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
Tesla Giga Berlin growth could stall if not “free from external influences”: Elon Musk
The comments were delivered in a pre-recorded video discussion.
Tesla CEO Elon Musk has reportedly warned that future expansion of Gigafactory Berlin could be jeopardized if the site does not remain “free from external influences.”
Musk’s comments were delivered in a pre-recorded video discussion with employees and came at a sensitive moment for the facility, where union representation has been a recurring issue.
According to reports from Handelsblatt and Der Spiegel, citing participants at the event, Musk suggested that if Giga Berlin is no longer “free from external influences,” further expansion would become unlikely. He did not, however, hint that the plant would shut down.
While Musk did not name IG Metall directly, his remarks were widely interpreted as referencing the union, which is currently the largest faction on the works council but does not hold a majority, as noted in an electrive report.
The video conversation was conducted between Musk in Austin and Grünheide plant manager André Thierig, then played back to the workforce in Germany. Works council elections are scheduled for early March, heightening the tension between management and organized labor.
The CEO has previously voiced concerns that stronger union influence could limit Tesla’s operational flexibility and long-term strategy in Germany.
Despite the warning on expansion, Musk praised the Giga Berlin site during the same address, describing it as one of the most advanced factories worldwide and highlighting its cleanliness and team culture.
The discussion also reportedly touched on battery cell production. According to attendees cited in German media, Musk indicated that Tesla has begun ramping cell production at the site. That would mark a notable shift from earlier expectations that large-scale cell manufacturing in Brandenburg would not begin until 2027.
Elon Musk
Tesla Full Self-Driving’s newest behavior is the perfect answer to aggressive cars
According to a recent video, it now appears the suite will automatically pull over if there is a tailgater on your bumper, the most ideal solution for when a driver is riding your bumper.
Tesla Full Self-Driving appears to have a new behavior that is the perfect answer to aggressive drivers.
According to a recent video, it now appears the suite will automatically pull over if there is a tailgater on your bumper, the most ideal solution for when a driver is riding your bumper.
With FSD’s constantly-changing Speed Profiles, it seems as if this solution could help eliminate the need to tinker with driving modes from the person in the driver’s seat. This tends to be one of my biggest complaints from FSD at times.
A video posted on X shows a Tesla on Full Self-Driving pulling over to the shoulder on windy, wet roads after another car seemed to be following it quite aggressively. The car looks to have automatically sensed that the vehicle behind it was in a bit of a hurry, so FSD determined that pulling over and letting it by was the best idea:
Tesla appears to be implementing some sort of feature that will now pull over if someone is tailgating you to let the car by
Really cool feature, definitely get a lot of this from those who think they drive race cars
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) February 26, 2026
We can see from the clip that there was no human intervention to pull over to the side, as the driver’s hands are stationary and never interfere with the turn signal stalk.
This can be used to override some of the decisions FSD makes, and is a great way to get things back on track if the semi-autonomous functionality tries to do something that is either unneeded or not included in the routing on the in-car Nav.
FSD tends to move over for faster traffic on the interstate when there are multiple lanes. On two-lane highways, it will pass slower cars using the left lane. When faster traffic is behind a Tesla on FSD, the vehicle will move back over to the right lane, the correct behavior in a scenario like this.
Perhaps one of my biggest complaints at times with Full Self-Driving, especially from version to version, is how much tinkering Tesla does with Speed Profiles. One minute, they’re suitable for driving on local roads, the next, they’re either too fast or too slow.
When they are too slow, most of us just shift up into a faster setting, but at times, even that’s not enough, see below:
What has happened to Mad Max?
At one point it was going 32 in a 35. Traffic ahead had pulled away considerably https://t.co/bjKvaMVTNX pic.twitter.com/aaZSWmLu5v
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) January 24, 2026
There are times when it feels like it would be suitable for the car to just pull over and let the vehicle that is traveling behind pass. This, at least up until this point, it appears, was something that required human intervention.
Now, it looks like Tesla is trying to get FSD to a point where it just knows that it should probably get out of the way.
Elon Musk
Tesla Megapack powers $1.1B AI data center project in Brazil
By integrating Tesla’s Megapack systems, the facility will function not only as a major power consumer but also as a grid-supporting asset.
Tesla’s Megapack battery systems will be deployed as part of a 400MW AI data center campus in Uberlândia, Brazil. The initiative is described as one of Latin America’s largest AI infrastructure projects.
The project is being led by RT-One, which confirmed that the facility will integrate Tesla Megapack battery energy storage systems (BESS) as part of a broader industrial alliance that includes Hitachi Energy, Siemens, ABB, HIMOINSA, and Schneider Electric. The project is backed by more than R$6 billion (approximately $1.1 billion) in private capital.
According to RT-One, the data center is designed to operate on 100% renewable energy while also reinforcing regional grid stability.
“Brazil generates abundant energy, particularly from renewable sources such as solar and wind. However, high renewable penetration can create grid stability challenges,” RT-One President Fernando Palamone noted in a post on LinkedIn. “Managing this imbalance is one of the country’s growing infrastructure priorities.”
By integrating Tesla’s Megapack systems, the facility will function not only as a major power consumer but also as a grid-supporting asset.
“The facility will be capable of absorbing excess electricity when supply is high and providing stabilization services when the grid requires additional support. This approach enhances resilience, improves reliability, and contributes to a more efficient use of renewable generation,” Palamone added.
The model mirrors approaches used in energy-intensive regions such as California and Texas, where large battery systems help manage fluctuations tied to renewable energy generation.
The RT-One President recently visited Tesla’s Megafactory in Lathrop, California, where Megapacks are produced, as part of establishing the partnership. He thanked the Tesla team, including Marcel Dall Pai, Nicholas Reale, and Sean Jones, for supporting the collaboration in his LinkedIn post.
Tesla Giga Berlin growth could stall if not “free from external influences”: Elon Musk
Tesla Full Self-Driving’s newest behavior is the perfect answer to aggressive cars
