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 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
Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli responded to rumors of an imminent bankruptcy that was reportedly being mulled after a report stated the automaker was working with the firm AlixPartners to iron out its next steps.
The company felt a massive loss on Wall Street yesterday, as the report essentially pushed the stock down as much as 55 percent on Tuesday.
The report, published initially by Eletric-Vehicles.com, claimed Lucid was essentially in dire straits and was told by AlixPartners, a commonly used restructuring advisor, to either take shares private or file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.
Lucid’s head of Communications, Nick Twork, immediately challenged the report and stated the company “has sufficient liquidity to carry its operations well into next year.”
Now, the company’s CEO is chiming in as well, stating that the report is “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Napoli said:
“Lucid is not considering bankruptcy or a transaction to take the company private. Those reports are false. The Board did not explore either scenario. Period.
As disclosed in our most recent quarterly filing, Lucid has sufficient liquidity to fund its operations well into next year.
We work with outside advisors to improve operational performance and execution. They are not advising Lucid on a take-private transaction or bankruptcy, and any suggestion that they have recommended either course of action to management or the Board is false.
My priority is clear: turn this company around. That is where the leadership team and I are focused.
I look forward to providing a full update during our quarterly earnings call on August 4th.”
🚨 Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli calls rumors of financial issues “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Read his full remarks here: https://t.co/t3Pg1NHvzy pic.twitter.com/LvHUPhO4Qf
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 15, 2026
It seems pretty clear that Lucid is confident things will be okay, and, to be honest, they should not have much to worry about, especially considering the company has been backed by the Saudi Public Investment Fund (PIF) for years. It has solid financial backing, and its sales, while weak, are pretty much right on par with a company of this age.
Lucid also sent a Cease & Desist letter to the publication for their report.
Lucid shares have rebounded nicely and are up nearly 21 percent at the time of publication. As soon as the company dispelled the rumors of bankruptcy yesterday, the stock began to climb back toward more reasonable levels.
Tesla has to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
