipotle CEO Brian Niccol to be lead it in August, though its share price has declined in recent weeks alongside the broader market pullback.

Niccol has pledged to negotiate with the union in good faith, though his previous tenure at the burrito chain was marked by at least two settlements with workers demanded by the National Labor Relations Board.

Top CEOs and their companies are pledging to donate millions of dollars to President-elect Donald Trump’s inaugural committee, as they seek to get on his good side and make inroads before he takes office.

Some of the planned donations reportedly include $1 million each from Jeff Bezos’ Amazon, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman and Facebook parent company Meta, led by Mark Zuckerberg. Others include $2 million from Robinhood Markets and $1 million each from both Uber and its CEO, Dara Khosrowshahi.

Ford is reportedly coupling its own $1 million donation with a fleet of vehicles.

Hedge fund manager Ken Griffin also said he plans to give $1 million to the tax-exempt inaugural committee, Bloomberg reported. Other donations from finance leaders are reportedly in the works.

Empowered by a decisive electoral victory, Trump has vowed to revamp U.S. economic policy in a way that could have outsized benefits for a few favored industries, like fossil fuels.

At the same time, he has telegraphed the value, both personal and political, that he places on face-to-face meetings and public praise from chief executives of the world’s largest companies.

“EVERYBODY WANTS TO BE MY FRIEND!!!” Trump wrote Thursday in a post on Truth Social, the social media app run by his own tech company.

Many of those CEOs have already made, or are planning to make, trips to Mar-a-Lago, Trump’s Palm Beach, Florida, resort and de facto transition headquarters, as they seek to gain influence with and access to the incoming administration.

To that end, Trump’s inaugural committee presents a “unique opportunity,” said Brendan Glavin, director of research for the money-in-politics nonprofit OpenSecrets, in an interview.

Inaugural committees, which are appointed by presidents-elect, plan and fund most of the pomp and circumstance that traditionally surrounds the transition of power from one administration to the next.

While the money is ultimately benefiting a recent political candidate, it doesn’t carry the same connotation as a donation to, say, a super PAC, which can fund partisan political activities that risk stoking controversy.

And unlike a direct contribution to a candidate’s campaign, there are no limits on how much an individual — or a corporation or labor group — can give to an inaugural committee.

Moreover, since Trump already won the election, an inaugural contribution carries no risk for a high-profile executive of backing a losing candidate.

“It really is a great opportunity for them to curry favor with the incoming administration,” Glavin said.

While it’s nothing new for corporations and power brokers to shower big money on inaugural committees, experts told CNBC the Trump factor changes the calculus.

“It’s all heightened now,” Glavin said. “None of these people, they don’t want to be Trump’s punching bag for four years.”

Trump’s inaugural committee and his transition team did not respond to requests for comment.

Trump’s 2017 inaugural committee raked in about $107 million, by far the most of any in U.S. history. The previous record had been set in 2009 during the first inauguration of Barack Obama, whose committee raised $53 million.

Trump’s second inauguration is on pace to shatter that record, with pledged contributions already surpassing a $150 million fundraising goal, ABC News reported.

President Joe Biden’s inaugural committee, by comparison, raised nearly $62 million.

“One of the oldest adages in Washington is that if you’re not at the table, you’re on the menu, and the price of admission to have a seat at the table keeps going up,” said Michael Beckel, research director of Issue One, a political reform advocacy group.

The boost in funding for Trump’s second inaugural committee comes in part from tech giants, many of whom largely steered clear of supporting his first inauguration.

Other than GoDaddy.com founder Robert Parsons, who gave $1 million, few other leaders in Big Tech donated to Trump’s 2017 committee.

Trump once openly clashed with some of them, including Zuckerberg and Bezos, who also owns The Washington Post, a frequent target of the president-elect’s ire.

Not so this time around. As Trump vows to tear up reams of federal regulations, but also continues to accuse Big Tech of stifling competition, industry leaders could have more riding on their relationship with the White House than ever before.

“I’m actually very optimistic,” Bezos said of a second Trump presidency in a Dec. 4 interview at The New York Times’ DealBook conference. “I’m very hopeful. He seems to have a lot of energy around reducing regulation. And my point of view, if I can help him do that, I’m going to help him. Because we do have too much regulation in this country.”

The comments came in the wake of a scandal at The Washington Post in October, when the paper reported that Bezos decided not to publish its editorial board’s endorsement of Vice President Kamala Harris over Trump. Bezos in an op-ed defended the paper’s decision to no longer endorse presidential candidates, but the reversal spurred an exodus of subscribers and prompted numerous staffers to resign in protest.

Nowhere is Trump’s newfound friendliness with the tech world more pronounced than in his blossoming relationship with Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk, who spent more than $250 million helping elect Trump.

Musk, the world’s richest person, has frequently appeared by Trump’s side before and after his election victory, and has reportedly been involved in all aspects of Trump’s transition planning. He and entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy have been tapped to lead an advisory group tasked with cutting government costs.

This could put OpenAI’s Altman, who is currently embroiled in a breach-of-contract lawsuit brought by Musk, in an awkward position.

Along with his million-dollar inaugural donation, Altman heaped praise on Trump earlier this month. “President Trump will lead our country into the age of AI, and I am eager to support his efforts to ensure America stays ahead,” he said.

Craig Holman, government affairs lobbyist for the progressive nonprofit Public Citizen, told CNBC that these figures “very much fear that Donald Trump may take retribution against them.”

“So they’re throwing money” at his feet “in order to curry favor,” Holman said.’

Four days after the presidential election, Trump announced the formation of the “Trump Vance Inaugural Committee, Inc.,” a 501(c)(4) nonprofit. It is co-chaired by real estate investor Steve Witkoff and former Republican Sen. Kelly Loeffler of Georgia, who is also Trump’s pick to lead the Small Business Administration.

Reince Priebus, who was one of Trump’s White House chiefs of staff during his first term, said in an X post that he has been tapped to serve as the committee’s finance chair.

Priebus also shared a screenshot of an invitation that listed the names of other finance chairs. They include Miriam Adelson, the GOP megadonor who spent $100 million this year on a pro-Trump super PAC, and billionaire Trump donor Diane Hendricks.

Inaugural committees are required to publicly disclose the names of donors who give $200 or more, but those filings aren’t due until 90 days after the inaugural ceremony.

If the committee has a surplus after all the festivities, finding out just how much is left can be a challenge.

Trump’s 2017 inauguration was a smaller affair than Obama’s in 2009, although Trump raised more than twice as much money for his as Obama had. As a result, Trump’s committee was widely expected to have tens of millions of dollars left over after it paid for balls and hotels.

But years after the fact, it was unclear what happened to much of that money.

Federal filings show that roughly a quarter of all the funds raised, $26 million, were paid to a newly created firm that was run by an advisor to first lady Melania Trump.

“We take a look through the history of the financing of inaugurations, and clearly it comes from very large donors, wealthy special interests and corporations, almost all of whom have business pending before the federal government,” said Holman, of Public Citizen.

He added, “This is a real cesspool of buying favors.”

If the Covid era marked a boom time for digital health companies, 2024 was the reckoning.

In a year that saw the Nasdaq jump 32%, surpassing 20,000 for the first time this month, health tech providers largely suffered. Of 39 public digital health companies analyzed by CNBC, roughly two-thirds are down for the year. Others are now out of business.

There were some breakout stars, like Hims & Hers Health, which was buoyed by the success of its popular new weight loss offering and its position in the GLP-1 craze. But that was an exception.

While there were some company-specific challenges in the industry, overall it was a “year of inflection,” according to Scott Schoenhaus, an analyst at KeyBanc Capital Markets covering health-care IT companies. Business models that appeared poised to break out during the pandemic haven’t all worked as planned, and companies have had to refocus on profitability and a more muted growth environment.

“The pandemic was a huge pull forward in demand, and we’re facing those tough, challenging comps,” Schoenhaus told CNBC in an interview. “Growth clearly slowed for most of my names, and I think employers, payers, providers and even pharma are more selective and more discerning on digital health companies that they partnered with.” 

In 2021, digital health startups raised $29.1 billion, blowing past all previous funding records, according to a report from Rock Health. Almost two dozen digital health companies went public through an initial public offering or special purpose acquisition company, or SPAC, that year, up from the previous record of eight in 2020. Money was pouring into themes that played into remote work and remote health as investors looked for growth with interest rates stuck near zero.

But as the worst waves of the pandemic subsided, so did the insatiable demand for new digital health tools. It’s been a rude awakening for the sector.  

“What we’re still going through is an understanding of the best ways to address digital health needs and capabilities, and the push and pull of the current business models and how successful they may be,” Michael Cherny, an analyst at Leerink Partners, told CNBC. “We’re in a settling out period post Covid.”

Progyny, which offers benefits solutions for fertility and family planning, is down more than 60% year to date. Teladoc Health, which once dominated the virtual-care space, has dropped 58% and is 96% off its 2021 high.

When Teladoc acquired Livongo in 2020, the companies had a combined enterprise value of $37 billion. Teladoc’s market cap now sits at under $1.6 billion.

GoodRx, which offers price transparency tools for medications, is down 33% year to date. 

Schoenhaus says many companies’ estimates were too high this year.

Progyny cut its full-year revenue guidance in every earnings report in 2024. In February, Progyny was predicting $1.29 billion to $1.32 billion in annual revenue. By November, the range was down to $1.14 billion to $1.15 billion.

GoodRx also repeatedly slashed its full-year guidance for 2024. What was $800 million to $810 million in May shrank to $794 million by the November.

In Teladoc’s first-quarter report, the company said it expected full-year revenue of $2.64 billion to $2.74 billion. The company withdrew its outlook in its second quarter, and reported consecutive year-over year declines.

“This has been a year of coming to terms with the growth outlook for many of my companies, and so I think we can finally look at 2025 as maybe a better year in terms of the setups,” Schoenhaus said.  

While overzealous forecasting tells part of the digital health story this year, there were some notable stumbles at particular companies. 

Dexcom, which makes devices for diabetes and glucose management, is down more than 35% year to date. The stock tumbled more than 40% in July — its steepest decline ever — after the company reported disappointing second-quarter results and issued weak full-year guidance. 

CEO Kevin Sayer attributed the challenges to a restructuring of the sales team, fewer new customers than expected and lower revenue per user. Following the report, JPMorgan Chase analysts marveled at “the magnitude of the downside” and the fact that it “appears to mostly be self-inflicted.” 

Genetic testing company 23andMe had a particularly rough year. The company went public via a SPAC in 2021, valuing the business at $3.5 billion, after its at-home DNA testing kits skyrocketed in popularity. The company is now worth less than $100 million and CEO Anne Wojcicki is trying to keep it afloat.

In September, all seven independent directors resigned from 23andMe’s board, citing disagreements with Wojcicki about the “strategic direction for the company.” Two months later, 23andMe said it planned to cut 40% of its workforce and shutter its therapeutics business as part of a restructuring plan. 

Wojcicki has repeatedly said she intends to take 23andMe private. The stock is down more than 80% year to date. 

Investors in Hims & Hers had a much better year.

Shares of the direct-to-consumer marketplace are up more than 200% year to date, pushing the company’s market cap to $6 billion, thanks to soaring demand for GLP-1s. 

Hims & Hers began prescribing compounded semaglutide through its platform in May after launching a new weight loss program late last year. Semaglutide is the active ingredient in Novo Nordisk’s blockbuster medications Ozempic and Wegovy, which can cost around $1,000 a month without insurance. Compounded semaglutide is a cheaper, custom-made alternative to the brand drugs and can be produced when the brand-name treatments are in shortage.

Hims & Hers will likely have to contend with dynamic supply and regulatory environments next year, but even before adding compounded GLP-1s to its portfolio, the company said in its February earnings call that it expects its weight loss program to bring in more than $100 million in revenue by the end of 2025. 

Doximity, a digital platform for medical professionals, also had a strong 2024, with its stock price more than doubling. The company’s platform, which for years has been likened to a LinkedIn for doctors, allows clinicians to stay current on medical news, manage paperwork, find referrals and carry out telehealth appointments with patients. 

Doximity primarily generates revenue through its hiring solutions, telehealth tools and marketing offerings for clients like pharmaceutical companies.

Leerink’s Cherny said Doximity’s success can be attributed to its lean operating model, as well as the “differentiated mousetrap” it’s created because of its reach into the physician network. 

“DOCS is a rare company in healthcare IT as it is already profitable, generates strong incremental margins, and is a steady grower,” Leerink analysts, including Cherny, wrote in a November note. The firm raised its price target on the stock to $60 from $35. 

Another standout this year was Oscar Health, the tech-enabled insurance company co-founded by Thrive Capital Management’s Joshua Kushner. Its shares are up nearly 50% year to date. The company supports roughly 1.65 million members and plans to expand to around 4 million by 2027. 

Oscar showed strong revenue growth in its third-quarter report in November. Sales climbed 68% from a year earlier to $2.4 billion.

Additionally, two digital health companies, Waystar and Tempus AI, took the leap and went public in 2024. 

The IPO market has been largely dormant since late 2021, when soaring inflation and rising interest rates pushed investors out of risk. Few technology companies have gone public since then, and no digital health companies held IPOs in 2023, according to a report from Rock Health. 

Waystar, a health-care payment software vendor, has seen its stock jump to $36.93 from its IPO price of $21.50 in June. Tempus, a precision medicine company, hasn’t fared as well. It’s stock has slipped to $34.91 from its IPO price of $37, also in June.

“Hopefully, the valuations are more supportive of opportunities for other companies that have been lingering in the background as private companies for the last several years.” Schoenhaus said. 

Several digital health companies exited the public markets entirely this year. 

Cue Health, which made Covid tests and counted Google as an early customer, and Better Therapeutics, which used digital therapeutics to treat cardiometabolic conditions, both shuttered operations and delisted from the Nasdaq. 

Revenue cycle management company R1 RCM was acquired by TowerBrook Capital Partners and Clayton, Dubilier & Rice in an $8.9 billion deal. Similarly, Altaris bought Sharecare, which runs a virtual health platform, for roughly $540 million.

Commure, a private company that offers tools for simplifying clinicians’ workflows, acquired medical AI scribing company Augmedix for about $139 million.

“There was a lot of competition that entered the marketplace during the pandemic years, and we’ve seen some of that being flushed out of the markets, which is a good thing,” Schoenhaus said.

Cherny said the sector is adjusting to a post-pandemic period, and digital health companies are figuring out their role.

“We’re still cycling through what could be almost termed digital health 1.1 business models,” he said. “It’s great to say we do things digitally, but it only matters if it has some approach toward impacting the ‘triple aim’ of health care: better care, more convenient, lower cost.”

Nissan will be the victim of cost-cutting “carnage” if it combines forces with Japanese peer Honda, former Nissan CEO Carlos Ghosn told CNBC on Tuesday.

“I think, without any doubt, Honda is going to be in the driver’s seat, which is very sad to see after having led Nissan for 19 years [and] brought Nissan to the forefront of the industry, to see that they’re going to be the victim of a carnage, because there is total duplication between Nissan and Honda,” he told CNBC’s “Squawk Box Europe.”

Ghosn, who once led three automakers as part of the Nissan-Renault-Mitsubishi alliance, has been residing in Lebanon after being arrested in Japan in November 2018 and fleeing trial on charges of financial crimes. He denies misconduct.

“There is practically no complementarity here, which means, if they want to make synergy it is going to be through maybe cost reduction, duplication of plan, duplication of technology, and we know exactly who’s going to pay the price of it. It’s going to be the minor partner, and it’s going to be Nissan,” Ghosn said.

Nissan had greater complementarities with France’s Renault, Ghosn estimated, referencing a long-standing partnership that has been largely unwound.

Speculation about a potential Honda and Nissan merger began earlier this month, and the two companies confirmed the official start of talks over a business integration during a news conference on Monday. Under current proposals, a holding company would act as the parent of both firms and be listed on the Tokyo Stock Exchange, with Honda — which has a market capitalization around four times that of Nissan — nominating most board members of the new entity. Nissan’s strategic partner Mitsubishi is also engaged in talks over joining the group.

A $54 billion Nissan-Honda group would leapfrog South Korea’s Hyundai to become the world’s third-largest automaker by vehicle sales, behind Japan’s Toyota and Germany’s Volkswagen. The integrated group would also represent a landmark in automotive industry consolidation, which has been long expected in both Japan and worldwide as businesses struggle to shoulder the development costs of electric vehicles and autonomous driving technology.

Executives at both Honda and Nissan on Monday stressed that a combined company would be able to share the intelligence and resources necessary to compete in the EV transition and deliver economies of scale, boosting operating profit to a projected 3 trillion yen ($19.1 billion) in the long term.

Nissan is embarking on the ambitious merger while simultaneously undertaking a deep restructure it announced in November, which will reduce global production capacity by a fifth and cut 9,000 jobs.

Honda CEO Toshihiro Mibe on Monday acknowledged that some shareholders may feel his company would be supporting struggling Nissan as part of the deal, but stressed that the business integration talks will “not come to fruition” if the two automakers fail to stand on their own.

Ghosn nevertheless told CNBC that the merger plan suggests “Nissan is in panic mode, looking for somebody to save them from the situation, because they are unable to generate the solution by themselves.”

He expressed “high doubts” that the turnaround at Nissan will be successful, without providing details.

Kei Okamura, senior vice president and portfolio manager at Neuberger Berman, echoed the sentiment that details of the merger plan still need to be ironed out.

“If you’re an investor you’re going to be thinking about the three to five earnings outlook. What was announced [Monday] was the near term, so the timeline, and the long-term vision. The only issue is how is this merged entity going to get there, and that’s where there are a lot of uncertainties ahead,” Okamura told CNBC’s “Street Signs Asia” on Tuesday.

“The post-merger integration is going to be absolutely essential … unless these companies are able to really full integrate themselves together in terms of the people, the assets and of course the culture, these deals have the potential to unwind, and we have to take into consideration that this deal may not happen if [Nissan] doesn’t come through with its turnaround program,” Okamura added.

Nissan declined to comment on this story beyond its statement out on Monday. Honda did not immediately respond to a CNBC request for comment.

The IRS plans to issue automatic “special payments” of up to $1,400 to 1 million taxpayers starting later this month, the agency announced last week.

The payments will go to individuals who did not claim the 2021 Recovery Rebate Credit on their tax returns for that year and who are eligible for the money.

The Recovery Rebate Credit is a refundable tax credit provided to individuals who did not receive one or more economic impact payments — more popularly known as stimulus checks — that were sent by the federal government in the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic.

The maximum payment will be $1,400 per individual and will vary based on circumstances, according to the IRS. The agency will make an estimated total of about $2.4 billion in payments.

“Looking at our internal data, we realized that one million taxpayers overlooked claiming this complex credit when they were actually eligible,” IRS Commissioner Danny Werfel said in a statement. “To minimize headaches and get this money to eligible taxpayers, we’re making these payments automatic, meaning these people will not be required to go through the extensive process of filing an amended return to receive it.” 

The new payments are slated to be sent out automatically in December. In most cases, the money should arrive by late January, according to the IRS.

Eligible taxpayers can expect to receive the money either by direct deposit or a paper check in the mail. They will also receive a separate letter notifying them about the payment.

Direct deposit payments will go to taxpayers who have current bank account information on file with the IRS.

If eligible individuals have closed their bank accounts since their 2023 tax returns, payments will be reissued by the IRS through paper checks to the mailing addresses on record. Those taxpayers do not need to take action, according to the agency.

The payments are only going to taxpayers who qualify for the 2021 Recovery Rebate Credit — particularly individuals who filed a 2021 tax return but who did not claim the Recovery Rebate Credit even though they were eligible, either by leaving that data field blank or entering $0.

Taxpayers who haven’t filed 2021 tax returns still have a chance to claim the credit. However, they must file by April 15, 2025, to claim the credit and any other refunds they are owed.

Claiming the Recovery Rebate Credit will not count as income and interfere with eligibility for certain other federal benefits, including Supplemental Security Income, or SSI; Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP; Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF; and Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children, or WIC.

The IRS provides more information on payment eligibility and amounts on its website.