Connect with us

News

Elon Musk’s SolarCity trial day 1: Arguments, quotes, and testy exchanges

Credit: @alex_avoigt | Twitter

Published

on

As he faced a lawsuit from Tesla shareholders about the SolarCity acquisition in 2016, Elon Musk was firm in the notion that he didn’t have any sway over the company’s board when it approved the deal. Musk highlighted this point on Monday, as he testified in a Delaware courtroom as part of a lawsuit filed by Tesla shareholders, who alleged that both the CEO and the company’s board breached fiduciary duties when they decided to acquire SolarCity. 

When SolarCity was acquired by Tesla, Musk was the chair of the company and its largest shareholder. The CEO later noted that the acquisition was a “no brainer,” and it was completed with over 85% of TSLA shareholders voting in favor of the deal. Considering Musk’s ties to SolarCity and the solar installer company’s financial fluctuations at the time, however, critics argued that the deal was essentially a bailout. Musk was also accused of vowing retaliation against any Tesla director who voted against the acquisition. 

According to Musk, Tesla’s now-Chairwoman Robyn Denholm was the one who set the final price of the deal, as well as the terms of the SolarCity acquisition. Musk noted that he was kept abreast on the basic progress of the deal, but he was otherwise recused. The CEO also stated that the notion of him controlling Tesla shareholders was implausible. “I don’t think it’s possible to control” big institutional investors like Fidelity and T. Rowe Price,” Musk said. 

Things heated up when Musk started responding to questions from Randy Baron, the plaintiff’s lawyer who had already traded barbs with the CEO in the past. From the start, Baron gave Musk “fair warning” that “we have a long way to go,” and that his questioning would probably take all day and well into Tuesday. Musk joked, stating that he could tell the questioning would be long due to the size of Baron’s binder. 

As part of his cross-examination, Baron showed a slide showing how far below forecasts was the amount of solar energy Tesla has deployed since its acquisition of SolarCity, especially as the solar provider was one of the US’ most dominant players in the residential solar market before it was integrated with the EV maker. Musk responded that 2017 to 2019 were the “three hardest years of (his) entire career” and that he was working hard to save Tesla at the time. After this, the pandemic shut down government permitting offices, which was a challenge to the US residential solar market. When Baron warned him that things would be really slow if Musk kept elaborating on his answers, the CEO noted that “some of your questions are tricky and deceptive.” 

Advertisement
-->

Musk and Baron’s exchanges only got more heated as the day wore on. When Baron asked Musk if he ever “rage fired” anyone or treated people with derision, the CEO noted that he gives “clear and frank feedback which may be construed as derision,” but he did not “rage fire” anyone. The lawyer then played several clips of Musk’s deposition showing his tense exchanges with the CEO. “That was openly derisive not for some benefit of Tesla, but because you didn’t like what was happening, correct?” Baron asked in an apparent attempt at provoking Musk. 

Musk later said that he does not respect Baron because he worked for Milberg Weiss, a law firm whose partners were imprisoned for paying kickbacks to expert witnesses and plaintiffs; and Robbins Geller, whose partners also ended up incarcerated. “You were mentored by criminals. Then you continued to be mentored by criminals and that is why I do not respect you… I have great respect for the court, but not for you. I think you are a bad human being,” Musk said, later accusing Baron of being a “professional bully” who used his words to cut. “That’s very sad,” the CEO remarked. 

Other loaded exchanges between Musk and Baron happened after the lawyer asked the CEO if he does not like it when people tell him what to do. Musk calmly responded that this was not exactly the case. “In fact, if I’m not mistaken, I view critical feedback as a gift,” Musk stated. This point could be confirmed by Musk’s reception to critical feedback from automotive veteran Sandy Munro, who heavily criticized the Model 3’s design in a teardown. Musk also added that if it were up to him, he would rather just work as an engineer. 

“To be honest, I don’t want to be the boss of anything. I won’t want to be CEO. I tried not to be CEO of Tesla, but I had to, or it would die. I rather hate being a boss. I’m an engineer,” Musk said. 

Amidst Musk’s exchanges with Baron, however, the CEO’s point was clear. SolarCity, like any aggressive startup in a high-growth industry, had a tendency to have negative cash flow. Musk noted that Amazon was an example of this, and so was Tesla, and yet, both companies are thriving now. Simply put, the CEO argued that SolarCity’s financial strains when it was acquired were not out of the norm, as even Tesla was in the same place at the time, and if needed, the solar company could have just raised capital. 

Advertisement
-->

“Daring enterprises burn cash and take risks to achieve something worthwhile, or even great. Tesla was subject to those risks as much as SolarCity was, but that doesn’t mean they weren’t both worthy ventures. So can’t we acknowledge that even my once-stumbling solar efforts are starting to bear fruit?” Musk noted. 

The first day of Elon Musk’s SolarCity trial was adjourned until 9:15 a.m. ET on Tuesday. The CEO is expected to continue his cross-examination with the plaintiff’s lawyer. 

Don’t hesitate to contact us with news tips. Just send a message to tips@teslarati.com to give us a heads up.

Simon is an experienced automotive reporter with a passion for electric cars and clean energy. Fascinated by the world envisioned by Elon Musk, he hopes to make it to Mars (at least as a tourist) someday. For stories or tips--or even to just say a simple hello--send a message to his email, simon@teslarati.com or his handle on X, @ResidentSponge.

Advertisement
Comments

News

Tesla Diner becomes latest target of gloom and doom narrative

Published

on

tesla diner
Credit: Tesla

The Tesla Diner has been subject to many points of criticism since its launch in mid-2025, and skeptics and disbelievers claim the company’s latest novel concept is on its way down, but there’s a lot of evidence to state that is not the case.

The piece cites anecdotal evidence like empty parking lots, more staff than customers during a December visit, removed novelty items, like Optimus robot popcorn service and certain menu items, the departure of celebrity chef Eric Greenspan in November 2025, slow service, high prices, and a shift in recent Google/Yelp reviews toward disappointment.

The piece frames this as part of broader Tesla struggles, including sales figures and Elon Musk’s polarizing image, calling it a failed branding exercise rather than a sustainable restaurant.

This narrative is overstated and sensationalized, and is a good representation of coverage on Tesla by today’s media.

Novelty Fade is Normal, Not Failure

Any hyped launch, especially a unique Tesla-branded destination blending dining, Supercharging, and a drive-in theater, naturally sees initial crowds taper off after the “Instagram effect” wears down.

Tesla makes major change at Supercharger Diner amid epic demand

This is common for experiential spots in Los Angeles, especially pop-up attractions or celebrity-backed venues. The article admits early success with massive lines and social media buzz, but treats the return to normal operations as “dying down.”

In reality, this stabilization is a healthy sign of transitioning from hype-driven traffic to steady patronage.

Actual Performance Metrics Contradict “Ghost Town” Claims

  • In Q4 2025, the Diner generated over $1 million in revenue, exceeding the average McDonald’s location
  • It sold over 30,000 burgers and 83,000 fries in that quarter alone. These figures indicate a strong ongoing business, especially for a single-location prototype focused on enhancing Supercharger experiences rather than competing as a mass-market chain

Conflicting On-the-Ground Reports

While the article, and other similar pieces, describe a half-full parking lot and sparse customers during specific off-peak visits, other recent accounts push back:

  • A January 2026 X post noted 50 of 80 Supercharger stalls were busy at 11 a.m., calling it “the busiest diner in Hollywood by close to an order of magnitude

  • Reddit discussions around the same time describe it as not empty when locals drive by regularly, with some calling the empty narrative “disingenuous anti-Tesla slop.”

Bottom Line

The Tesla Diner, admittedly, is not the nonstop circus it was at launch–that was never sustainable or intended. But, it’s far from “dying” or an “empty pit stop.”

It functions as a successful prototype: boosting Supercharger usage, generating solid revenue, and serving as a branded amenity in the high-traffic EV market of Los Angeles.

Continue Reading

News

Tesla stands to win big from potential adjustment to autonomous vehicle limitations

Enabling scale, innovation, and profitability in a sector that is growing quickly would benefit Tesla significantly, especially as it has established itself as a leader.

Published

on

Credit: Patrick Bean | X

Tesla stands to be a big winner from a potential easing of limitations on autonomous vehicle development, as the United States government could back off from the restrictions placed on companies developing self-driving car programs.

The U.S. House Energy and Commerce subcommittee will hold a hearing later this month that will aim to accelerate the deployment of autonomous vehicles. There are several key proposals that could impact the development of self-driving cars and potentially accelerate the deployment of this technology across the country.

These key proposals include raising the NHTSA’s exemption cap from 2,500 to 90,000 vehicles per year per automaker, preempting state-level regulations on autonomous vehicle systems, and mandating NHTSA guidelines for calibrating advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS).

Congress, to this point, has been divided on AV rules, with past bills like the 2017 House-passed measure stalling in the Senate. Recent pushes come from automakers urging the Trump administration to act faster amid competition from Chinese companies.

Companies like Tesla, who launched a Robotaxi service in Austin and the Bay Area last year, and Alphabet’s Waymo are highlighted as potential beneficiaries from lighter sanctions on AV development.

The NHTSA recently pledged to adopt a quicker exemption review for autonomous vehicle companies, and supporters of self-driving tech argue this will boost U.S. innovation, while critics are concerned about safety and job risks.

How Tesla Could Benefit from the Proposed Legislation

Tesla, under CEO Elon Musk’s leadership, has positioned itself as a pioneer in autonomous driving technology with its Full Self-Driving software and ambitious Robotaxi plans, including the Cybercab, which was unveiled in late 2024.

The draft legislation under consideration by the U.S. House subcommittee could provide Tesla with significant advantages, potentially transforming its operational and financial landscape.

NHTSA Exemption Cap Increase

First, the proposed increase in the NHTSA exemption cap from 2,500 to 90,000 vehicles annually would allow Tesla to scale up development dramatically.

Currently, regulatory hurdles limit how many fully autonomous vehicles can hit the roads without exhaustive approvals. For Tesla, this means accelerating the rollout of its robotaxi fleet, which Musk envisions as a network of millions of vehicles generating recurring revenue through ride-hailing. With Tesla’s vast existing fleet of over 6 million vehicles equipped with FSD hardware, a higher cap could enable rapid conversion and deployment, turning parked cars into profit centers overnight.

Preempting State Regulations

A united Federal framework would be created if it could preempt State regulations, eliminating the patchwork of rules that currently complicate interstate operations. Tesla has faced scrutiny and restrictions in states like California, especially as it has faced harsh criticism through imposed testing limits.

A federal override of State-level rules would reduce legal battles, compliance costs, and delays, allowing Tesla to expand services nationwide more seamlessly.

This is crucial for Tesla’s growth strategy, as it operates in multiple markets and aims for a coast-to-coast Robotaxi network, competing directly with Waymo’s city-specific expansions.

Bringing Safety Standards to the Present Day

Innovation in the passenger transportation sector has continued to outpace both State and Federal-level legislation, which has caused a lag in the development of many things, most notably, self-driving technology.

Updating these outdated safety standards, especially waiving requirements for steering wheels or mirrors, directly benefits Tesla’s innovative designs. Tesla wanted to ship Cybertruck without side mirrors, but Federal regulations required the company to equip the pickup with them.

Cybercab is also planned to be released without a steering wheel or pedals, and is tailored for full autonomy, but current rules would mandate human-ready features.

Streamlined NHTSA reviews would further expedite approvals, addressing Tesla’s complaints about bureaucratic slowdowns. In a letter written in June to the Trump Administration, automakers, including Tesla, urged faster action, and this legislation could deliver it.

In Summary

This legislation represents a potential regulatory tailwind for Tesla, but it still relies on the government to put forth action to make things easier from a regulatory perspective. Enabling scale, innovation, and profitability in a sector that is growing quickly would benefit Tesla significantly, especially as it has established itself as a leader.

Continue Reading

News

Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang explains difference between Tesla FSD and Alpamayo

“Tesla’s FSD stack is completely world-class,” the Nvidia CEO said.

Published

on

Credit: Grok Imagine

NVIDIA CEO Jensen Huang has offered high praise for Tesla’s Full Self-Driving (FSD) system during a Q&A at CES 2026, calling it “world-class” and “state-of-the-art” in design, training, and performance. 

More importantly, he also shared some insights about the key differences between FSD and Nvidia’s recently announced Alpamayo system. 

Jensen Huang’s praise for Tesla FSD

Nvidia made headlines at CES following its announcement of Alpamayo, which uses artificial intelligence to accelerate the development of autonomous driving solutions. Due to its focus on AI, many started speculating that Alpamayo would be a direct rival to FSD. This was somewhat addressed by Elon Musk, who predicted that “they will find that it’s easy to get to 99% and then super hard to solve the long tail of the distribution.”

During his Q&A, Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang was asked about the difference between FSD and Alpamayo. His response was extensive:

“Tesla’s FSD stack is completely world-class. They’ve been working on it for quite some time. It’s world-class not only in the number of miles it’s accumulated, but in the way it’s designed, the way they do training, data collection, curation, synthetic data generation, and all of their simulation technologies. 

Advertisement
-->

“Of course, the latest generation is end-to-end Full Self-Driving—meaning it’s one large model trained end to end. And so… Elon’s AD system is, in every way, 100% state-of-the-art. I’m really quite impressed by the technology. I have it, and I drive it in our house, and it works incredibly well,” the Nvidia CEO said. 

Nvidia’s platform approach vs Tesla’s integration

Huang also stated that Nvidia’s Alpamayo system was built around a fundamentally different philosophy from Tesla’s. Rather than developing self-driving cars itself, Nvidia supplies the full autonomous technology stack for other companies to use.

“Nvidia doesn’t build self-driving cars. We build the full stack so others can,” Huang said, explaining that Nvidia provides separate systems for training, simulation, and in-vehicle computing, all supported by shared software.

He added that customers can adopt as much or as little of the platform as they need, noting that Nvidia works across the industry, including with Tesla on training systems and companies like Waymo, XPeng, and Nuro on vehicle computing.

“So our system is really quite pervasive because we’re a technology platform provider. That’s the primary difference. There’s no question in our mind that, of the billion cars on the road today, in another 10 years’ time, hundreds of millions of them will have great autonomous capability. This is likely one of the largest, fastest-growing technology industries over the next decade.”

Advertisement
-->

He also emphasized Nvidia’s open approach, saying the company open-sources its models and helps partners train their own systems. “We’re not a self-driving car company. We’re enabling the autonomous industry,” Huang said.

Continue Reading