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.
News
Tesla is not sparing any expense in ensuring the Cybercab is safe
Images shared by the longtime watcher showed 16 Cybercab prototypes parked near Giga Texas’ dedicated crash test facility.
The Tesla Cybercab could very well be the safest taxi on the road when it is released and deployed for public use. This was, at least, hinted at by the intensive safety tests that Tesla seems to be putting the autonomous two-seater through at its Giga Texas crash test facility.
Intensive crash tests
As per recent images from longtime Giga Texas watcher and drone operator Joe Tegtmeyer, Tesla seems to be very busy crash testing Cybercab units. Images shared by the longtime watcher showed 16 Cybercab prototypes parked near Giga Texas’ dedicated crash test facility just before the holidays.
Tegtmeyer’s aerial photos showed the prototypes clustered outside the factory’s testing building. Some uncovered Cybercabs showed notable damage and one even had its airbags engaged. With Cybercab production expected to start in about 130 days, it appears that Tesla is very busy ensuring that its autonomous two-seater ends up becoming the safest taxi on public roads.
Prioritizing safety
With no human driver controls, the Cybercab demands exceptional active and passive safety systems to protect occupants in any scenario. Considering Tesla’s reputation, it is then understandable that the company seems to be sparing no expense in ensuring that the Cybercab is as safe as possible.
Tesla’s focus on safety was recently highlighted when the Cybertruck achieved a Top Safety Pick+ rating from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS). This was a notable victory for the Cybertruck as critics have long claimed that the vehicle will be one of, if not the, most unsafe truck on the road due to its appearance. The vehicle’s Top Safety Pick+ rating, if any, simply proved that Tesla never neglects to make its cars as safe as possible, and that definitely includes the Cybercab.
Elon Musk
Tesla’s Elon Musk gives timeframe for FSD’s release in UAE
Provided that Musk’s timeframe proves accurate, FSD would be able to start saturating the Middle East, starting with the UAE, next year.
Tesla CEO Elon Musk stated on Monday that Full Self-Driving (Supervised) could launch in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) as soon as January 2026.
Provided that Musk’s timeframe proves accurate, FSD would be able to start saturating the Middle East, starting with the UAE, next year.
Musk’s estimate
In a post on X, UAE-based political analyst Ahmed Sharif Al Amiri asked Musk when FSD would arrive in the country, quoting an earlier post where the CEO encouraged users to try out FSD for themselves. Musk responded directly to the analyst’s inquiry.
“Hopefully, next month,” Musk wrote. The exchange attracted a lot of attention, with numerous X users sharing their excitement at the idea of FSD being brought to a new country. FSD (Supervised), after all, would likely allow hands-off highway driving, urban navigation, and parking under driver oversight in traffic-heavy cities such as Dubai and Abu Dhabi.
Musk’s comments about FSD’s arrival in the UAE were posted following his visit to the Middle Eastern country. Over the weekend, images were shared online of Musk meeting with UAE Defense Minister, Deputy Prime Minister, and Dubai Crown Prince HH Sheikh Hamdan bin Mohammed. Musk also posted a supportive message about the country, posting “UAE rocks!” on X.
FSD recognition
FSD has been getting quite a lot of support from foreign media outlets. FSD (Supervised) earned high marks from Germany’s largest car magazine, Auto Bild, during a test in Berlin’s challenging urban environment. The demonstration highlighted the system’s ability to handle dense traffic, construction sites, pedestrian crossings, and narrow streets with smooth, confident decision-making.
Journalist Robin Hornig was particularly struck by FSD’s superior perception and tireless attention, stating: “Tesla FSD Supervised sees more than I do. It doesn’t get distracted and never gets tired. I like to think I’m a good driver, but I can’t match this system’s all-around vision. It’s at its best when both work together: my experience and the Tesla’s constant attention.” Only one intervention was needed when the system misread a route, showcasing its maturity while relying on vision-only sensors and over-the-air learning.
News
Tesla quietly flexes FSD’s reliability amid Waymo blackout in San Francisco
“Tesla Robotaxis were unaffected by the SF power outage,” Musk wrote in his post.
Tesla highlighted its Full Self-Driving (Supervised) system’s robustness this week by sharing dashcam footage of a vehicle in FSD navigating pitch-black San Francisco streets during the city’s widespread power outage.
While Waymo’s robotaxis stalled and caused traffic jams, Tesla’s vision-only approach kept operating seamlessly without remote intervention. Elon Musk amplified the clip, highlighting the contrast between the two systems.
Tesla FSD handles total darkness
The @Tesla_AI account posted a video from a Model Y operating on FSD during San Francisco’s blackout. As could be seen in the video, streetlights, traffic signals, and surrounding illumination were completely out, but the vehicle drove confidently and cautiously, just like a proficient human driver.
Musk reposted the clip, adding context to reports of Waymo vehicles struggling in the same conditions. “Tesla Robotaxis were unaffected by the SF power outage,” Musk wrote in his post.
Musk and the Tesla AI team’s posts highlight the idea that FSD operates a lot like any experienced human driver. Since the system does not rely on a variety of sensors and a complicated symphony of factors, vehicles could technically navigate challenging circumstances as they emerge. This definitely seemed to be the case in San Francisco.
Waymo’s blackout struggles
Waymo faced scrutiny after multiple self-driving Jaguar I-PACE taxis stopped functioning during the blackout, blocking lanes, causing traffic jams, and requiring manual retrieval. Videos shared during the power outage showed fleets of Waymo vehicles just stopping in the middle of the road, seemingly confused about what to do when the lights go out.
In a comment, Waymo stated that its vehicles treat nonfunctional signals as four-way stops, but “the sheer scale of the outage led to instances where vehicles remained stationary longer than usual to confirm the state of the affected intersections. This contributed to traffic friction during the height of the congestion.”
A company spokesperson also shared some thoughts about the incidents. “Yesterday’s power outage was a widespread event that caused gridlock across San Francisco, with non-functioning traffic signals and transit disruptions. While the failure of the utility infrastructure was significant, we are committed to ensuring our technology adjusts to traffic flow during such events,” the Waymo spokesperson stated, adding that it is “focused on rapidly integrating the lessons learned from this event, and are committed to earning and maintaining the trust of the communities we serve every day.”
Tesla is not sparing any expense in ensuring the Cybercab is safe
Tesla’s Elon Musk gives timeframe for FSD’s release in UAE
