News
Tesla’s cease and desist letter has Dan O’Dowd calling Elon Musk names
Tesla’s cease and desist letter to The Dawn Project, has Dan O’Dowd resorting to childish antics and targeting a Tesla customer. Tesla’s cease and desist letter demanded that the defamatory ad be removed. Tesla also demanded that the anti-Full Self-Driving campaign be immediately halted. O’Dowd isn’t taking the letter too well as he’s sharing his thoughts about the situation on Twitter.
O’Dowd’s response included several childish antics such as name calling, an unhealthy focus on one of Tesla’s customers, Elon Musk, and Elon’s following.
Please improve your own product instead of falsely caiming that other‘s are dangerous!
— Magnus Maximus (@marky110) August 25, 2022
In the tweet promoting The Dawn Project, O’Dowd included a meme depicting Elon Musk tweeting “It never happened,” while what looked to be a young adult is tied up, gagged, and being held down by two villainous goons.
The link that O’Dowd tweeted is The Dawn Project’s response to Tesla’s cease and desist letter. The letter is full of immature name calling such as alluding to Elon Musk as “another crybaby hiding behind his lawyer’s skirt,” and being obsessed with O’Dowd who paints himself as a hero for campaigning against FSD. O’Dowd claimed that it appeared to him that Elon Musk wrote the letter mocking him for running for the U.S. Senate with the goal of stopping FSD.
The letter goes on to target a Tesla customer and FSD Beta Tester, Omar Qazi, who has also been the target of many “$TSLAQ” supporters. Omar is a Tesla FSD Beta tester and an avid supporter of Tesla. He’s also a friend of mine in the Tesla community.
O’Dowd previously mentioned Omar saying that he endorses the deployment of “AI killing machines, even if they are trying to kill our kids.” Although Omar does support Tesla and Tesla’s FSD Beta, the claim that Tesla’s FSD Beta is an AI-killing machine that is trying to kill children is entirely false.
In the response to Tesla’s cease and desist letter, O’Dowd wrote:
“It appears you are talking about unsolicited scrutiny by your infamously virulent band of fanboy Tesla stockholders, led by you and your apparent agent, @WholeMarsBlog, and motivated by greed. They immediately and widely promulgate baseless accusations against those who say anything negative about Tesla or Elon Musk.”
He also called Omar Elon Musk’s top attack dog on Twitter Although Tesla sent a cease and desist letter, O’Dowd said that Elon Musk’s plan is to use his supporters to attack O’Dowd online and hinted that perhaps Elon Musk couldn’t afford an attorney.
🦇 💩 crazy
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) August 25, 2022
“Master Scammer Musk’s game plan: if the fanboys’ vile attacks don’t scare off a critic he threatens them with endless baseless litigation which will cost them their house even if they win. Fortunately, I can afford not to be intimidated by these threats.”
“Tesla Full Self-Driving software has no future. It is the most incompetently designed, implemented, and tested commercial software I have ever seen. All it does is take a perfectly good Tesla car and make it occasionally try to kill the driver, the passengers, and innocent bystanders.”
“I dare you to come out and defend this technology.”
The irony of all of this is that O’Dowd is also the CEO of Green Hills Software which is developing self-driving software. O’Dowd apologized for misleading people earlier this month about FSD. In his tweet, he said that he relied on reports from others that he did not verify. I responded to this tweet with a question that O’Dowd still hasn’t answered.
https://twitter.com/JohnnaCrider1/status/1558454356013469698
My question was rhetorical, but the point remains. He invested millions of dollars in an anti-FSD campaign before even trying it. Instead, he was relying on misinformation.
And according to his tweet, he only experienced it for 20 hours. It should be noted that FSD is still in beta and with O’Dowd trying to be a direct competitor of Tesla’s FSD software, it’s only natural for him to be intimidated by it.
Personally, I think O’Dowd should retire his anti-Tesla campaign and apologize to Elon Musk, Omar Qazi, and Tesla’s shareholders, customers, and employees who work hard to make a product dedicated to saving lives.
Note: Johnna is a Tesla shareholder and supports its mission.
Your feedback is important. If you have any comments, or concerns, or see a typo, you can email me at johnna@teslarati.com. You can also reach me on Twitter @JohnnaCrider1
Elon Musk flew under the radar with his recent purchase of a $1 billion energy company, according to Federal Trade Commission (FTC) documents.
Transaction number 202612350 listed Tesla and SpaceX frontman Elon Musk as the acquiring party and CF APR Super Holdings LLC as the seller, with New APR Energy, LLC as the acquired entity. The deal, which closed without public announcement, came to light on May 14.
BREAKING: Elon Musk acquires Jacksonville power company APR Energy in a deal valued at more than $1,000,000,000.00.
— Polymarket Money (@PolymarketMoney) July 15, 2026
Analysts inferred the deal’s scale from minority stakeholder disclosures, including one report of a 5 percent interest sold for approximately $50.4 million. Fortress Investment Group had purchased APR’s assets in late 2024, rebranded the operation as New APR Energy, and subsequently transferred ownership to Musk.
APR Energy specializes in rapidly deployable power infrastructure. The company maintains one of the world’s largest fleets of mobile gas and diesel turbines, with more than 1.1 gigawatts of generation capacity. Its modular units, which are often trailer-mounted, enable turnkey installations ranging from 20 MW to over 500 MW.
APR provides full engineering, procurement, construction, operation, and maintenance services for behind-the-meter power plants, serving everything from data centers, utilities, and industrial clients.
The firm has expanded aggressively to meet surging demand, recently adding turbines and deploying over 100 MW for a major AI hyperscaler. Its solutions bridge critical gaps where grid interconnections face delays of two to five years, according to Yahoo.
The acquisition means something more for Musk. As he continues to expand projects in artificial intelligence, especially xAI, his AI venture, there is a greater need to supply energy-intensive supercomputing clusters, including the Colossus project, with what they need: reliable and high-capacity power.
Ownership of APR provides immediate access to flexible generation assets that can be deployed adjacent to data centers, reducing dependence on a strained infrastructure. It also complements Tesla’s energy storage business, so Musk will be able to pull from his own entities to address the rapid scaling demands of AI training and compute.
Tesla had a petition protesting a recall to fix a potential issue with 2017-2023 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles’ headlights was denied, as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) disagreed with the company’s opinion of things.
The recall covers approximately 19,917 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles built from 2017 to 2023. Tesla initially submitted a noncompliance report for the headlights on these vehicles on March 15, 2024. Tesla then petitioned for an exemption from the fix, which violated FMVSS No. 108 (40 CFR 571.108), arguing that the “noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
🚨 Tesla was denied a petition by the NHTSA to avoid a recall of 19,900 2017-2023 Model 3 and Model Y vehicles.
The NHTSA found that the vehicles’ headlights may exceed maximum lighting levels. Tesla argued it was inconsequential and did not require a recall. pic.twitter.com/m8Jmm1teLL
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 16, 2026
The NHTSA disagreed, stating that Tesla’s conclusion that the headlights do not increase any risk was not an opinion it shared. The agency said it disagreed with Tesla’s assumption that glare is not increased to surrounding traffic. This issue could be highlighted even more in certain weather conditions.
Tesla will be required to remedy the issue, the NHTSA ruled:
“In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that Tesla has not met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 108 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Tesla’s petition is hereby denied, and Tesla is consequently obligated to provide notification of and free remedy for that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.”
The issue here appears to be the angle of the headlights and the brightness they emit during operation. The NHTSA report states that:
“Tesla’s headlamp supplier, Marelli Automotive Lighting, tested 25 right-hand and 25 left-hand lamps, and for this sample, found the maximum photometric intensity measured in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone was between 136.2 cd and 230.1 cd for the right-hand lamps and between 117.5 cd and 160.3 cd for the left-hand lamps. According to Tesla, these tests revealed that the photometric intensity of the right-hand and left-hand headlamp lower beam on the subject vehicles may measure as much as 230.1 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone, exceeding the maximum photometric intensity by 105.1 cd. Additionally, Tesla states that a left-hand lamp tested by a Transport Canada recognized laboratory measured a maximum of 171.27 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone. Despite these measurements exceeding the allowed photometric maximum of 125 cd, Tesla believes that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.”
Tesla also argued at some points that the headlights had not been deemed responsible for any complaints, accidents, or injuries related to the noncompliance.
Lifestyle
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
The NTSB confirmed the driver, not Tesla’s FSD, caused the fatal Texas house crash.
The National Transportation Safety Board released preliminary findings Wednesday confirming that a Tesla driver, not the vehicle’s software, caused a fatal crash in Katy, Texas in June. The driver, 44-year-old Michael Butler, had engaged Full Self-Driving Supervised mode on Rose Hollow Lane, a residential street with a 30 mph speed limit, before manually overriding the system by pressing the accelerator pedal all the way to 100%. Data recovered from the 2025 Tesla Model 3 showed the vehicle was traveling over 70 miles per hour when it struck a home and killed 76-year-old Martha Avila, who was inside. Weather was clear, the road was dry, and it was daylight.
Texas man charged in fatal Tesla crash where he blamed Autopilot
Butler told authorities he had passed out at the wheel. But security camera footage obtained by the NTSB told a different story, and showed the car accelerating through an intersection before leaving the road entirely. Police also found that Butler’s phone had Google searches including the terms “Tesla FSD not aggressive enough 2026” and “Tesla FSD too timid,” raising serious questions about how he was using the system before the crash. Butler has since been charged with manslaughter. The victim’s family has filed a lawsuit against both Butler and Tesla, alleging negligence.
The NTSB findings aligned directly with what Tesla VP of AI Software Ashok Elluswamy had already stated publicly on X in the weeks after the crash, writing that “the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100%.” The data confirmed his account.
Yup. In this case, the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100% of the accel pedal in this residential area. They reached a speed of 73 mph during the crash, and had the accelerator pressed even after the crash.
— Ashok Elluswamy (@aelluswamy) June 22, 2026
Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future
Tesla has to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says
