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 analyst Gary Black of The Future Fund claims that the company is making a big mistake getting rid of the Model S and Model X. Instead, he believes another vehicle within the company’s lineup should be discontinued: the Cybertruck.
Black divested The Future Fund from all Tesla holdings last year, but he still covers the stock as an analyst as it falls in the technology and autonomy sectors, which he covers.
In a new comment on Thursday, Black said the Cybertruck should be the vehicle Tesla gets rid of due to the negatives it has drawn to the company.
The Cybertruck is also selling in an underwhelming fashion considering the production capacity Tesla has set aside for it. It’s worth noting it is still the best-selling electric pickup on the market, and it has outlasted other EV truck projects as other manufacturers are receding their efforts.
Black said:
“IMHO it’s a mistake to keep Tesla Cybertruck which has negative brand equity and sold 10,000 units last year, and discontinue S/X which have strong repeat brand loyalty and together sold 30K units and are highly profitable. Why not discontinue CT and covert S/X to be fully autonomous?”
IMHO it’s a mistake to keep $TSLA Cybertruck which has negative brand equity and sold 10,000 units last year, and discontinue S/X which have strong repeat brand loyalty and together sold 30K units and are highly profitable. Why not discontinue CT and covert S/X to be fully…
— Gary Black (@garyblack00) January 29, 2026
On Wednesday, CEO Elon Musk confirmed that Tesla planned to transition Model S and Model X production lines at the Fremont Factory to handle manufacturing efforts of the Optimus Gen 3 robot.
Musk said that it was time to wind down the S and X programs “with an honorable discharge,” also noting that the two cars are not major contributors to Tesla’s mission any longer, as its automotive division is more focused on autonomy, which will be handled by Model 3, Model Y, and Cybercab.
Tesla begins Cybertruck deliveries in a new region for the first time
The news has drawn conflicting perspectives, with many Tesla fans upset about the decision, especially as it ends the production of the largest car in the company’s lineup. Tesla’s focus is on smaller ride-sharing vehicles, especially as the vast majority of rides consist of two or fewer passengers.
The S and X do not fit in these plans.
Nevertheless, the Cybertruck fits in Tesla’s future plans. Musk said the pickup will be needed for the transportation of local goods. Musk also said Cybertruck would be transitioned to an autonomous line.
In a groundbreaking new report from Reuters, SpaceX is reportedly discussing merger possibilities with xAI ahead of the space exploration company’s plans to IPO later this year, in what would be a blockbuster move.
The outlet said it would combine rockets and Starlink satellites, as well as the X social media platform and AI project Grok under one roof. The report cites “a person briefed on the matter and two recent company filings seen by Reuters.”
Musk, nor SpaceX or xAI, have commented on the report, so, as of now, it is unconfirmed.
With that being said, the proposed merger would bring shares of xAI in exchange for shares of SpaceX. Both companies were registered in Nevada to expedite the transaction, according to the report.
On January 21, both entities were registered in Nevada. The report continues:
“One of them, a limited liability company, lists SpaceX and Bret Johnsen, the company’s chief financial officer, as managing members, while the other lists Johnsen as the company’s only officer, the filings show.”
The source also stated that some xAI executives could be given the option to receive cash in lieu of SpaceX stock. No agreement has been reached, nothing has been signed, and the timing and structure, as well as other important details, have not been finalized.
SpaceX is valued at $800 billion and is the most valuable privately held company, while xAI is valued at $230 billion as of November. SpaceX could be going public later this year, as Musk has said as recently as December that the company would offer its stock publicly.
The plans could help move along plans for large-scale data centers in space, something Musk has discussed on several occasions over the past few months.
At the World Economic Forum last week, Musk said:
“It’s a no-brainer for building solar-powered AI data centers in space, because as I mentioned, it’s also very cold in space. The net effect is that the lowest cost place to put AI will be space and that will be true within two to three years, three at the latest.”
He also said on X that “the most important thing in the next 3-4 years is data centers in space.”
If the report is true and the two companies end up coming together, it would not be the first time Musk’s companies have ended up coming together. He used Tesla stock to purchase SolarCity back in 2016. Last year, X became part of xAI in a share swap.
Tesla has announced it has hit a major milestone with Full Self-Driving subscriptions, shortly after it said it would exclusively offer the suite without the option to purchase it outright.
Tesla announced on Wednesday during its Q4 Earnings Call for 2025 that it had officially eclipsed the one million subscription mark for its Full Self-Driving suite. This represented a 38 percent increase year-over-year.
This is up from the roughly 800,000 active subscriptions it reported last year. The company has seen significant increases in FSD adoption over the past few years, as in 2021, it reported just 400,000. In 2022, it was up to 500,000 and, one year later, it had eclipsed 600,000.
NEWS: For the first time, Tesla has revealed how many people are subscribed or have purchased FSD (Supervised).
Active FSD Subscriptions:
• 2025: 1.1 million
• 2024: 800K
• 2023: 600K
• 2022: 500K
• 2021: 400K pic.twitter.com/KVtnyANWcs— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) January 28, 2026
In mid-January, CEO Elon Musk announced that the company would transition away from giving the option to purchase the Full Self-Driving suite outright, opting for the subscription program exclusively.
Musk said on X:
“Tesla will stop selling FSD after Feb 14. FSD will only be available as a monthly subscription thereafter.”
The move intends to streamline the Full Self-Driving purchase option, and gives Tesla more control over its revenue, and closes off the ability to buy it outright for a bargain when Musk has said its value could be close to $100,000 when it reaches full autonomy.
It also caters to Musk’s newest compensation package. One tranche requires Tesla to achieve 10 million active FSD subscriptions, and now that it has reached one million, it is already seeing some growth.
The strategy that Tesla will use to achieve this lofty goal is still under wraps. The most ideal solution would be to offer a less expensive version of the suite, which is not likely considering the company is increasing its capabilities, and it is becoming more robust.
Tesla is shifting FSD to a subscription-only model, confirms Elon Musk
Currently, Tesla’s FSD subscription price is $99 per month, but Musk said this price will increase, which seems counterintuitive to its goal of increasing the take rate. With that being said, it will be interesting to see what Tesla does to navigate growth while offering a robust FSD suite.
Tesla analyst claims another vehicle, not Model S and X, should be discontinued
SpaceX reportedly discussing merger with xAI ahead of blockbuster IPO
