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 flew under the radar with his recent purchase of a $1 billion energy company, according to Federal Trade Commission (FTC) documents.
Transaction number 202612350 listed Tesla and SpaceX frontman Elon Musk as the acquiring party and CF APR Super Holdings LLC as the seller, with New APR Energy, LLC as the acquired entity. The deal, which closed without public announcement, came to light on May 14.
BREAKING: Elon Musk acquires Jacksonville power company APR Energy in a deal valued at more than $1,000,000,000.00.
— Polymarket Money (@PolymarketMoney) July 15, 2026
Analysts inferred the deal’s scale from minority stakeholder disclosures, including one report of a 5 percent interest sold for approximately $50.4 million. Fortress Investment Group had purchased APR’s assets in late 2024, rebranded the operation as New APR Energy, and subsequently transferred ownership to Musk.
APR Energy specializes in rapidly deployable power infrastructure. The company maintains one of the world’s largest fleets of mobile gas and diesel turbines, with more than 1.1 gigawatts of generation capacity. Its modular units, which are often trailer-mounted, enable turnkey installations ranging from 20 MW to over 500 MW.
APR provides full engineering, procurement, construction, operation, and maintenance services for behind-the-meter power plants, serving everything from data centers, utilities, and industrial clients.
The firm has expanded aggressively to meet surging demand, recently adding turbines and deploying over 100 MW for a major AI hyperscaler. Its solutions bridge critical gaps where grid interconnections face delays of two to five years, according to Yahoo.
The acquisition means something more for Musk. As he continues to expand projects in artificial intelligence, especially xAI, his AI venture, there is a greater need to supply energy-intensive supercomputing clusters, including the Colossus project, with what they need: reliable and high-capacity power.
Ownership of APR provides immediate access to flexible generation assets that can be deployed adjacent to data centers, reducing dependence on a strained infrastructure. It also complements Tesla’s energy storage business, so Musk will be able to pull from his own entities to address the rapid scaling demands of AI training and compute.
Tesla had a petition protesting a recall to fix a potential issue with 2017-2023 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles’ headlights was denied, as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) disagreed with the company’s opinion of things.
The recall covers approximately 19,917 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles built from 2017 to 2023. Tesla initially submitted a noncompliance report for the headlights on these vehicles on March 15, 2024. Tesla then petitioned for an exemption from the fix, which violated FMVSS No. 108 (40 CFR 571.108), arguing that the “noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
🚨 Tesla was denied a petition by the NHTSA to avoid a recall of 19,900 2017-2023 Model 3 and Model Y vehicles.
The NHTSA found that the vehicles’ headlights may exceed maximum lighting levels. Tesla argued it was inconsequential and did not require a recall. pic.twitter.com/m8Jmm1teLL
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 16, 2026
The NHTSA disagreed, stating that Tesla’s conclusion that the headlights do not increase any risk was not an opinion it shared. The agency said it disagreed with Tesla’s assumption that glare is not increased to surrounding traffic. This issue could be highlighted even more in certain weather conditions.
Tesla will be required to remedy the issue, the NHTSA ruled:
“In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that Tesla has not met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 108 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Tesla’s petition is hereby denied, and Tesla is consequently obligated to provide notification of and free remedy for that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.”
The issue here appears to be the angle of the headlights and the brightness they emit during operation. The NHTSA report states that:
“Tesla’s headlamp supplier, Marelli Automotive Lighting, tested 25 right-hand and 25 left-hand lamps, and for this sample, found the maximum photometric intensity measured in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone was between 136.2 cd and 230.1 cd for the right-hand lamps and between 117.5 cd and 160.3 cd for the left-hand lamps. According to Tesla, these tests revealed that the photometric intensity of the right-hand and left-hand headlamp lower beam on the subject vehicles may measure as much as 230.1 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone, exceeding the maximum photometric intensity by 105.1 cd. Additionally, Tesla states that a left-hand lamp tested by a Transport Canada recognized laboratory measured a maximum of 171.27 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone. Despite these measurements exceeding the allowed photometric maximum of 125 cd, Tesla believes that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.”
Tesla also argued at some points that the headlights had not been deemed responsible for any complaints, accidents, or injuries related to the noncompliance.
Lifestyle
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
The NTSB confirmed the driver, not Tesla’s FSD, caused the fatal Texas house crash.
The National Transportation Safety Board released preliminary findings Wednesday confirming that a Tesla driver, not the vehicle’s software, caused a fatal crash in Katy, Texas in June. The driver, 44-year-old Michael Butler, had engaged Full Self-Driving Supervised mode on Rose Hollow Lane, a residential street with a 30 mph speed limit, before manually overriding the system by pressing the accelerator pedal all the way to 100%. Data recovered from the 2025 Tesla Model 3 showed the vehicle was traveling over 70 miles per hour when it struck a home and killed 76-year-old Martha Avila, who was inside. Weather was clear, the road was dry, and it was daylight.
Texas man charged in fatal Tesla crash where he blamed Autopilot
Butler told authorities he had passed out at the wheel. But security camera footage obtained by the NTSB told a different story, and showed the car accelerating through an intersection before leaving the road entirely. Police also found that Butler’s phone had Google searches including the terms “Tesla FSD not aggressive enough 2026” and “Tesla FSD too timid,” raising serious questions about how he was using the system before the crash. Butler has since been charged with manslaughter. The victim’s family has filed a lawsuit against both Butler and Tesla, alleging negligence.
The NTSB findings aligned directly with what Tesla VP of AI Software Ashok Elluswamy had already stated publicly on X in the weeks after the crash, writing that “the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100%.” The data confirmed his account.
Yup. In this case, the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100% of the accel pedal in this residential area. They reached a speed of 73 mph during the crash, and had the accelerator pressed even after the crash.
— Ashok Elluswamy (@aelluswamy) June 22, 2026
Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future
Tesla has to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says
