News
Tesla coverage turns negative a week before crucial Earnings Call
Tesla news coverage this week has been especially negative, and the timing of it, which comes a week before arguably the most anticipated Earnings Call in recent memory. With Tesla reporting production and deliveries that were well over Wall Street’s consensus, anticipation for the Q1 2021 Earnings Call is slightly higher than usual, and the FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) is at an all-time high.
There are always a few negative Tesla stories every week. It might involve a story about some owners who didn’t receive adequate customer service, it might be about a production bottleneck that Tesla is encountering. However, these are relatively micro-scale issues that are resolved within a matter of days in most cases. This week, the news has been geared toward more disruptive, long-term, macro-level issues, like a very public car accident that has both sides of the Tesla circle butting heads, a test from a very well-known product review company that has to do with the aforementioned accident, and other safety issues that have resulted by a rumored irresponsible driving speed by a customer in China. Whether you agree with it or not, there seems to be a more coordinated attack on something that Tesla does well, which is to keep its drivers and owners safe. One of the strongest points of Tesla’s overwhelmingly successful venture into the automotive industry thus far was the company’s ability to keep vehicle occupants safe in the event of a crash, and also roll out software and semi-autonomous driving functionalities that aim to improve consumer safety in revolutionary ways.
This is a preview of our weekly newsletter. Each week I go ‘Beyond the News’ and handcraft a special edition that includes my thoughts on the biggest stories, why it matters, and how it could impact the future.
This doesn’t always turn out to be what the media wants to report, however. The week before the Q1 Earnings Call, it was relatively impossible to notice that the tide turned negative on Tesla news coverage. While it is understandable that a violent automobile crash that took the lives of two men should be covered, it captured national headlines and dominated news coverage across the world for several days. Interestingly, I don’t remember such widespread news coverage for the Ford Death Wobble.
Journalists find stories and then build upon them for other sorts of coverage. It’s spin-off coverage where readers get to see how creative the mind of a writer is. There are millions of stories that could be written based on the recent automobile accident. However, a majority of them were negative, and it doesn’t necessarily come down to truth, it comes down to perception. Unfortunately, I don’t believe that many of the journalistic coverages were completely accurate simply because of Autopilot’s misunderstood capabilities in the real world. I still receive questions and comments daily from those who I talk to who believe Teslas are capable of driving themselves. What is even more frustrating is that, at times, owners and drivers, who should have the company’s best interest at heart, spread content, Tik Toks, and other forms of social media portraying that their all-electric car can drive them from Point A to Point B while they sit in the back seat and take a nap. This kind of content is irresponsible, immoral, and wrong. Acting like a Tesla can drive itself completely just for few thousand views is a selfish act that puts the hard work of Tesla engineers at risk for losing all of their work.
That brings me to the unfortunate accident in Texas. We don’t know, yet, what the exact cause of the accident was. We don’t know who was in the driver’s seat, if AP was being tricked, or if it was even on at this point. Most evidence would likely indicate that AP couldn’t have been activated due to the lack of road lines, and the rate of travel isn’t something that AP would let the driver do, to begin with. Eventually, we will have all the facts of this story, and we will be able to accurately say who or what was responsible. But as of right now, those things cannot be speculated against.
Still, news sources are claiming that this car was “driverless,” which is a complete nonsensical narrative considering there are many boundaries that would require a driver to be present during the vehicle’s operation. This didn’t stop Consumer Reports from putting together one of the most ridiculously biased tests I have ever come across. I felt that it simply proved Tesla Autopilot would only be tricked in extreme circumstances, by not following the automaker’s directions and trying to outsmart one of the most capable semi-autonomous driving programs in the world.
The obvious effort to derail Tesla’s momentum is being noted by the fans, followers, and owners of the company. For the life of me, I cannot understand why. In my perspective, for years, MSM has been driving home the point of global climate change, using it as a way to scare people into change. While I believe that fear isn’t always the best way to convince a large group of people to do something, I think climate change is a real issue and it will affect people for generations to come. With cars being such a large contributor to the problem, you’d think the media, the same interests that have been preaching the dangers of carbon emissions for years, would report car companies who are working to transition the automotive industry to electrification, would get a “fair shake.” This just hasn’t been the case.
Trust me, I am a critic of Tesla when it is warranted. I have experienced issues with their customer service department personally, and I have been highly critical of their handling of other issues with its vehicles. I have spoken many times about the LR RWD Model Y and how it was a disgrace for Tesla to keep these pre-orderers in limbo for years. However, there are statistics that prove FSD and AP’s ultimate task: to make driving safer. Most recently, the Q1 2021 Safety Report showed Autopilot was nearly 10 times safer than a human driver. You don’t see mainstream media covering this, but you’ll notice automotive blogs and news outlets taking full advantage of the statistics, which prove Tesla’s mission is becoming more real with every mile driven.
With the momentum Tesla posted with the Production and Deliveries report, I think many people were expecting a big financial quarter. The timing of the negative news is eye-opening, and it seems to be a coordinated effort to perhaps slow down Tesla’s momentum moving forward. Tesla is gunning for yet another consecutive quarter, bringing the total to seven straight if things go well on Monday. Whether Wall Street will recognize the impressive tone of this feat, we’ll see. However, media coverage has done all it can to bring Tesla’s chances of a great quarter down, but with developments, demand, and deliveries all in healthy figures, there doesn’t seem to be much of a chance of that happening.
A big thanks to our long-time supporters and new subscribers! Thank you.
I use this newsletter to share my thoughts on what is going on in the Tesla world. If you want to talk to me directly, you can email me or reach me on Twitter. I don’t bite, be sure to reach out!
Investor's Corner
Tesla and SpaceX take “Terafab” Trademark fight to Federal Court
Tesla and SpaceX sue a small Illinois firm after cease and desist letters over Terafab.
Tesla and SpaceX are asking a federal judge to rule that their planned Terafab chip factory does not infringe a small Illinois company’s trademark, a request that arrives only after months of quiet negotiation broke down this summer.
The dispute traces to May 18, when Tesla filed three U.S. trademark applications for “Terafab” and “Tesla Terafab,” covering semiconductor chips and related chip making services. TERA-print LLC, a nanotechnology company that has held a federal trademark for “Tera-Fab” since 2021, responded five days later with a cease and desist letter. According to the lawsuit, first reported by Reuters, TERA-print argued that Tesla and SpaceX’s use of “Terafab” would confuse consumers familiar with its own trademark, which covers a desktop photolithography printer sold to researchers for sensor and bioengineering work.
What stands out in the filing is the timing of TERA-print’s own paperwork. One day before sending that cease and desist letter, on May 22, TERA-print applied to expand its existing registration to cover semiconductor materials, silicon chips, nanoelectronic devices and AI design services, categories it had not previously claimed. Tesla and SpaceX call that filing opportunistic in their complaint, noting it arrived two months after Tesla’s public Terafab announcement and just days after Tesla’s own trademark applications went in.
Elon Musk launches TERAFAB: The $25B Tesla-SpaceXAI chip factory that will rewire the AI industry
By June 10, TERA-print was threatening to sue for federal trademark infringement, false designation of origin and unfair competition, the complaint states. Rather than wait to be sued, Tesla, SpaceX and SpaceXAI met with TERA-print six separate times between June and August trying to resolve the dispute directly. Those talks collapsed, and the companies filed for declaratory judgment this week in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, asking a judge to find that “Terafab” does not infringe TERA-print’s mark before TERA-print can file a claim of its own.
TERA-print isn’t backing down. The company told PCMag it discussed a settlement with Tesla as recently as September 2 and feels misled by what it called Tesla’s professed interest in settling. Its CTO, Andrey Ivankin, said TERA-print holds a Defense Department contract to fabricate semiconductors and partially owns Mattiq Inc., an AI company built on TERA-print’s products, and that the company will vigorously defend its rights.
Tesla and SpaceX argue the overlap is superficial. Terafab is planned as a $16.8 billion complex spanning roughly 100 million square feet at the Grimes County site SpaceX confirmed last month, built to produce chips for Optimus robots, Tesla’s AI computing needs and SpaceX’s orbital data center ambitions, a scale and purpose the companies say no reasonable consumer would confuse with a tabletop lab printer. TERA-print’s product line has stayed focused on lithography tools for biological and sensor research since it registered its mark in 2021.
The trademark fight is the second legal dispute tied to the Terafab project in the past week, following a separate SpaceX suit aimed at keeping company records about the facility out of public view, as KBTX reported. Whether construction proceeds under the Terafab name now depends on a federal judge in Austin.
News
NHTSA just escalated its Tesla Cybercab investigation in a big way
NHTSA escalated its Cybercab audit into a sworn Special Order with a September 30 deadline.
Federal regulators have moved from asking Tesla questions about its Cybercab to demanding sworn answers. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issued a Special Order that requires a Tesla officer to sign an affidavit attesting to the completeness of the company’s responses, with a deadline of September 30.
The order builds on Audit Query AQ26002, which NHTSA opened on September 3, the same day Tesla began commercial Cybercab service in Austin. Teslarati covered that initial inquiry when it surfaced, noting the agency wanted to understand how Tesla certified a vehicle with no permanently attached steering wheel, pedals, or mirrors as compliant with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. A Special Order is a different tool and converts a fact finding review into a legally enforceable demand, the same mechanism NHTSA used against Tesla in 2023 during its Autopilot investigation.
Several of the 21 requests target a specific gap in Cybercab’s design. One asks whether Tesla used temporarily attached human controls at any point to help certify the vehicle, and if so, which standards depended on that equipment being present. Another quotes an existing rule directly: “The service brakes shall be activated by means of a foot control.” Cybercab has no foot pedal. NHTSA wants a detailed explanation of how the vehicle satisfies that requirement, and how it complies without the kind of exemption granted to Zoox in July under Part 555, the regulatory pathway built for steering wheel free vehicles.
The order does not claim Cybercab is unsafe or that Tesla broke a rule. It requires Tesla to explain, under oath, the reasoning behind decisions the company already made when it self-certified the vehicle. That distinction matters, but so does the exposure. Motor1’s reporting, summarized here, put potential civil penalty exposure as high as $139 million if NHTSA later finds the certification was flawed, on top of whatever criminal risk comes with a false sworn statement.
Tesla has not said publicly how it plans to respond. Cybercab is still carrying passengers in Austin through the Robotaxi app while the September 30 deadline approaches, and the company has continued expanding the vehicle’s footprint even as the regulatory question remains open. The Special Order does not pause any of that and just sets a date by which Tesla has to put its certification logic on the record, with a company officer’s name attached to it.
In a new interview on Wednesday, Tesla uber bull Ron Baron said that anyone looking to buy the company’s stock should do so as soon as they can.
Baron, founder and CEO of Baron Capital and one of Tesla’s most persistent institutional bulls, used a CNBC Squawk Box appearance on Wednesday to deliver a familiar message with fresh urgency: In his opinion, Tesla stock is a buy:
“The time to buy the stock is now. FSD is catching on, and it’s going to be bigger and bigger. 55% of new buyers are buying it (Teslas) with FSD. It’s going to be everywhere. It’s safer.”
The Baron Capital frontman’s case is built around Full Self-Driving. Tesla reported 1.48 million active FSD subscriptions in the second quarter, up 56 percent year over year, and company officials have said roughly 55 percent of new North American deliveries left with a subscription enabled.
Baron framed that attach rate as proof the product is moving from enthusiast extra to default expectation, and as a reason software, not just vehicle volume, should drive the next phase of value.
His conviction on Tesla shares is not theoretical, as Baron Capital made its first Tesla investment in 2014, after years of meetings that began around the 2010 IPO roadshow. The firm later built a large SpaceX position starting in 2017.
Ron Baron today in new interview on Tesla:
“The time to buy the stock is now. FSD is catching on, and it’s going to be bigger and bigger. 55% of new buyers are buying it (Teslas) with FSD. It’s going to be everywhere. It’s safer.” pic.twitter.com/Rv5PB0bVZ2
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) September 16, 2026
Baron said those Musk-led bets have generated about $30 billion of the $71 billion in profits Baron Capital has produced for clients. He put the firm’s current exposure at roughly $25 billion in SpaceX and $5 billion in Tesla. Personally, he described SpaceX as his largest holding, at about $5 billion, with about $1.5 billion in Tesla and additional Tesla exposure through the firm’s funds.
That concentration is also a statement of loyalty. Asked about talk of a SpaceX-Tesla combination, Baron said he had already walked Elon Musk through arguments for and against a deal, then declined to repeat them on air. His public position was simpler: “Whatever you decide is better is what I’m going to support,” he said to Musk.
Baron also said that he picked up the farewell edition of the Model S after Tesla decided to sunset the vehicle earlier this year, calling it his favorite car he’s ever driven.
Tesla and SpaceX take “Terafab” Trademark fight to Federal Court
NHTSA just escalated its Tesla Cybercab investigation in a big way
