A recent letter from the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) states that Tesla lawyers must still pre-approve Elon Musk’s company-related tweets, even though the billionaire won the case centered on his infamous “funding secured” tweet in 2018.
In a letter to the US Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit in New York, the SEC argued that Musk’s earlier settlement with the agency is constitutional and valid. Musk’s settlement followed an SEC investigation into the CEO’s “funding secured” claims in 2018. It was also agreed that tweets containing material Tesla-related information would be reviewed by a lawyer — fondly dubbed the CEO’s “Twitter Sitter” by the internet — before Musk posts them.
Elon Musk’s legal team submitted a brief to a court of appeals in September 2022, seeking relief from what they alleged was a “government-imposed muzzle” that inhibits the CEO’s speech. The appeal came a month after a federal judge denied Musk’s motion to terminate his settlement provision with the SEC.
Earlier this month, a jury found that Elon Musk and Tesla were not liable in a class-action securities fraud trial centered on the CEO’s “funding secured” tweet. Musk’s lawyers then argued earlier this week that the jury verdict should be considered in an appeal against the CEO’s SEC settlement provision.
“In light of the jury finding that Mr. Musk’s tweets did not violate Rule 10b-5, the SEC lacks support both for the consent decree itself and for its arguments on appeal. The verdict provides further reason why the public interest in avoiding unconstitutional settlements easily subsumes the SEC’s purported stake in the consent decree,” Alex Spiro, one of Musk’s lawyers, wrote.
The SEC has responded to Musk’s legal team, arguing that the findings of the jury in a private securities-fraud action does not identify a “pertinent and significant” authority. The SEC also argued that Musk is “reading too much” into his jury verdict.
Following is the SEC’s response.
“Appellant Elon Musk’s letter notifying this Court about a jury verdict in a private securities-fraud action does not identify a ‘pertinent and significant’ authority. Musk waived his opportunity to test the Commission’s allegations at trial when he voluntarily agreed (twice) to a consent judgment. The district court properly rejected his request to alter the judgment because there were no “significant” changes in factual conditions or the law that justified relief under Rule 60(b)(5). Musk asserts that the consent judgment now “lacks support” given “the jury’s finding,” but this is a non-sequitur; the consent judgment was not conditioned upon the outcome of the private litigation.
“Even if the verdict were somehow relevant, Musk reads too much into it. The Commission had no role in that case. Unlike in a Commission action, the private plaintiff had to prove reliance, loss causation, and damages, In re Tesla , Dkt. 655, at 7-17 (jury instructions), and it is unknown whether the verdict turned on elements that would not burden the Commission at trial, id. , Dkt. 671, at 2-3 (verdict form). Moreover, the court instructed the jury to assume that Musk’s tweets “were untrue,” which confirms the discrete point the Commission was making when it referenced the private action in its brief. Id., Dkt. 655, at 7-8.
“Ultimately, the verdict has no bearing on whether the district court correctly declined to grant the extraordinary remedy of altering Musk’s consent judgment years after entry. The verdict says nothing about the continuing public interest in a negotiated settlement term that does not preclude Musk from tweeting accurately about Tesla or other topics, but rather requires Tesla to review Musk’s Tesla-related communications before publication, including through Musk’s Twitter feed—a communication channel designated by Tesla for disclosure. And the verdict does not justify the inapt application of the ‘unconstitutional conditions’ concept to settlements, even if this Court were to overlook Musk’s forfeiture of any arguments regarding that concept,” the SEC wrote.
It remains to be seen whether the court will uphold or dismiss the letter submitted by Musk’s legal team. The appeal is expected to be heard in the spring, although an exact date has not yet been scheduled.
627605104 Letter From US Securities Exchange Commission Feb 22 2023 by Maria Merano on Scribd
The Teslarati team would appreciate hearing from you. If you have any tips, contact me at maria@teslarati.com or via Twitter @Writer_01001101.
Tesla will increase its Full Self-Driving subscription price, meaning it will eventually be more than the current $99 per month price tag it has right now.
Already stating that the ability to purchase the suite outright will be removed, Tesla CEO Elon Musk said earlier this week that the Full Self-Driving subscription price would increase when its capabilities improve:
“I should also mention that the $99/month for supervised FSD will rise as FSD’s capabilities improve. The massive value jump is when you can be on your phone or sleeping for the entire ride (unsupervised FSD).”
This was an expected change, especially as Tesla has been hinting for some time that it is approaching a feature-complete version of Full Self-Driving that will no longer require driver supervision. However, with the increase, some are concerned that they may be priced out.
$99 per month is already a tough ask for some. While Full Self-Driving is definitely worth it just due to the capabilities, not every driver is ready to add potentially 50 percent to their car payment each month to have it.
While Tesla has not revealed any target price for FSD, it does seem that it will go up to at least $150.
I should also mention that the $99/month for supervised FSD will rise as FSD’s capabilities improve.
The massive value jump is when you can be on your phone or sleeping for the entire ride (unsupervised FSD). https://t.co/YDKhXN3aaG
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) January 23, 2026
Additionally, the ability to purchase the suite outright is also being eliminated on February 14, which gives owners another reason to be slightly concerned about whether they will be able to afford to continue paying for Full Self-Driving in any capacity.
Some owners have requested a tiered program, which would allow people to pay for the capabilities they want at a discounted price.
Unsupervised FSD would be the most expensive, and although the company started removing Autopilot from some vehicles, it seems a Supervised FSD suite would still attract people to pay between $49 and $99 per month, as it is very useful.
Tesla will likely release pricing for the Unsupervised suite when it is available, but price increases could still come to the Supervised version as things improve.
This is not the first time Musk has hinted that the price would change with capability improvements, either. He’s been saying it for some time. In 2020, he even said the value of FSD would “probably be somewhere in excess of $100,000.”
The FSD price will continue to rise as the software gets closer to full self-driving capability with regulatory approval. It that point, the value of FSD is probably somewhere in excess of $100,000.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) May 18, 2020
Tesla has chosen to axe the ability to purchase Full Self-Driving outright from a select group of cars just days after CEO Elon Musk announced the company had plans to eliminate that option in February.
The company is making a clear-cut stand that it will fully transition away from the ability to purchase the Full Self-Driving suite outright, a move that has brought differing opinions throughout the Tesla community.
Earlier this week, the company also announced that it will no longer allow buyers to purchase Full Self-Driving outright when ordering a pre-owned vehicle from inventory. Instead, that will be available for $99 per month, the same price that it costs for everyone else.
The ability to buy the suite for $8,000 for a one-time fee at the time of order has been removed:
NEWS: Tesla no longer allows buyers to purchase FSD outright in the U.S. when ordering a pre-owned vehicle directly from inventory. Tesla now gives you the option to either subscribe for $99/month, or purchase FSD outright after taking delivery (available until February 14th). pic.twitter.com/1xZ0BVG4JB
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) January 23, 2026
This is a major move because it is the first time Tesla is eliminating the ability to purchase FSD outright for one flat fee to any of its vehicles, at least at the time of purchase.
It is trying to phase out the outright purchase option as much as it can, preparing people for the subscription-based service it will exclusively offer starting on February 14.
In less than a month, it won’t be available on any vehicle, which has truly driven some serious conversation from Tesla owners throughout the community.
There’s a conflict, because many believe that they will now lose the ability to buy FSD and not pay for it monthly, which is an attractive offer. However, others believe, despite paying $8,000 for FSD, that they will have to pay more money on top of that cost to get the unsupervised suite.
Additionally, CEO Elon Musk said that the FSD suite’s subscription price would increase over time as capabilities increase, which is understandable, but is also quite a conflict for those who spent thousands to have what was once promised to them, and now they may have to pay even more money.
News
Tesla Robotaxi has a highly-requested hardware feature not available on typical Model Ys
These camera washers are crucial for keeping the operation going, as they are the sole way Teslas operate autonomously. The cameras act as eyes for the car to drive, recognize speed limit and traffic signs, and travel safely.
Tesla Robotaxi has a highly-requested hardware feature that is not available on typical Model Ys that people like you and me bring home after we buy them. The feature is something that many have been wanting for years, especially after the company adopted a vision-only approach to self-driving.
After Tesla launched driverless Robotaxi rides to the public earlier this week in Austin, people have been traveling to the Lone Star State in an effort to hopefully snag a ride from one of the few vehicles in the fleet that are now no longer required to have Safety Monitors present.
BREAKING: Tesla launches public Robotaxi rides in Austin with no Safety Monitor
Although only a few of those completely driverless rides are available, there have been some new things seen on these cars that are additions from regular Model Ys, including the presence of one new feature: camera washers.
With the Model Y, there has been a front camera washer, but the other exterior “eyes” have been void of any solution for this. For now, owners are required to clean them manually.
In Austin, Tesla is doing things differently. It is now utilizing camera washers on the side repeater and rear bumper cameras, which will keep the cameras clean and keep operation as smooth and as uninterrupted as possible:
🚨 Tesla looks to have installed Camera Washers on the side repeater cameras on Robotaxis in Austin
pic.twitter.com/xemRtDtlRR— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) January 23, 2026
Rear Camera Washer on Tesla Robotaxi pic.twitter.com/P9hgGStHmV
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) January 24, 2026
These camera washers are crucial for keeping the operation going, as they are the sole way Teslas operate autonomously. The cameras act as eyes for the car to drive, recognize speed limit and traffic signs, and travel safely.
This is the first time we are seeing them, so it seems as if Safety Monitors might have been responsible for keeping the lenses clean and unobstructed previously.
However, as Tesla transitions to a fully autonomous self-driving suite and Robotaxi expands to more vehicles in the Robotaxi fleet, it needed to find a way to clean the cameras without any manual intervention, at least for a short period, until they can return for interior and exterior washing.
Tesla to increase Full Self-Driving subscription price: here’s when
Tesla starts removing outright Full Self-Driving purchase option at time of order
