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 has apparently revised the policy it previously had listed for Full Self-Driving transfers on the newest All-Wheel-Drive Cybertruck that the company had sold for a steal price of just $59,000 earlier this year.
After initially stating that customers who bought the pickup would be able to transfer FSD purchases, Tesla recently changed the language in those terms and conditions to reflect that this would no longer be the case.
Tesla launches new Cybertruck trim with more features than ever for a low price
The adjustment in terminology has caused a handful of orderers to cancel their reservations due to the loss of FSD transfer:
Just cancelled my 59k CT order today. My screenshot from that day of order (feb 20th) clearly shows that it would be eligible.
Terms were retroactively modified. Our 2020 Y and 2023 S are just fine for now. pic.twitter.com/D9PFnId1B4
— Ryan Scanlan 👥 (@Xenius) June 8, 2026
Tesla said orders for the new Cybertruck AWD must be placed by March 31, 2026, to qualify for the FSD transfer. The language in the document from earlier this year explicitly states that they “may qualify” for the transfer program, but the date of March 31 is explicitly mentioned.
Additionally, Tesla Delivery Advisors reached out to some orderers of the AWD Cybertruck, who were told there was “an update to the eligibility of the Full Self-Driving (Supervised) transfer.” Tesla stated they could:
- proceed without the transfer,
- upgrade to a Premium or Cyberbeast trim and request an FSD Transfer
- cancel the order and be refunded the $250 order fee.
Tesla turning around and changing these terms will undoubtedly result in a handful of cancellations on the part of those who have placed an order for this truck. They could pay $99 per month for an FSD subscription, which is now the only option available, but having purchased the suite outright on another vehicle and being told the transfer policy would be upheld, only to have it cancelled, is a tough pill to swallow.
These moves were also made by Tesla just before deliveries were set to begin on the Cybertruck AWD configuration. Reservation holders have started receiving VINs for their trucks, and Tesla is preparing to hand over the first units.
It’s a disappointing move from Tesla that will undoubtedly make some of its fans who have bought the truck frustrated.
In the world of autonomous ride-hailing, there are only a handful of names. Among those few companies lies a strategy play by each to keep the opposition on their toes. Tesla, on the other hand, already tipped its hand at where it is headed next.
Tesla has signaled its next major push in the autonomous ride-hailing market by filing for an Autonomous Vehicle Network Company permit in Nevada (Docket 26-05015). Through Tesla Robotaxi, LLC, the company seeks approval to operate up to 5,000 robotaxis in Clark County, including high-traffic areas like Las Vegas and Henderson airports, within the first 12 months of launch.
This filing builds on Tesla’s earlier testing approvals from the Nevada DMV in September 2025 and preparations such as maintenance hubs in the Las Vegas area. Nevada represents a strategic expansion into a major tourist destination, where high visitor volumes could drive strong utilization and showcase the reliability of unsupervised autonomy to a broad audience.
We’d have to assume this means Tesla is targeting Las Vegas, and it’s a great move from a business perspective.
Vegas is such a melting pot of people from all around the country and the world. It will expose people from all corners of the globe to Tesla’s autonomy capabilities https://t.co/Qz3fQmhULF pic.twitter.com/Du5pj2RyWC
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 6, 2026
Approval would mark a significant step toward commercial operations in a new state, following progress in Texas.
Tesla’s shareholder decks and earnings calls have clearly outlined these ambitions. In the Q4 2025 shareholder deck, the company listed planned Robotaxi coverage for the first half of 2026, explicitly naming Las Vegas alongside Phoenix, Miami, Orlando, and Tampa, with Dallas and Houston already advancing. Austin was noted as “ramping unsupervised,” while the Bay Area remained in safety-driver mode.
By Q1 2026, the deck updated statuses to reflect launches in Dallas and Houston, with “preparations underway” for the remaining cities, including Las Vegas. Paid Robotaxi miles nearly doubled sequentially in Q1, underscoring momentum even as broader timelines adjusted slightly for regulatory and operational readiness.
On earnings calls, CEO Elon Musk and executives have emphasized a phased rollout prioritizing safety. Unsupervised operations in Texas have shown strong results with no reported accidents or injuries in the program. Tesla continues groundwork in additional major U.S. metros through testing and permitting, positioning it to scale quickly once approvals clear.
This Nevada move aligns with Tesla’s vision of transforming from an EV maker into an AI and robotics leader. The forthcoming Cybercab, which started production at Giga Texas in April, is expected to eventually dominate the fleet, replacing many Model Y vehicles and driving down costs to enable affordable rides.
For investors and the industry, this signals Tesla’s intent to dominate key Sun Belt and tourist markets where weather, regulations, and demand favor rapid scaling. Success in Las Vegas could validate the model for denser urban and high-tourism environments, accelerating the shift toward a future where robotaxis generate meaningful revenue.
Las Vegas will also expand knowledge among the general public at Tesla’s capabilities, helping people experience driverless ride-hailing from several companies during their time on The Strip.
Investor's Corner
Tesla just did something in South Korea that no foreign carmaker has ever done
Tesla’s Model Y just became South Korea’s best-selling car, beating every domestic model in May.
Tesla did something last month that no foreign car has ever done in South Korea by outselling every vehicle in the country, domestic or imported, finishing the month with Model Y as the single best-selling car across the entire Korean market. According to data from the Korea Automobile Importers and Distributors Association released on June 4, the Model Y recorded 8,762 units sold in May, pushing the Kia Sorento into second place at 7,836 units and the Hyundai Grandeur into third at 5,183 units. It is the first time an imported vehicle has outsold every domestic model on a single-month basis.
Tesla imported 10,866 cars into South Korea in May, making it the top import brand for the fourth consecutive month. BMW followed at 6,555 units, less than two-thirds of Tesla’s total, while BYD registered just 1,032 units. The combined domestic sales of GM Korea, Renault Korea, and KG Mobility last month totaled just 7,019 units, meaning a single Tesla model outsold three Korean automakers combined.
Tesla FSD earns high praise in South Korea’s real-world autonomous driving test
South Korea has historically been one of the hardest markets for foreign automakers to crack. Hyundai and Kia together control close to 70% of the overall market and carry deep consumer loyalty built over decades. Tesla’s path into this market was an uphill battle due to high import duties, limited service infrastructure, and early skepticism about charging networks. In 2024, the Model Y was the best-selling imported car in South Korea with 18,717 units for the full year. By 2025, after the Juniper refresh, it cleared 50,000 units and took the top spot among all EVs.
Year to date, Tesla has a 250.8% increase in the country over the same period last year, and now holds a 30.8% share of the entire imported car segment for 2026. EVs as a category represented 48.6% of all imported passenger car registrations in May. As Teslarati has reported, the Juniper refresh brought meaningful improvements to range, interior quality, and ride refinement that addressed the most common criticisms of earlier Model Y versions. Those upgrades appear to be resonating in markets like South Korea where buyers compare Tesla directly against high end domestic competitors.
Tesla revises FSD transfer policy on new Cybertruck trim, causing cancellations
Tesla tipped its hand at where Robotaxi is heading next
