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
Ford is charging for a basic EV feature on the Mustang Mach-E
When ordering a new Ford Mustang Mach-E, you’ll now be hit with an additional fee for one basic EV feature: the frunk.
Ford is charging an additional fee for a basic EV feature on its Mustang Mach-E, its most popular electric vehicle offering.
Ford has shuttered its initial Model e program, but is venturing into a more controlled and refined effort, and it is abandoning the F-150 Lightning in favor of a new pickup that is currently under design, but appears to have some favorable features.
However, ordering a new Mustang Mach-E now comes with an additional fee for one basic EV feature: the frunk.
The frunk is the front trunk, and due to the lack of a large engine in the front of an electric vehicle, OEMs are able to offer additional storage space under the hood. There’s one problem, though, and that is that companies appear to be recognizing that they can remove it for free while offering the function for a fee.
Ford is now charging $495 on the Mustang Mach-E frunk (front trunk). What are your thoughts on that? pic.twitter.com/EOzZe3z9ZQ
— Alan of TesCalendar 📆⚡️ (@TesCalendar1) February 24, 2026
Ford is charging $495 for the frunk.
Interestingly, the frunk size varies by vehicle, but the Mustang Mach-E features a 4.7 to 4.8 cubic-foot-sized frunk, which measures approximately 9 inches deep, 26 inches wide, and 14 inches high.
When the vehicle was first released, Ford marketed the frunk as the ultimate tailgating feature, showing it off as a perfect place to store and serve cold shrimp cocktail.
Ford Mach-E frunk is perfect for chowders and chicken wings, and we’re not even joking
It appears the decision to charge for what is a simple advantage of an EV is not going over well, as even Ford loyal customers say the frunk is a “basic expectation” of an EV. Without it, it seems as if fans feel the company is nickel-and-diming its customers.
It will be pretty interesting to see the Mach-E without a frunk, and while it should not be enough to turn people away from potentially buying the vehicle, it seems the decision to add an additional charge to include one will definitely annoy some customers.
News
Tesla to improve one of its best features, coding shows
According to the update, Tesla will work on improving the headlights when coming into contact with highly reflective objects, including road signs, traffic signs, and street lights. Additionally, pixel-level dimming will happen in two stages, whereas it currently performs with just one, meaning on or off.
Tesla is looking to upgrade its Matrix Headlights, a unique and high-tech feature that is available on several of its vehicles. The headlights aim to maximize visibility for Tesla drivers while being considerate of oncoming traffic.
The Matrix Headlights Tesla offers utilize dimming of individual light pixels to ensure that visibility stays high for those behind the wheel, while also being considerate of other cars by decreasing the brightness in areas where other cars are traveling.
Here’s what they look like in action:
-
- Credit: u/ObjectiveScratch | Reddit
-
- Credit: u/ObjectiveScratch | Reddit
As you can see, the Matrix headlight system intentionally dims the area where oncoming cars would be impacted by high beams. This keeps visibility at a maximum for everyone on the road, including those who could be hit with bright lights in their eyes.
There are still a handful of complaints from owners, however, but Tesla appears to be looking to resolve these with the coming updates in a Software Version that is currently labeled 2026.2.xxx. The coding was spotted by X user BERKANT:
🚨 Tesla is quietly upgrading Matrix headlights.
Software https://t.co/pXEklQiXSq reveals a hidden feature:
matrix_two_stage_reflection_dip
This is a major step beyond current adaptive high beams.
What it means:
• The car detects highly reflective objects
Road signs,… pic.twitter.com/m5UpQJFA2n— BERKANT (@Tesla_NL_TR) February 24, 2026
According to the update, Tesla will work on improving the headlights when coming into contact with highly reflective objects, including road signs, traffic signs, and street lights. Additionally, pixel-level dimming will happen in two stages, whereas it currently performs with just one, meaning on or off.
Finally, the new system will prevent the high beams from glaring back at the driver. The system is made to dim when it recognizes oncoming cars, but not necessarily objects that could produce glaring issues back at the driver.
Tesla’s revolutionary Matrix headlights are coming to the U.S.
This upgrade is software-focused, so there will not need to be any physical changes or upgrades made to Tesla vehicles that utilize the Matrix headlights currently.
Elon Musk
xAI’s Grok approved for Pentagon classified systems: report
Under the agreement, Grok can be deployed in systems handling classified intelligence analysis, weapons development, and battlefield operations.
Elon Musk’s xAI has signed an agreement with the United States Department of Defense (DoD) to allow Grok to be used in classified military systems.
Previously, Anthropic’s Claude had been the only AI system approved for the most sensitive military work, but a dispute over usage safeguards has reportedly prompted the Pentagon to broaden its options, as noted in a report from Axios.
Under the agreement, Grok can be deployed in systems handling classified intelligence analysis, weapons development, and battlefield operations.
The publication reported that xAI agreed to the Pentagon’s requirement that its technology be usable for “all lawful purposes,” a standard Anthropic has reportedly resisted due to alleged ethical restrictions tied to mass surveillance and autonomous weapons use.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is scheduled to meet with Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei in what sources expect to be a tense meeting, with the publication hinting that the Pentagon could designate Anthropic a “supply chain risk” if the company does not lift its safeguards.
Axios stated that replacing Claude fully might be technically challenging even if xAI or other alternative AI systems take its place. That being said, other AI systems are already in use by the DoD.
Grok already operates in the Pentagon’s unclassified systems alongside Google’s Gemini and OpenAI’s ChatGPT. Google is reportedly close to an agreement that will result in Gemini being used for classified use, while OpenAI’s progress toward classified deployment is described as slower but still feasible.
The publication noted that the Pentagon continues talks with several AI companies as it prepares for potential changes in classified AI sourcing.
Ford is charging for a basic EV feature on the Mustang Mach-E
Tesla to improve one of its best features, coding shows
