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 Shanghai Megafactory starts exporting Megapacks, first to Australia
Tesla Asia celebrated the Shanghai Megafactory’s first Megapack exports on X.
Tesla has begun exporting Megapack battery systems from its Shanghai Megafactory, with the first shipment departing for Australia on Friday. This marks a key step in Tesla Energy’s expansion into the global energy storage industry, utilizing its new China-based Megafactory to supply several new markets.
Tesla Asia celebrated the Shanghai Megafactory’s first Megapack exports through its official social media account on X.
Tesla Megapacks in Focus
The Tesla Megapack is capable of storing 3.9 MWh of energy, and they are designed for grid use. As per Tesla in its official website, each Megapack battery has enough energy to power an average of 3,600 homes for one hour. The Megapack is designed to be infinitely scalable as well, making it a good fit for large-scale sustainable energy projects.
The Shanghai Megafactory
The Shanghai Megafactory began production in early 2025, a record eight months after its May 2024 groundbreaking. With an initial output of 10,000 units annually, equal to about 40 GWh, the Shanghai Megafactory has the potential to significantly boost Tesla’s battery storage deployments.
As per a report from Xinhua News Agency, Tesla is expecting its energy deployments to rise 50% year-over-year this 2025.
Tesla Leaders on the Shanghai Megafactory
Mike Snyder, vice president of energy and charging at Tesla, previously outlined the potential of the Shanghai Megafactory. “Megafactory gives us the ability to scale production and efficiency. We can lower logistics costs as well as product costs, and grow the business to new markets,” he stated.
The Shanghai Megafactory also seems to be part of Tesla’s efforts to grow its presence in China, which was highlighted by CEO Elon Musk during a meeting with Chinese Premier Li Qiang. During their meeting, Musk reportedly stated that “Tesla is willing to deepen cooperation with China and achieve more win-win results.”
Shark Tank personality and legendary investor Kevin O’Leary roasted former Vice Presidential nominee Tim Walz over his comments regarding Tesla shares earlier this week.
Walz, a Minnesota Democrat, said that he recently added Tesla (NASDAQ: TSLA) to his Apple Stocks app so he could watch shares fall as they have encountered plenty of resistance in 2025 so far. He said that anytime he needs a boost, he looks at Tesla shares, which are down 36 percent so far this year:
If you need a little boost during the day, check out Tesla stock 📉 pic.twitter.com/KBEh6pOZLW
— Tim Walz (@Tim_Walz) March 19, 2025
Walz, among many others, has been critical of Tesla and Elon Musk, especially as the CEO has helped eliminate excess government spending through the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).
However, Kevin O’Leary, a legendary investor, showed up on CNN after Walz’s comments to give him a bit of a reality check. O’Leary essentially called Walz out of touch for what he said about Tesla shares, especially considering Tesla made up a good portion of the Minnesota Retirement Fund.
As of June 2024, the pension fund held 1.6 million shares of Tesla stock worth over $319.6 million:
O’Leary continued to slam Walz for his comments:
“That poor guy didn’t check his portfolio and his own pension plan for the state. It’s beyond stupid what he did. What’s the matter with that guy? He doesn’t check the well-being of his own constituents.”
He even called Walz “a bozo” for what he said.
Of course, Walz’s comments are expected considering Musk’s support for the Trump Administration, as the Tesla CEO was a major contributor to the 45th President’s campaign for his second term.
However, it seems extremely out of touch that Walz made these comments without realizing the drop was potentially hurting his fund. While we don’t know if the fund has sold its entire Tesla holdings since June, as a newer, more recent report has not been released yet, it seems unlikely the automaker’s shares are not still making up some portion of the fund.
News
Tesla attackers face 5-20 years in prison if convicted, warns DOJ
Burning Tesla cars & Superchargers isn’t just a protest—it’s a federal offense. The DOJ warns Tesla attackers could get 5-20 years in prison.
Alleged Tesla attackers could face between 5 to 20 years in prison if convicted, warns the Justice Department.
According to U.S. Attorney General Pamela Bondi, three people have been accused of using Molotov cocktails to set Tesla vehicles and charging stations on fire. Prosecutors recently announced the arrests of the three defendants.
“Let this be a warning: if you join this wave of domestic terrorism against Tesla properties, the Department of Justice will put you behind bars,” noted Bondi.
Bondi echoed the words of Special Agent Spencer Evans from the FBI’s Las Vegas Field Office. Evans emphasized to the public that setting Tesla vehicles and charging stations on fire is a federal crime.
The first defendant in the Tesla arson cases is Lucy Grace Nelson who has pleaded not guilty and been released on bond. A criminal complaint states that Nelson was spotted at a Tesla dealership in Loveland, Colorado, a few times in January and February 2025. The 42-year-old was charged with possession of a destructive device and malicious destruction of property after police found a container of gasoline, a box of bottles, and wicks in Nelson’s car.
The second person arrested in Tesla’s arson cases is Adam Matthew Lansky, who has been accused of throwing eight Molotov cocktails at a Tesla dealership in Salem, Oregon. The 41-year-old is detained while awaiting trial and has not entered a plea.
The last alleged Tesla arsonist is Daniel Clarke-Pounder, who has been charged with throwing Molotov cocktails at Tesla charging stations in North Charleston, South Carolina. Witnesses reported seeing a man spray-paint a profane message about President Trump and the words “Long Live Ukraine,” in the Tesla parking lot. The 24-year-old was released on a $10,000 bond and has not yet entered a plea.
Attacks on Tesla cars, charging stations, and stores have spread throughout the United States recently as more people take their anger for Elon Musk out on the American car manufacturer. Luckily, no one has been injured or died from any of the attacks.
Tesla Shanghai Megafactory starts exporting Megapacks, first to Australia
Shark Tank’s O’Leary roasts Tim Walz over Tesla stock hate session
Tesla attackers face 5-20 years in prison if convicted, warns DOJ
-
News2 weeks agoTesla at risk of 95% crash, claims billionaire hedge fund manager
-
News2 weeks agoTesla contract with Baltimore paused after city ‘decided to go in a different direction’
-
Elon Musk5 days agoElon Musk roasts owners of this car brand after another Tesla vandalism incident
-
Elon Musk1 week agoPresident Donald Trump buys a Tesla at the White House – Here’s which model he chose
-
News1 week agoRivian supports Tesla despite all the Elon Musk hate
-
News7 days agoU.S. AG Pam Bondi: Tesla Molotov attack suspect facing up to 20 years in prison
-
News4 days agoSpaceX rescue mission for stranded ISS astronauts nears end — Here’s when they’ll return home
-
Elon Musk1 week agoTesla says it will be a victim of Trump admin’s tariff strategy