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.
Elon Musk has acknowledged that early discussions with Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) could bring the company into his ambitious Terafab semiconductor project, signaling a possible partnership with the world’s leading contract chipmaker.
Musk confirmed that early talks are underway, but as of right now, they are “just discussions.” There is no confirmation of a deal nor dismissal of the possibility of one, leaving open the prospect of one of the largest advanced-chip collaborations under discussion in the U.S.
@wholemars Just discussions, but something may come of it
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 3, 2026
The report that speculated on potential discussions between Terafab and TSMC comes from Tim Culpan, who outlined a few ways the collaboration could operate. One is TSMC using the project as an “anchor customer” for future facilities in Texas, potentially contributing process expertise, operational know-how, or capacity while Terafab provides capital, long-term purchase commitments, or both.
Tesla and SpaceX jointly developed the Terafab project, with Intel already participating on the tech side. Elon Musk announced the project in March, and it intends to produce more than one terawatt of AI compute capacity annually once fully built.
Company statements place the first phase at approximately $16.8 billion in cost, with later filings pointing to a total that could reach well into the tens of billions across multiple stages.
Intel joined the effort in April 2026 and is expected to supply its 14A manufacturing process for the full-scale plant.
Musk has said existing suppliers, including Samsung and TSMC, remain important for near-term needs; Tesla already has production arrangements with Samsung for AI5 and AI6 chips, but that future demand from Optimus robots, Cybercab vehicles, and planned space-based data centers will eventually exceed what the global industry can currently deliver.
Terafab is positioned as the long-term answer to that projected shortfall, and Tesla did something similar during COVID to avoid a chip shortage. This is just a much larger-scale solution.
If the partnership were to materialize, it would add TSMC’s industry-leading strategies to a project that already combines Tesla’s and SpaceX’s capital and offtake with Intel’s process technology. For now, the only public confirmation is Musk’s brief acknowledgement that conversations are occurring.
Tesla’s early strategy for charging units operating within its Robotaxi fleet reveals that the company surely has not lost any of that scrappy DNA that took it from an unlikely success story to the most valuable carmaker in the world.
An observer at a Tesla Supercharger in Austin spotted ten total Robotaxi vehicles arrive: one Cybercab and nine Model Y units. A Tesla employee was waiting at the lot and allowed each unit to park itself; every car that arrived had nobody in it.
Tesla wins FCC approval for wireless Cybercab charging system
The Tesla employee would walk around and plug each car in, adjusting the parking if needed:
So look at what I found. This is how Tesla charges unsupervised robotaxis at a public supercharger. Here is a driverless Cybercab showing up with no one in it. There are 9 other Model Ys that showed up too. A Tesla employee is walking around and plugging each of them in. She also moves the cars if they are not positioned well enough to charge. I love this process. One person charges multiple robotaxis at once
— Abhimanyu Yadav (@WorldlyReviewer) October 3, 2026
It’s a very interesting strategy, but extremely understandable at this early point in the Robotaxi program. It’s only been out for about 15 months, and Cybercab just entered the fleet in early September.
On top of that, Tesla is still working tirelessly on its wireless charging apparatus, and a new patent was just published regarding that product last week.
However, this is just another example of how Tesla still has plenty of that scrappy DNA leftover from the “production hell” days, when CEO Elon Musk slept on the floor of the factory, employees were working crazy hours, Tesla was building Sprung Structures to build cars in, and the company was tiptoeing on the brink of bankruptcy.
@Teslarati Sheer magnitude of the entire production system is hard to appreciate. Almost every element of production is >75% automated. Only wire harnesses & general assembly, which are <10% of production costs, are primarily manual.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 12, 2020
For now, Tesla is utilizing a simple system for recharging its ride-hailing vehicles, and that is a Tesla employee doing it manually until another solution presents itself. Sure, it’s not the most high-tech thing, and it certainly is not what people might have expected at this point in time, but it works, and it’s keeping the entire suite running.
Tesla is expanding its Robotaxi service hours by pushing the time back by one hour, keeping the ride-hailing service operational until 11 p.m., one hour later than previously.
CEO Elon Musk confirmed the change and offered a specific reason the expansion has been gradual: the system still needs to reliably avoid small pets that are difficult to see after dark, as they commonly blend into the color of the road, especially when they’re grey.
The latest adjustment restores only a fraction of the operating window the service once held. When paid Robotaxi rides began in Austin on June 22, 2025, vehicles ran from 6 a.m. to midnight.
In September 2025, Tesla lengthened the day to a 2 a.m. close, producing a 20-hour window that stayed in place for most of the following year. By early August of this year, the cutoff had already been pulled back; an August 26 update formalized hours of 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. across Austin and several other markets.
The October move to 11 p.m. therefore leaves the Austin day one hour shorter than the original launch schedule and three hours shorter than the 2025 peak.
Musk addressed the constraint directly after the announcement. “The main thing we’re trying to solve is making sure that we don’t run over pets when they’re hard to see at night,” he wrote. “Literally trying to avoid grey kittens on grey tarmac in the dark.”
Robotaxi operating hours moved from 10pm to 11pm.
The main thing we’re trying to solve is making sure that we don’t run over pets when they’re hard to see at night. Literally trying to avoid grey kittens on grey tarmac in the dark.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 3, 2026
The example points to a low-contrast perception problem in which a small animal can blend into the road surface under limited lighting.
Tesla’s vehicles rely on cameras and neural-network processing rather than lidar; Musk has previously argued that advanced vision software can extract useful information even in low light by analyzing photon counts, but the pet-detection case remains the stated limiter in later hours.
The modest schedule change arrives alongside faster growth in the purpose-built Cybercab fleet. Texas registration data tracked by observers showed the Austin Cybercab count rising sharply in recent weeks, reaching 169 vehicles after more than 100 were added in a short span.
Tesla has indicated that a broader shift toward 24-hour operation is tied to the upcoming FSD v15 software release expected this month on Robotaxi vehicles. Until that capability is validated for the edge cases Musk described, the company continues to add service time incrementally rather than jumping straight to overnight coverage.
The one-hour extension gives Austin riders a later option for evening trips while the underlying detection work continues.
Elon Musk teases TSMC as potential Terafab partner
Tesla reveals early Robotaxi charging strategy, showing scrappy DNA
