News
Pablo Escobar’s brother wants $100 million in Tesla shares for Not-a-Flamethrower dispute
Elon Musk is no stranger to taking on powerful forces that stand in the way of his Earth-changing missions, but drug lord families still seem like an odd addition to the list. Despite the improbability, infamous cartel founder and cocaine kingpin Pablo Escobar has recently been linked to the serial entrepreneur over The Boring Company’s Not-a-Flamethrower, specifically through Escobar’s brother. Roberto Escobar claims Musk stole the Flamethrower design from him and plans to sue over it – unless Musk agrees to hand over $100 million dollars in either cash or Tesla shares, that is.
“Elon we both know you stole from me, I am OK to settle this right now for $100 million. Tesla shares is OK or cash. I will win in court, and you will lose more than $100 million,” Escobar said in a statement to The Next Web. “Maybe I will make myself new Tesla CEO with the courts?… Let’s settle this like gentleman. Send me the Tesla Shares to Escobar Inc.”
Someone associated with Musk’s business activities reportedly spent time with Escobar (the living brother, not the deceased drug lord) in the summer of 2017 wherein an Escobar Inc. toy flamethrower concept was discussed, according to a report originally published by TMZ. The Boring Company’s Flamethrower, announced in January 2018, apparently was a dead ringer for Escobar’s idea design-wise, leading cartel leader’s brother to angrily conclude that his idea had been stolen. Musk later responded to TMZ‘s report on Twitter, saying “It’s Not a Flamethrower, Mr Escobar.”
The dispute is interesting and unusual, to say the least, but we can be sure there’s one thing Boring clearly did not get from Escobar Inc. – the flamethrower’s purpose.
“I want the people to be able to burn money, like me and Pablo used to do. I burned probably a couple of billion dollars over the years. Literally burning the money. For many reasons,” Escobar was quoted as saying about the device.
Escobar is now weighing his legal options against Musk, although it’s not clear what options are exactly available.
Prior to 2013, if an inventor could demonstrate their invention predated someone else’s patented invention for the same thing, they could sue and work out a financially retroactive deal to be compensated for their work (more or less). However, with the enactment of the America Invents Act, the United States now has a “first to file” system that only gives inventors one year from public disclosure of their invention to file for patent protection. In Escobar’s case, he’s basically too late to file for a patent where it would matter most to Musk – in the United States. The only other legal workaround would seem to be a lawsuit over a non-disclosure agreement, which doesn’t appear to have happened here. It’s not enough that there were witnesses to the discussion, and it also doesn’t seem like there was even a handshake-type understanding over any claims to the design.
Another thing worth mentioning is that if The Boring Company has already filed for patent protection of its Not-a-Flamethrower design, it doesn’t appear to have published yet based on patent database searches. Since the idea was disclosed in January 2018 (or even 2017, based on Escobar’s claims), it’s now considered ‘prior art’ and renders any other highly similar patent filings ineligible for protection. It would appear that Escobar’s best bet for legal protection would have been to file for a patent right after Musk’s flamethrower was announced so both devices would have been in that muddy one-year window and open to a court fight. Alas, it’s all water under the bridge now.
The Boring Company had a few options to pursue here, actually. First, the tunneling venture could have filed for a design patent which only protects what their flamethrower looks like. These types of patent applications usually issue to full patents quickly unless the patent examiner objects to it based on similar designs. If Boring went this route, we should see a patent show up shortly if one was filed around the time of the product announcement in January 2018.
A second option The Boring Company could have taken was to file for a utility patent, meaning there was some sort of technical merit to the Not-a-Flamethrower’s design. These publish 18 months after filing unless non-publication is specifically requested. If Boring went this route, well, there are so many timelines that could have been taken, it’s hard to say whether we’ll see anything until a patent issues, assuming one issues at all. Regardless, the patent route was Escobar’s only real route for lawsuit-driven compensation, and he seems out of luck.
Perhaps in response to recent publicity, the Escobar Inc. Flamethrower just went on sale for $250, and according to its company website’s History page, 20,000 units will be produced. This, of course, is the exact amount the Boring Company sold at the original price of $500. Among other interesting news items, one of the gems from that same History page reads, “2004 – Roberto de Jesus Escobar Gaviria is freed from Itagui Prison based on excellent behavior.” This important moment in the Escobar Inc. chronicles is surely only matched by the successful launch of Escobar Inc.’s Flamethrower for burning cold hard cash in cocaine kingpin fashion.
Tesla is atop the American-Made Index from Cars.com for the sixth-straight year, as the Model 3 and Model Y took the top two spots, respectively.
Last year, the Model 3, Model Y, Model S, and Model X took the top four spots, respectively. The company has routinely performed well in the Index. However, Tesla discontinued its flagship Model S and Model X earlier this year, which took the two cars out of the ranking.
Cybertruck is not considered due to its curb weight being above the 8,500-pound threshold, which eliminates it from being required to have more detailed assembly information.
Cars.com uses five main categories to develop its rankings:
- Location(s) of final assembly
- Percentage of U.S. and Canadian parts
- Countries of origin for all available engines
- Countries of origin for all available transmissions
- U.S. manufacturing workforce
These five major factors are then put into a 100-point scale. The vehicles with the highest scores sit atop the list. The Model 3 edged out the Model Y.
🇺🇸 The Tesla Model 3 and Tesla Model Y have been put atop the American-Made Index from https://t.co/PXZ0g1pPb6, meaning they are the most American vehicles you can possibly buy.
This is the SIXTH-STRAIGHT year a Tesla has been listed as the most American-made vehicle: pic.twitter.com/HyraOmaxSL
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 23, 2026
Tesla uses a strong domestic strategy to build its cars and parts domestically. It relies on intense vertical integration that reduces its dependence on global suppliers, keeping more value and jobs in the United States.
This strategy has helped Tesla gain a strong reputation for domestically produced vehicles and parts. However, it helps it with more than just awards like this one. Keeping a supply chain local has also helped insulate Tesla more than others from tariffs and supply chain disruptions.
This year’s American-Made Index from Cars.com studied nearly 400 vehicles from the 2026 model year. Tesla was the only manufacturer to have an EV inside the Top 10. The Kia EV9 was the next EV to make the list, scoring the 17th position.
The Hyundai IONIQ 5 was 21st, and the final EV to make the list was the Cadillac LYRIQ in 77th.
Tesla has finally clarified the situation regarding the viral crash in Texas where a Model 3 slammed into a home.
CEO Elon Musk replied to reports on Monday that stated the crash was due to the company’s Full Self-Driving or Autopilot suite, which seemed unlikely to those who are familiar with it. Video showed the car slamming into a house at an excessive rate of speed, making it highly unlikely the crash was due to the suite’s operation, as it does not travel at those speeds in residential areas.
Musk said:
“This makes no sense. FSD drives slowly through neighborhood streets, and this was a high-speed crash!”
Tesla’s Head of AI, Ashok Elluswamy, added context, revealing that the company’s data shows the driver “manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100%.”
He revealed the speed reached by the car was 73 MPH, and the accelerator was still pressed “even after the crash.”
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
Authorities are reportedly investigating “whether Tesla’s Autopilot system played a role after a Model 3 left the roadway…slammed through a brick house at high speed and fatally struck Matha Avila as she sat inside,” the New York Post reported.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is now investigating the crash. Tesla will work with the agency to provide them with whatever information they need in order to clarify the cause of the crash.
Similarly, Tesla had claims of a fatal accident in Harris County, Texas, a few years ago. Early reports indicated that Full Self-Driving was the cause of the crash. After the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) worked with Tesla, the agency proved there was “no use of the Autopilot system at any time during this ownership period of the vehicle, including the time frame up to the last transmitted timestamp on April 17, 2021.”
Tesla alleged “driverless” crash in Texas: What is known so far
“Application of the accelerator pedal was found to be as high as 98.8 percent,” the NTSB said in their findings. The highest recorded speed in the five seconds leading up to the impact was 67 miles per hour. The area where the crash occurred is residential, and Texas State laws have default speed limits of 30 MPH in residential streets.
This appears to be a similar situation. However, an investigation will prove what happened for sure.
SpaceX announced today that it commenced its first-ever public bond offering, marking a significant step in the newly public company’s capital markets strategy.
The company announced an offering of senior unsecured notes expected to raise at least $20 billion.
The move comes just a short time after SpaceX completed one of the largest initial public offerings in history. In mid-June, the company priced shares at $135 and raised more than $85 billion, propelling founder Elon Musk’s net worth past the trillion-dollar mark and giving the firm substantial liquidity.
🚨 SpaceX has announced its inaugural offering of senior unsecured notes.
The net proceeds will be used to repay outstanding loans under its bridge loan facility in full.
This inaugural debt offering represents a financing milestone for SpaceX, which previously depended… pic.twitter.com/pcOZuVbTRv
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 22, 2026
According to the company’s SEC filing, the net proceeds from the notes will be used primarily to repay in full the outstanding borrowings under its existing bridge loan facility, cover related fees and expenses, and fund general corporate purposes. The offering is being conducted under Rule 144A, as well as Regulation S, targeting qualified institutional buyers and non-U.S. investors. Notes will be unsecured obligations ranking equally with other unsubordinated debt.
The $20 billion bridge loan was used to refinance approximately $17.5 billion in higher-cost “junk” debt tied to X and xAI. SpaceX had merged with xAI in February 2026 in an all-stock deal. The bridge facility, which matures in September 2027, had represented the bulk of SpaceX’s long-term debt.
SpaceX officially acquires xAI, merging rockets with AI expertise
In connection with the bond launch, SpaceX disclosed it held approximately $100.8 billion in cash and cash equivalents as of June 19. Investor calls began on the announcement date, with pricing and launch expected shortly thereafter. Rating agencies have assigned investment-grade ratings to the proposed bonds, reflecting confidence in SpaceX’s dominant position in commercial launches and the growth trajectory of its Starlink internet offering.
The debt raise also allows SpaceX to optimize its balance sheet by replacing short-term, higher-cost bridge financing with longer-date, lower-cost fixed-income securities. This provides greater financial flexibility to support capital-intensive initiatives, including the development of Starship, the expansion of the Starlink constellation, and the integration of AI capabilities following the xAI combination.
SpaceX shares (NASDAQ: SPCX) fell sharply on the news, dropping over 16 percent overall on the market on Monday. The stock had surged initially after debuting but pulled back amid profit-taking and broader market dynamics.
Overall, the bond offering underscores SpaceX’s transition to a mature public company with access to diverse funding sources. It positions the firm to pursue its long-term vision of multiplanetary expansion and AI infrastructure, while maintaining a disciplined approach to its capital structure in a high-growth but capital-heavy industry.
Tesla tops American-Made Index for sixth-consecutive year
Tesla finally clarifies fatal Texas crash, confirms driver manually overrode acceleration
