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.
Elon Musk
California city weighs banning Elon Musk companies like Tesla and SpaceX
A resolution draft titled, “Resolution Ending Engagement With Elon Musk-Controlled Companies and To Encourage CalPERS To Divest Stock In These Companies,” alleges that Musk “has engaged in business practices that are alleged to include violations of labor laws, environmental regulations, workplace safety standards, and regulatory noncompliance.”
A California City Council is planning to weigh whether it would adopt a resolution that would place a ban on its engagement with Elon Musk companies, like Tesla and SpaceX.
The City of Davis, California, will have its City Council weigh a new proposal that would adopt a resolution “to divest from companies owned and/or controlled by Elon Musk.”
This would include a divestment proposal to encourage CalPERS, the California Public Employees Retirement System, to divest from stock in any Musk company.
A resolution draft titled, “Resolution Ending Engagement With Elon Musk-Controlled Companies and To Encourage CalPERS To Divest Stock In These Companies,” alleges that Musk “has engaged in business practices that are alleged to include violations of labor laws, environmental regulations, workplace safety standards, and regulatory noncompliance.”
It claims that Musk “has used his influence and corporate platforms to promote political ideologies and activities that threaten democratic norms and institutions, including campaign finance activities that raise ethical and legal concerns.”
If adopted, Davis would bar the city from entering into any new contracts or purchasing agreements with any company owned or controlled by Elon Musk. It also says it will not consider utilizing Tesla Robotaxis.
Hotel owner tears down Tesla chargers in frustration over Musk’s politics
A staff report on the proposal claims there is “no immediate budgetary impact.” However, a move like this would only impact its residents, especially with Tesla, as the Supercharger Network is open to all electric vehicle manufacturers. It is also extremely reliable and widespread.
Regarding the divestment request to CalPERS, it would not be surprising to see the firm make the move. Although it voted against Musk’s compensation package last year, the firm has no issue continuing to make money off of Tesla’s performance on Wall Street.
The decision to avoid Musk companies will be considered this evening at the City Council meeting.
The report comes from Davis Vanguard.
It is no secret that Musk’s political involvement, especially during the most recent Presidential Election, ruffled some feathers. Other cities considered similar options, like the City of Baltimore, which “decided to go in another direction” after awarding Tesla a $5 million contract for a fleet of EVs for city employees.
News
Tesla launches new Model 3 financing deal with awesome savings
Tesla is now offering a 0.99% APR financing option for all new Model 3 orders in the United States, and it applies to all loan terms of up to 72 months.
Tesla has launched a new Model 3 financing deal in the United States that brings awesome savings. The deal looks to move more of the company’s mass-market sedan as it is the second-most popular vehicle Tesla offers, behind its sibling, the Model Y.
Tesla is now offering a 0.99% APR financing option for all new Model 3 orders in the United States, and it applies to all loan terms of up to 72 months.
It includes three Model 3 configurations, including the Model 3 Performance. The rate applies to:
- Model 3 Premium Rear-Wheel-Drive
- Model 3 Premium All-Wheel-Drive
- Model 3 Performance
The previous APR offer was 2.99%.
NEWS: Tesla has introduced 0.99% APR financing for all new Model 3 orders in the U.S. (applies to loan terms of up to 72 months).
This includes:
• Model 3 RWD
• Model 3 Premium RWD
• Model 3 Premium AWD
• Model 3 PerformanceTesla was previously offering 2.99% APR. pic.twitter.com/A1ZS25C9gM
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) February 15, 2026
Tesla routinely utilizes low-interest offers to help move vehicles, especially as the rates can help get people to payments that are more comfortable with their monthly budgets. Along with other savings, like those on maintenance and gas, this is another way Tesla pushes savings to customers.
The company had offered a similar program in China on the Model 3 and Model Y vehicles, but it had ended on January 31.
The Model 3 was the second-best-selling electric vehicle in the United States in 2025, trailing only the Model Y. According to automotive data provided by Cox, Tesla sold 192,440 units last year of the all-electric sedan. The Model Y sold 357,528 units.
News
Tesla hasn’t adopted Apple CarPlay yet for this shocking reason
Many Apple and iPhone users have wanted the addition, especially to utilize third-party Navigation apps like Waze, which is a popular alternative. Getting apps outside of Tesla’s Navigation to work with its Full Self-Driving suite seems to be a potential issue the company will have to work through as well.
Perhaps one of the most requested features for Tesla vehicles by owners is the addition of Apple CarPlay. It sounds like the company wants to bring the popular UI to its cars, but there are a few bottlenecks preventing it from doing so.
The biggest reason why CarPlay has not made its way to Teslas yet might shock you.
According to Bloomberg‘s Mark Gurman, Tesla is still working on bringing CarPlay to its vehicles. There are two primary reasons why Tesla has not done it quite yet: App compatibility issues and, most importantly, there are incredibly low adoption rates of iOS 26.
Tesla’s Apple CarPlay ambitions are not dead, they’re still in the works
iOS 26 is Apple’s most recent software version, which was released back in September 2025. It introduced a major redesign to the overall operating system, especially its aesthetic, with the rollout of “Liquid Glass.”
However, despite the many changes and updates, Apple users have not been too keen on the iOS 26 update, and the low adoption rates have been a major sticking point for Tesla as it looks to develop a potential alternative for its in-house UI.
It was first rumored that Tesla was planning to bring CarPlay out in its cars late last year. Many Apple and iPhone users have wanted the addition, especially to utilize third-party Navigation apps like Waze, which is a popular alternative. Getting apps outside of Tesla’s Navigation to work with its Full Self-Driving suite seems to be a potential issue the company will have to work through as well.
According to the report, Tesla asked Apple to make some changes to improve compatibility between its software and Apple Maps:
“Tesla asked Apple to make engineering changes to Maps to improve compatibility. The iPhone maker agreed and implemented the adjustments in a bug fix update to iOS 26 and the latest version of CarPlay.”
Gurman also said that there were some issues with turn-by-turn guidance from Tesla’s maps app, and it did not properly sync up with Apple Maps during FSD operation. This is something that needs to be resolved before it is rolled out.
There is no listed launch date, nor has there been any coding revealed that would indicate Apple CarPlay is close to being launched within Tesla vehicles.
California city weighs banning Elon Musk companies like Tesla and SpaceX
Tesla launches new Model 3 financing deal with awesome savings
