News
Elon Musk’s SolarCity trial day 1: Arguments, quotes, and testy exchanges
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.”
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.
“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.
Tesla plans to boost production at its Gigafactory Berlin plant in Germany following a sharp rebound in sales and demand in Europe after a softer 2025.
The plans put Tesla in a better position to compete with strengthening companies in Europe and potentially other markets; demand indicators show Tesla is much better off than in 2025.
Last year was a tough year for Tesla in terms of overall demand in Europe. The company produced over 200,000 vehicles at the German plant last year, a soft figure compared to the 375,000 vehicles Tesla lists as its current capacity at the factory.
🚨 Tesla said this morning it will ramp up production at Gigafactory Berlin to a volume of 7,500 vehicles per week.
This is a 20 percent boost in production. Tesla will hire 1,000 new employees to help with the increase.$TSLA pic.twitter.com/kravKfRO5n
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 25, 2026
Tesla’s overall European sales dropped significantly last year due to a variety of factors. However, sales are rebounding, and demand is strong once again, and only getting stronger. Tesla is now planning to bump production of Model Y vehicles at Giga Berlin upward by about 20 percent. It will also bring 1,000 new jobs to the plant.
Tesla confirmed the details of its planned production expansion in Germany this morning. It is a strategy to keep up with strengthening demand.
In Q1, Tesla saw a record 61,000 vehicles produced at Giga Berlin. European registrations rebounded sharply, with Model Y seeing 117 percent increases in March 2026 compared to last year. Germany alone saw stark increases, with a quadrupling in registrations to 9,252 units.
This trend continued in other key European markets, including France, Denmark and Sweden. Tesla registrations were up over 46 percent in some of these markets, and Model Y continued its trend as a top BEV in the market.
Demand has been recovering strongly in 2026, giving Tesla a reason to expand production efforts at the factory. These increases signal management’s confidence in sustained or growing European pull for Berlin-built vehicles.
Tesla is being sued by the family of the woman who was killed in a Texas crash involving a Model 3. The driver, who is also being sued, claimed the vehicle was operating on Autopilot mode, but Tesla executives have come out challenging that claim, stating that the driver of the vehicle overrode the system.
The lawsuit was filed by 76-year-old Martha Avila’s daughter and her husband, who allege a “design defect” involving a Tesla and a failure to warn. The suit alleges negligence against Tesla and the driver, Michael Butler.
Butler “stated he was operating with an automated driving assistance system engaged at the time of the crash,” the Harris County Sheriff’s Office said in a statement. He showed no signs of intoxication and was cooperative, the Sheriff’s Office said, according to NBC News.
Just after reports of the crash and numerous headlines that immediately blamed Tesla’s Autopilot suite, both Tesla CEO Elon Musk and Head of AI Ashok Elluswamy challenged that. Musk said the crash made “no sense” given that Tesla Autopilot and Full Self-Driving do not travel at the speeds the door cameras captured the car traveling at, which Tesla says was 73 MPH.
Tesla finally clarifies fatal Texas crash, confirms driver manually overrode acceleration
Elluswamy also revealed that Tesla data showed Butler overrode the system by pressing the accelerator to 100%, and that the pedal was compressed fully even after the car had crashed. Tesla has not released this data to the public, likely because it is communicating with agencies like the NHTSA on an investigation.
The suit uses a Washington Post analysis of government data that “identified at least 17 fatal incidents linked to Tesla Autopilot.”
This is far from the first time an accident has been blamed on Autopilot. A fatal crash in Texas was blamed on Autopilot several years ago, but when Tesla released data to the NTSB, which was investigating the crash, Autopilot was not available where the crash occurred, and Autosteer was never enabled, meaning the car was manually controlled at the time of the accident.
“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… pic.twitter.com/XGD97NHVZ2
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) March 18, 2026
More information on the accident will be released as Tesla works with agencies to find the cause of the crash. From personal experience, it is hard to imagine Tesla Autopilot or FSD operating in this manner. It drives sometimes too cautiously in residential areas in parking lots, at least in my experience. Speeding happens, but at this rate in this type of area, it is hard to believe.
We look forward to more details being released with time.
The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) has awarded the 2025-2026 Tesla Cybertruck crew cab pickup its highest honor: Top Safety Pick+. This marks the Cybertruck as the only full-size pickup to achieve this distinction in recent evaluations.
The award applies specifically to vehicles built after April 2025, following structural upgrades including front underbody reinforcements and footwell modifications.
These changes enabled strong performance in updated crash tests. The Cybertruck earned “Good” ratings in the small overlap front (driver and passenger sides), updated moderate overlap front, and updated side tests—core requirements for the Top Safety Pick+ designation.
It also secured acceptable or good headlights across trims and a “Good” rating for its standard front crash prevention system in pedestrian scenarios, along with acceptable or good performance in vehicle-to-vehicle testing.
The Cybertruck avoided every single pedestrian collision, including:
- Daytime child crossing
- Nightitime adult crossing
- Night parallel adult
In IIHS pedestrian front crash prevention tests, @Cybertruck avoided every single collision – daytime, nighttime & different angles
It was also the only pickup to earn Top Safety Pick+ (highest award) in 2026https://t.co/BNPqT9TbsW pic.twitter.com/M6nwDisBFK
— Tesla (@Tesla) June 24, 2026
In the large pickup category, competitors such as the Toyota Tundra received only a standard Top Safety Pick, while the Ford F-150 and Ram 1500 did not qualify for either award. This positions the Cybertruck as a standout in occupant protection and crash avoidance among its peers.
Credit: IIHS
Ironically, the same vehicle celebrated for superior U.S. safety performance remains banned from public roads in the United Kingdom and much of Europe. Regulators there cite the Cybertruck’s sharp external edges and highly rigid stainless-steel construction as failing pedestrian-protection standards. European and UK rules require rounded surfaces on protruding parts to minimize injury risk in collisions with vulnerable road users.
Critics also point to the truck’s substantial weight and unyielding body structure, which some argue could transfer more force to other vehicles or pedestrians rather than absorbing it.
Tesla’s engineering philosophy underpins the Cybertruck’s strong IIHS results. The vehicle features a distinctive stainless-steel exoskeleton made from ultra-hard 30X cold-rolled stainless steel. This provides exceptional structural rigidity and a robust safety cage that resists deformation in side impacts and rollovers.
Engineers designed integrated load paths to channel crash forces away from the occupant compartment while allowing controlled energy absorption in key zones. Post-April 2025 refinements to the front underbody further optimized performance in overlap crashes.
Complementing the passive structure is Tesla’s advanced active safety suite, including the standard Collision Avoidance Assist system with automatic emergency braking. This contributed directly to the vehicle’s strong front crash prevention scores. The skateboard platform and low center of gravity also enhance stability and handling, reducing the likelihood of certain crashes.
The IIHS recognition highlights how Tesla’s combination of high-strength materials, structural innovation, and software-driven safety systems can deliver top-tier protection in rigorous testing. While global regulatory differences on design and pedestrian interaction continue to limit the Cybertruck’s availability outside North America, its U.S. safety credentials set a new benchmark for full-size pickups.
Tesla plans production boost at Giga Berlin following rebound in Europe
Tesla and driver sued by family of woman killed in Texas crash: what we know
