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
Tesla dispels reports of ‘sales suspension’ in California
“This was a “consumer protection” order about the use of the term “Autopilot” in a case where not one single customer came forward to say there’s a problem.
Sales in California will continue uninterrupted.”
Tesla has dispelled reports that it is facing a thirty-day sales suspension in California after the state’s Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) issued a penalty to the company after a judge ruled it “misled consumers about its driver-assistance technology.”
On Tuesday, Bloomberg reported that the California DMV was planning to adopt the penalty but decided to put it on ice for ninety days, giving Tesla an opportunity to “come into compliance.”
Tesla enters interesting situation with Full Self-Driving in California
Tesla responded to the report on Tuesday evening, after it came out, stating that this was a “consumer protection” order that was brought up over its use of the term “Autopilot.”
The company said “not one single customer came forward to say there’s a problem,” yet a judge and the DMV determined it was, so they want to apply the penalty if Tesla doesn’t oblige.
However, Tesla said that its sales operations in California “will continue uninterrupted.”
It confirmed this in an X post on Tuesday night:
This was a “consumer protection” order about the use of the term “Autopilot” in a case where not one single customer came forward to say there’s a problem.
Sales in California will continue uninterrupted.
— Tesla North America (@tesla_na) December 17, 2025
The report and the decision by the DMV and Judge involved sparked outrage from the Tesla community, who stated that it should do its best to get out of California.
One X post said California “didn’t deserve” what Tesla had done for it in terms of employment, engineering, and innovation.
Tesla has used Autopilot and Full Self-Driving for years, but it did add the term “(Supervised)” to the end of the FSD suite earlier this year, potentially aiming to protect itself from instances like this one.
This is the first primary dispute over the terminology of Full Self-Driving, but it has undergone some scrutiny at the federal level, as some government officials have claimed the suite has “deceptive” naming. Previous Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg was vocally critical of the use of the name “Full Self-Driving,” as well as “Autopilot.”
News
New EV tax credit rule could impact many EV buyers
We confirmed with a Tesla Sales Advisor that any current orders that have the $7,500 tax credit applied to them must be completed by December 31, meaning delivery must take place by that date. However, it is unclear at this point whether someone could still claim the credit when filing their tax returns for 2025 as long as the order reflects an order date before September 30.
Tesla owners could be impacted by a new EV tax credit rule, which seems to be a new hoop to jump through for those who benefited from the “extension,” which allowed orderers to take delivery after the loss of the $7,500 discount.
After the Trump Administration initiated the phase-out of the $7,500 EV tax credit, many were happy to see the rules had been changed slightly, as deliveries could occur after the September 30 cutoff as long as orders were placed before the end of that month.
However, there appears to be a new threshold that EV buyers will have to go through, and it will impact their ability to get the credit, at least at the Point of Sale, for now.
Delivery must be completed by the end of the year, and buyers must take possession of the car by December 31, 2025, or they will lose the tax credit. The U.S. government will be closing the tax credit portal, which allows people to claim the credit at the Point of Sale.
🚨UPDATE: $7,500 Tax Credit Portal “Closes By End of Year”.
This is bad news for pending Tesla buyers (MYP) looking to lock in the $7,500 Tax Credit.
“it looks like the portal closes by end of the year so there be no way for us to guarantee the funds however, we will try our… pic.twitter.com/LnWiaXL30k
— DennisCW | wen my L (@DennisCW_) December 15, 2025
We confirmed with a Tesla Sales Advisor that any current orders that have the $7,500 tax credit applied to them must be completed by December 31, meaning delivery must take place by that date.
However, it is unclear at this point whether someone could still claim the credit when filing their tax returns for 2025 as long as the order reflects an order date before September 30.
If not, the order can still go through, but the buyer will not be able to claim the tax credit, meaning they will pay full price for the vehicle.
This puts some buyers in a strange limbo, especially if they placed an order for the Model Y Performance. Some deliveries have already taken place, and some are scheduled before the end of the month, but many others are not expecting deliveries until January.
Elon Musk
Elon Musk takes latest barb at Bill Gates over Tesla short position
Bill Gates placed a massive short bet against Tesla of ~1% of our total shares, which might have cost him over $10B by now
Elon Musk took his latest barb at former Microsoft CEO Bill Gates over his short position against the company, which the two have had some tensions over for a number of years.
Gates admitted to Musk several years ago through a text message that he still held a short position against his sustainable car and energy company. Ironically, Gates had contacted Musk to explore philanthropic opportunities.
Elon Musk explains Bill Gates beef: He ‘placed a massive bet on Tesla dying’
Musk said he could not take the request seriously, especially as Gates was hoping to make money on the downfall of the one company taking EVs seriously.
The Tesla frontman has continued to take shots at Gates over the years from time to time, but the latest comment came as Musk’s net worth swelled to over $600 billion. He became the first person ever to reach that threshold earlier this week, when Tesla shares increased due to Robotaxi testing without any occupants.
Musk refreshed everyone’s memory with the recent post, stating that if Gates still has his short position against Tesla, he would have lost over $10 billion by now:
Bill Gates placed a massive short bet against Tesla of ~1% of our total shares, which might have cost him over $10B by now
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) December 17, 2025
Just a month ago, in mid-November, Musk issued his final warning to Gates over the short position, speculating whether the former Microsoft frontman had still held the bet against Tesla.
“If Gates hasn’t fully closed out the crazy short position he has held against Tesla for ~8 years, he had better do so soon,” Musk said. This came in response to The Gates Foundation dumping 65 percent of its Microsoft position.
Tesla CEO Elon Musk sends final warning to Bill Gates over short position
Musk’s involvement in the U.S. government also drew criticism from Gates, as he said that the reductions proposed by DOGE against U.S.A.I.D. were “stunning” and could cause “millions of additional deaths of kids.”
“Gates is a huge liar,” Musk responded.
It is not known whether Gates still holds his Tesla short position.
Tesla dispels reports of ‘sales suspension’ in California
New EV tax credit rule could impact many EV buyers
