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
SpaceX just launched a secret payload from California
SpaceX launched a classified Space Force mission from Vandenberg, revealing almost nothing about its payload.
SpaceX launched a classified Falcon 9 mission for the U.S. Space Force from Vandenberg Space Force Base on Saturday night, and the government released almost nothing about what was on board. The mission, designated USSF-366, lifted off from Space Launch Complex 4E with a window that opened at 9:52 p.m. ET and ran into the early hours of Sunday, according to SpaceX’s own mission page, which described the payload only as classified. SpaceX confirmed the launch on its X account and pointed viewers to a livestream that began roughly ten minutes before liftoff.
Watch Falcon 9 launch the USSF-366 mission from pad 4E in California https://t.co/FFEzeYOds1
— SpaceX (@SpaceX) August 16, 2026
The lack of detail did not stop analysts from filling in the blanks. Independent tracking of the rocket’s stage drop zones matched the pattern SpaceX has used on previous Starlink Group 15 missions, according to reporting from Outer Space Today, which pointed to Starshield as the likely payload rather than a one off government satellite. Starshield is SpaceX’s national security product, a version of the Starlink satellite bus built to Pentagon specifications for earth observation, communications and hosted payloads. Unlike consumer Starlink, government agencies do not have to disclose what Starshield satellites are actually doing once they reach orbit.
USSF-366 is the latest entry in a steady flow of classified and semi classified work between SpaceX and the Space Force. The company picked up a $178.5 million task order in April to launch missile tracking satellites for the Space Development Agency, as Teslarati reported at the time, and followed that in July with a $1.6 billion award covering 18 more Falcon 9 missions from Vandenberg through the end of 2027, also detailed by Teslarati. Add those contracts up and SpaceX’s Pentagon business for 2026 alone tops $8 billion.
SpaceX scores another massive Pentagon deal to support military satellites
The Falcon 9 that flew Saturday landed back near the launch site, producing the sonic booms that have become routine for residents near Vandenberg. What is less routine is how little the public will likely ever learn about what the rocket carried. SpaceX and the Space Force have not confirmed the Starshield connection, and government satellite programs built on commercial buses rarely get identified beyond a mission number and a general orbit. For a company that live streams almost everything else it does, from Starship test flights to Optimus robot demos, USSF-366 is a reminder that some of SpaceX’s busiest work now happens entirely out of public view.
-
On Friday, Tesla launched the Outlet Adapter that enabled Vehicle-to-Load (V2L) energy transfer, meaning owners could essentially utilize their cars as a power source for things like laptops, electric grills, or string lights.
However, even owners of some of the newest builds of the Model Y are finding out that their cars are not compatible with the new $80 accessory, stirring up a new complaint among members of the community.
Tesla launches V2L Outlet Adapter for Premium Model Y in the U.S.
Upon the release of the Outlet Adapter on Friday, I signed into my Tesla account to order the accessory. However, I was met with the dreaded “This product is not compatible with your 2026 Model Y” message at the bottom of the screen.
Some said their accounts also displayed the same message, but they ordered anyway. However, they might be surprised to find that this is no mistake; some of the newest Model Ys do not have the appropriate Power Conversion System (PCS). Mine, which was ordered on this day last year and delivered on August 31, has the old 48A, single-phase PCS.
Vehicles with the new, two-piece PCS are able to utilize V2L features on their cars:
🚨 Looks like you can hit the Parts Catalog and enter your VIN and check to see if your Model Y will be able to use the adapter for V2L.https://t.co/QA9zRk7n2k
h/t to @SawyerMerritt for finding this out.
-I am sad but this isn’t a huge loss. https://t.co/AYpI12QVV9 pic.twitter.com/LRFSrtRywo
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) August 16, 2026
Obviously, it’s disappointing. Many owners have taken delivery this year and still can not utilize the Outlet Adapter because their cars feature the old PCS:
Took delivery in February of 2026. I have the older one, so not going to work for me pic.twitter.com/RcOVq8gvvT
— Russell (@QuietTesla) August 16, 2026
It looks like if you have one of these older PCS units, you can upgrade, but the parts alone are $1,750, and that’s before Tesla adds labor for installing. It is honestly more logical to get some kind of portable power supply or power station at that point.
-
It is great that Tesla has enabled V2L for Model Y vehicles, but it is also unfortunate that vehicles that are less than one year old are not able to take advantage of this awesome new feature.
With that being said, it truly is a first-world problem; can you really complain when Full Self-Driving is available, maintenance is incredibly inexpensive, and the car has been so good through a year of ownership?
Tesla has launched a new Vehicle-to-Load (V2L) Outlet Adapter for Premium Model Y vehicles in the United States, meaning you can now power devices like laptops or light strings with your vehicle’s battery.
It appears the capability will be available for any Model Y Premium trim, including those that were purchased prior to the Adapter being launched. It will also only impact Juniper Model Y vehicles, so the first-gen owners will unfortunately not have access to this capability.
If your Model Y was purchased before Tesla renamed the trim levels to “Premium” and “Standard,” it does not seem to be compatible. My Model Y is technically a Premium build, as it is the Long Range All-Wheel-Drive. However, Tesla says it is not compatible with my vehicle.
🚨 Tesla has launched the Outlet Adapter for Model Y Premium in the U.S., enabling V2L capability for all Premium trims (that’s what it appears to be as it is available for purchase with all Premium trims)
It’s available for $80. 2.4kW max power and rated for 120v, 20A pic.twitter.com/lDxlVIk5s8
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) August 14, 2026
For $80, you can now utilize your car as a portable charger for small appliances or devices. This is perfect for things like tailgates, concerts, or camping, as you can now plug in devices that you might use. Those string lights for camping? That laptop for the other games that are on at the tailgate?
-
They’ll both utilize energy from your Tesla’s battery to be powered. This is the first time Tesla has expanded the capability to vehicles outside of the Model Y Performance and Cybertruck. However, this feature has been highly requested by owners for an extended period of time.
Tesla launched the Outlet Adapter in China last year:
Tesla China rolls out Model Y L V2L adapter, and it’s free for early owners
You will need the Mobile Connector to operate the Outlet Adapter: the Outlet Adapter will plug into the main housing of the Mobile Connector, where the appropriate adapter to charge your vehicle will plug in.
It is rated for 120 volts and 20 amps, and has a max power rating of 2.4kW.
You can buy it here from Tesla for $80.
-
SpaceX just launched a secret payload from California
Tesla V2L adapter for Model Y stirs up a new complaint among owners
