News
Tesla, Elon Musk seek dismissal in lawsuit alleging fraud and defamation
Tesla and Elon Musk, jointly named as Defendants with Omar Qazi of the former @tesla_truth Twitter account, have filed a Motion to Dismiss an ongoing lawsuit brought by Plainsite.com owner Aaron Greenspan.
Greenspan, a Tesla short seller often associated with the online “$TSLAQ” community, is seeking an injunction and damages from alleged libelous activity by both Qazi and Musk. He also claims fraudulent communications by Musk and Tesla executives have lead to inflated company stock prices, thereby injuring his financial portfolio via stock purchases made and sold based on those communications. Tesla’s and Musk’s motion for dismissal was made as a separate action from the allegations against Qazi.
The Complaint, initially filed May 20, 2020, and later amended on July 2, 2020, is being litigated in the US Northern District of California, San Francisco Division under docket number 3:20-cv-03426-JD. The Motion to Dismiss was filed on July 31, 2020.
“Plaintiff’s allegations against the Tesla Defendants are not new. Plaintiff has been making the
same unsubstantiated and incendiary accusations—on Twitter, in purported online exposés, and in public and private communications—for years. What is new is Plaintiff’s attempt to transform his conspiracy theories, baseless suspicions, and Internet “research” into a federal lawsuit,” Tesla’s Motion argues against Greenspan’s claims. “Also new is Plaintiff’s apparent view that people should not use hyperbolic language or return his insults on the Internet, and Plaintiff’s claim that Mr. Musk’s dismissive commentary to and about him somehow damaged his reputation.”
The Complaint partly seeks to hold Musk liable for several statements made by Qazi during publicly-aired disagreements with Greenspan, characterizing the CEO’s positive replies to some of Qazi’s online posts as part of a “tag team” effort to discredit him. However, Tesla argues that liability would require a formal agent-type relationship between Qazi and Musk to hold legal weight. “While the [First Amended Complaint] speculates about ties between Mr. Qazi and Mr. Musk, Plaintiff tacitly admits he is not aware of such a relationship, other than alleged interactions on Twitter and in the media,” the Motion argues. Greenspan also cites Qazi’s attendance at a private Tesla event as evidence of an implied connection or common purpose with Musk.
Regarding any defamation claims, substantiated by Greenspan using email replies from Musk as well as Twitter comments in reply to a published article wherein derogatory remarks were made about Greenspan, Tesla’s Motion argues such comments are constitutionally protected opinions. Of particular note in the Complaint’s allegations is a supportive email to Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey sent by Musk purportedly in support of restoring Qazi’s suspended accounts.
“Jack, what Omar is saying is accurate to the best of my knowledge. There has been an
orchestrated and sophisticated attempt to drive down Tesla stock through social media,
particularly Twitter,” Musk wrote.” This always increases around our earnings call, which is this
afternoon. Aaron Greenspan in particular has major issues. He’s the same nut but that claimed he was the founder of Facebook and sued Zuckerberg, among many other things. Never seen anything like it.”
In reference to this cited correspondence, Tesla argues, “As with his other statements, Mr. Musk’s reference to Plaintiff as a “nut but” with “major issues” is nonactionable opinion.”
-
Most of the all-electric carmaker’s reply in the Motion, though, was focused on a legal defense against the most prevalent claims the Tesla short seller community is most vocal about: The company’s stock prices are artificially inflated due to fraudulent communication regarding their activities.
“As numerous courts have recognized, however, short sellers like Plaintiff…[sell] short because he believes the price of a stock overestimates its true value…whereas the premise of the fraud-on-the-market presumption is that investors rely on the market to reflect a stock’s true value,” Tesla states in their dismissal petition. “Plaintiff does not and could not claim that he relied on any alleged false statements because he believed that Tesla was engaged in fraud during the entire time he was betting against the Tesla stock… Even if Plaintiff could invoke the fraud-on-the market presumption, it would be conclusively rebutted because the Plaintiff plainly…would have bought or sold the stock even had he been aware that the stock’s price was tainted by fraud.”
Ultimately, Greenspan is seeking a declaratory judgment holding Qazi in contempt of court, a permanent injunction preventing further libelous statements against Greenspan in any published medium (written or oral), damages from Defendants’ alleged fraudulent actions to be assessed at time of trial, statutory damages from copyright infringements (over personal photos used as described in the suit), and punitive damages for alleged law breaking. Tesla and Musk, for their part, are seeking to have the case dismissed permanently, i.e., “with prejudice.”
For the average Tesla fan, owner, or stock holder, lawsuits may seem like something to avoid at (nearly) all costs, but Musk does not give the impression he has the same hesitation. The eccentric CEO makes his opinion of short sellers like Greenspan known quite often, and he has even humorously merchandised his ongoing battle by selling bright red “Short Shorts” donning the Tesla logo on the company web store.
With Tesla stocks recently haven risen to a high of $1643 per share, the tensions between the camps will perhaps only continue to rise.
Tesla Motion to Dismiss, Aaron Greenspan by Teslarati on Scribd
-
Elon Musk has updated his timeline for when humans will walk on Mars and for when ships will simply get there.
The objective of getting to Mars has been one of Musk’s biggest goals since becoming a serial entrepreneur and realizing that time on Earth is limited. Musk has said several times he hopes to die on Mars, and not by impact.
Musk now believes that people will be on Mars in “roughly 5 to 7 years.” He said that a Mars lander will get there “a few years sooner.”
People on Mars in roughly 5 to 7 years.
Mars lander a few years sooner.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 29, 2026
The response from Musk comes after NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman said that SpaceX’s biggest priority is the Moon and not Mars. Because of this, Isaacman conceded that he believes nuclear power and propulsion investments will provide “potentially the pathway with the fewest miracles required to put four people on Mars in the next 10 to 15 years.”
-
Of course, this is what NASA can do through taxpayer funding and nuclear investments, he added.
Musk’s grand ambitions are much more optimistic than most, and it is certainly a double-edged sword. This is not the first time timelines for Mars have been somewhat lofty, especially to those normal thinkers like you and me, not super geniuses like Musk.
In fact, the SpaceX and Tesla frontman has said on at least a dozen occasions that we could be on Mars in the coming years. Musk said 2020 would be the big year as early as 2009. In 2020, he was “highly confident” of a landing in 2026, and had even said 2024 in a best-case scenario.
The point is, the range has varied, and it’s anyone’s guess when we’ll get there. This latest adjustment to the timeline is typical of Musk, and while the Moon has seemingly taken priority over Mars, it is still worth mentioning that the ultimate goal is to make life multiplanetary, and it starts potentially with the Red Planet.
SpaceX (NASDAQ: SPCX) got an absolutely crazy price target rating from Raymond James after the company experienced a tough first few weeks following its Initial Public Offering (IPO).
Despite the tumultuous start, SpaceX has plenty of believers, and the company’s massively successful Starship launch last Friday, its 13th test flight of the massive rocket, went so smoothly that Raymond James analysts pushed its price target on the company to roughly 7 times its current trading level.
SpaceX Starship just nailed something it’s never done before
The firm officially put a “Strong Buy” rating and an $800 price target on the stock. It currently trades at around $113. Its all-time high is $225.64, reaching this trading level shortly after shares first went public.
Raymond James’ price target is tied to the firm’s confidence after Starship’s 13th test flight. Analysts at the firm said it was an incremental step that reduces engineering risks, citing the widely successful heat shield test that CEO Elon Musk recently detailed, the smooth deployment of Starlink V3 satellites, and a successful in-space engine relight.
SpaceX also managed to see Starship splash down safely in the Indian Ocean, while the Super Heavy Booster fell down to the Gulf of America with no incidents.
It is interesting to see these launches have such a tremendous impact on the stock and what investors think of it. After SpaceX initially delayed the Starship launch last week, shares fell tremendously. Most probably did not realize that the stand-down is a standard practice, especially if everything is not perfect.
-
The mission was initially aborted due to an issue with Raptor engines. This was resolved, and Starship launched last Friday after another delay on Thursday, which was caused by weather.
Now that analysts have seen what SpaceX launches are capable of and how impressive the feat is, firms are adjusting their price targets accordingly, making it known that they have high expectations for the space exploration company.
Tesla CEO Elon Musk has responded to reports that Volvo is officially discontinuing the LiDAR sensor on two of its cars.
Volvo announced that it would officially scrap LiDAR systems on its EX90 and ES90 vehicles in various markets. In Norway, owners will get a €1,800 compensation for features that will never arrive due to this decision. There will be no option to remove the unit from vehicles, either.
The issue stems from Volvo’s supplier, Luminar, and its bankruptcy filing. Luminar will no longer be able to supply LiDAR units to Volvo for the EX90 and ES90, effectively axing any use the unit has on vehicles. Volvo will phase out the data collection processes via the LiDAR system, and it will not be utilized whatsoever.
Musk saw the story on X and responded, stating:
“I did try to warn them. Humans drive using neural nets and optical sensors. Same is true for robot cars.”
I did try to warn them.
Humans drive using neural nets and optical sensors. Same is true for robot cars.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 29, 2026
-
Musk has been publicly vocal about his disdain for LiDAR systems, once calling them “a fool’s errand,” as he has consistently kept the outlook that they are not needed for effective self-driving.
The typical example used as evidence for this by Musk is humans themselves: made with only eyes and memories, humans are capable of navigating a car by using what they can see and what they’ve personally experienced on the road.
Elon Musk argues lidar and radar make self driving cars more dangerous
“Same is true for robot cars,” Musk says, as Teslas have eight exterior cameras that help see everything surrounding the vehicle, and a neural network that analyzes behavior and tendencies with every mile driven.
Tesla is a vision-only self-driving company that ditched sensors and radar several years ago in favor of cameras. Behind this effort, the company has established a reputation for having one of the most robust self-driving platforms in the world.
Musk’s big bet with Tesla on its self-driving program’s strategy has widely paid off. Other companies continue to utilize things like LiDAR, radar, and sensors for effective self-driving, but Tesla has shown that there is more than one way to give consumers a strong and accurate driver assistance suite.
-
The real question is: who will be the first company to take Musk’s advice and attempt a self-driving platform based on cameras only, or even license FSD for themselves?
Elon Musk updates the SpaceX timeline for Mars
SpaceX gets an absolutely crazy price target after rough IPO
