Guilty or not, the Elizabeth Holmes verdict won’t change Silicon Valley

A guilty verdict won’t chasten investors, and a not-guilty verdict won’t leave founders feeling free to lie. The tech industry has already learned whatever lessons it’s willing to take.

Elizabeth Holmes

Elizabeth Holmes faces up to 20 years in prison if she’s found guilty of fraud.

Photo: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

Elizabeth Holmes has long been convicted in the court of public opinion. But after four long months, a jury of her peers will decide whether the Theranos founder is criminally guilty of defrauding investors and patients.

For Holmes, the verdict will have obvious personal consequences, including the threat of up to 20 years of prison. But for the rest of tech, experts outside the Silicon Valley bubble say it’s unlikely there will be some dramatic revelation or change in behavior, regardless of the outcome.

A guilty verdict won’t scare entrepreneurs off of exaggerating the numbers to get funding, nor will a not-guilty verdict embolden a generation of founders to stretch the truth. Instead, many of the lessons of Theranos are already learned, and in some cases, already being forgotten during a time when there’s plenty of money sloshing around at sky-high valuations for companies that have shown very little substance behind the vision they’re selling.

“I think we would all like to believe that there will be vicarious learning, that it would reduce the amount of pushing the envelope in terms of ethical behavior and integrity,” UC Berkeley professor Jennifer Chatman said of the potential verdict. “Unfortunately, that's not what I think is going to happen. And I think so because Elizabeth Holmes is not prototypical as an entrepreneur.”

Holmes rose to such prominence in part because of how atypical she was in the tech industry as a solo female founder running a health sciences company as a college dropout. Her charisma and charm helped her build Theranos and raise nearly a billion dollars, attracting a board of political heavyweights in the process.

But that je ne sais quoi that made Holmes and Theranos what they were is also what will keep startup founders and investors from taking the verdict as any kind of wake-up call, said Chatman, who researches organizational culture and narcissistic CEOs.

The fact that Holmes was so atypical as an entrepreneur is compounded by a social psychological bias called fundamental attribution error. People are more likely to look at Holmes and view her bad behavior as inherent to her personality or a character trait, while they’re less likely to hold themselves accountable in that moment because they have full context of their actions, Chatman explained. A classic example is a manager calling an employee lazy who shows up to a meeting late, but then making apologies when they are the ones delayed, knowing the context of why they were held up.

Regardless of whether Holmes is found guilty or not, people are likely to dismiss it and easily distance themselves from it by saying “That’s not me” or “That would never happen to me,” Chatman said.

“I want to think that people will get a message from this, but I have a feeling it's going to have little-to-no effect,” she said. “It's too easy for people to discount her.”

One group that has at least learned a little are investors, but it won’t be because of a fresh verdict. Investors learned their lessons years ago when the first Wall Street Journal story broke, said Wharton management professor Jacqueline “Jax” Kirtley. “Where the biggest impact of this story is going to play out is at the investor level, and I don't know that the investors ultimately are going to care as much about the verdict,” Kirtley said.

After the Theranos news first broke in 2015, all of those unique outliers for Holmes became signals for venture capitalists to re-evaluate. Investors now point to the lack of Silicon Valley VCs in her cap table as a major warning sign: Many tech leaders hailed her as the next Steve Jobs, but even Jobs raised money from Sequoia and Venrock. A board filled with former generals and politicians rather than scientists would now be seen as a red flag, not a calling card. Most unfairly, the path has become even harder for female founders, particularly in health care, as many say they still feel they face more scrutiny in wake of Holmes.

Given the revelations in court about Holmes’ and Sunny Balwani’s relationship, and her claims of abuse (denied by Balwani), Kirtley is concerned that investors could pay more attention to mixed-gender founding teams after the verdict. “I do worry that that could become something that investors look at — mixed-gender teams with a female lead,” Kirtley said. “Because this is one example that they're going to look at that is suddenly top of mind that they need to pay attention to, or they think they need to pay attention to, and that’s what worries me a little bit.” The fact that Holmes hid their relationship from investors may particularly trouble potential backers.

What Kirtley is less worried about is whether entrepreneurs will feel like they can get away with lying if Holmes is found not guilty. Funding the next Theranos should be harder because investors have learned some lessons and know more about what to look out for.

“The entrepreneurs don’t get to say ‘Oh she’s not guilty, I can do whatever I want,’” she said. “I don’t know that anyone gets to be emboldened by this because people who have more power have learned a lot of lessons. Those lessons aren’t going to change because of the verdict.”

Columbia Business School professor Len Sherman isn’t as optimistic.

He admits he feels like Scrooge at Christmas, but he argues that there are more fundamental issues at play that weren’t specific to Theranos, and whatever lessons investors learned from Theranos have already been forgotten in another period of exuberance.

“Theranos checks every box of what I believe are some wretched excesses in the Silicon Valley ecosystem,” he said.

Theranos had one of those charismatic CEOs that people got swept up in despite their character, Sherman said, pointing to examples like Jobs and Travis Kalanick.

Paired with the ability to attract a lot of cash and investors who are skimping on diligence, such characters could be running away with companies, he said, in a time he calls the “blitzscale bubble.”

“A big point at this trial was ‘Where were those investors?’ and ‘Why didn’t they do more diligence?’ but I would say that there’s even less due diligence being done in 2021 than in the period of 2012 to 2015 that they were talking about in this trial,” Sherman said.

Add in a founder-friendly term sheet that allows the charismatic CEO to retain power, and there’s no ability for the board to rein in that behavior, he added. (Holmes never sold a share of Theranos stock, a move the prosecution said was so she could retain voting control.)

While Sherman wishes a Theranos verdict could prompt Silicon Valley to be more introspective, he’s doubtful a verdict in either direction will change the entrepreneurial ecosystem.

“I see this trial as being not only not unique, it's just this is the way business is being done, and we're gonna see it again,” Sherman said.

The verdict will establish a narrow fact of criminal liability. What it won’t settle is whether Holmes is an object lesson or outlier. Holmes’ impact on the broader culture is indelible, and a part of the narrative others place on the tech industry. But it hasn’t bent the story Silicon Valley tells about itself.


Supreme Court takes a sledgehammer to greenhouse gas regulations

The court ruled 6-3 that the EPA cannot use the Clean Air Act to regulate power plant greenhouse gas emissions. That leaves a patchwork of policies from states, utilities and, increasingly, tech companies to pick up the slack.

The Supreme Court struck a major blow to the federal government's ability to regulate greenhouse gases.

Eric Lee/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Striking down the right to abortion may be the Supreme Court's highest-profile decision this term. But on Wednesday, the court handed down an equally massive verdict on the federal government's ability to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. In the case of West Virginia v. EPA, the court decided that the agency has no ability to regulate greenhouse gas pollution under the Clean Air Act. Weakening the federal government's powers leaves a patchwork of states, utilities and, increasingly, tech companies to pick up the slack in reducing carbon pollution.

Keep Reading Show less
Brian Kahn

Brian ( @blkahn) is Protocol's climate editor. Previously, he was the managing editor and founding senior writer at Earther, Gizmodo's climate site, where he covered everything from the weather to Big Oil's influence on politics. He also reported for Climate Central and the Wall Street Journal. In the even more distant past, he led sleigh rides to visit a herd of 7,000 elk and boat tours on the deepest lake in the U.S.

Every day, millions of us press the “order” button on our favorite coffee store's mobile application: Our chosen brew will be on the counter when we arrive. It’s a personalized, seamless experience that we have all come to expect. What we don’t know is what’s happening behind the scenes. The mobile application is sourcing data from a database that stores information about each customer and what their favorite coffee drinks are. It is also leveraging event-streaming data in real time to ensure the ingredients for your personal coffee are in supply at your local store.

Applications like this power our daily lives, and if they can’t access massive amounts of data stored in a database as well as stream data “in motion” instantaneously, you — and millions of customers — won’t have these in-the-moment experiences.

Keep Reading Show less
Jennifer Goforth Gregory
Jennifer Goforth Gregory has worked in the B2B technology industry for over 20 years. As a freelance writer she writes for top technology brands, including IBM, HPE, Adobe, AT&T, Verizon, Epson, Oracle, Intel and Square. She specializes in a wide range of technology, such as AI, IoT, cloud, cybersecurity, and CX. Jennifer also wrote a bestselling book The Freelance Content Marketing Writer to help other writers launch a high earning freelance business.

Can crypto regulate itself? The Lummis-Gillibrand bill hopes so.

Creating the equivalent of the stock markets’ FINRA for crypto is the ideal, but experts doubt that it will be easy.

The idea of creating a government-sanctioned private regulatory association has been drawing more attention in the debate over how to rein in a fast-growing industry whose technological quirks have baffled policymakers.

Illustration: Christopher T. Fong/Protocol

Regulating crypto is complicated. That’s why Sens. Cynthia Lummis and Kirsten Gillibrand want to explore the creation of a private sector group to help federal regulators do their job.

The bipartisan bill introduced by Lummis and Gillibrand would require the CFTC and the SEC to work with the crypto industry to look into setting up a self-regulatory organization to “facilitate innovative, efficient and orderly markets for digital assets.”

Keep Reading Show less
Benjamin Pimentel

Benjamin Pimentel ( @benpimentel) covers crypto and fintech from San Francisco. He has reported on many of the biggest tech stories over the past 20 years for the San Francisco Chronicle, Dow Jones MarketWatch and Business Insider, from the dot-com crash, the rise of cloud computing, social networking and AI to the impact of the Great Recession and the COVID crisis on Silicon Valley and beyond. He can be reached at or via Google Voice at (925) 307-9342.


Alperovitch: Cybersecurity defenders can’t be on high alert every day

With the continued threat of Russian cyber escalation, cybersecurity and geopolitics expert Dmitri Alperovitch says it’s not ideal for the U.S. to oscillate between moments of high alert and lesser states of cyber readiness.

Dmitri Alperovitch (the co-founder and former CTO of CrowdStrike) speaks at RSA Conference 2022.

Photo: RSA Conference

When it comes to cybersecurity vigilance, Dmitri Alperovitch wants to see more focus on resiliency of IT systems — and less on doing "surges" around particular dates or events.

For instance, whatever Russia is doing at the moment.

Keep Reading Show less
Kyle Alspach

Kyle Alspach ( @KyleAlspach) is a senior reporter at Protocol, focused on cybersecurity. He has covered the tech industry since 2010 for outlets including VentureBeat, CRN and the Boston Globe. He lives in Portland, Oregon, and can be reached at


How the internet got privatized and how the government could fix it

Author Ben Tarnoff discusses municipal broadband, Web3 and why closing the “digital divide” isn’t enough.

The Biden administration’s Internet for All initiative, which kicked off in May, will roll out grant programs to expand and improve broadband infrastructure, teach digital skills and improve internet access for “everyone in America by the end of the decade.”

Decisions about who is eligible for these grants will be made based on the Federal Communications Commission’s broken, outdated and incorrect broadband maps — maps the FCC plans to update only after funding has been allocated. Inaccurate broadband maps are just one of many barriers to getting everyone in the country successfully online. Internet service providers that use government funds to connect rural and low-income areas have historically provided those regions with slow speeds and poor service, forcing community residents to find reliable internet outside of their homes.

Keep Reading Show less
Aditi Mukund
Aditi Mukund is Protocol’s Data Analyst. Prior to joining Protocol, she was an analyst at The Daily Beast and NPR where she wrangled data into actionable insights for editorial, audience, commerce, subscription, and product teams. She holds a B.S in Cognitive Science, Human Computer Interaction from The University of California, San Diego.
Latest Stories