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
Tesla Cybercab production line is targeting hundreds of vehicles weekly: report
According to the report, Tesla has been adding staff and installing new equipment at its Austin factory as it prepares to begin Cybercab production.
Tesla is reportedly designing its Cybercab production line to manufacture hundreds of the autonomous vehicles each week once mass production begins. The effort is underway at Gigafactory Texas in Austin as the company prepares to start building the Robotaxi at scale.
The details were reported by The Wall Street Journal, citing people reportedly familiar with the matter.
According to the report, Tesla has been adding staff and installing new equipment at its Austin factory as it prepares to begin Cybercab production.
People reportedly familiar with Tesla’s plans stated that the company has been growing its staff and bringing in new equipment to start the mass production of the Cybercab this April.
The Cybercab is Tesla’s upcoming fully autonomous two-seat vehicle designed without a steering wheel or pedals. The vehicle is intended to operate primarily as part of Tesla’s planned Robotaxi ride-hailing network.
“There’s no fallback mechanism here. Like this car either drives itself or it does not drive,” Musk stated during Tesla’s previous earnings call.
Tesla has indicated that Cybercab production could begin as soon as April, though Elon Musk has noted that early production will likely be slow before ramping over time. Musk has stated that the Cybercab’s slow ramp is due in no small part to the fact that it is a completely new vehicle platform.
Tesla’s Cybercab is designed to work with the company’s Full Self-Driving (FSD) system and support its planned autonomous ride-hailing service. The company has suggested that the vehicle could cost under $30,000, making it one of Tesla’s most affordable models if produced at scale. Musk has confirmed in a previous X post that the vehicle will indeed be offered to regular consumers at a price below $30,000.
Musk has previously stated that Tesla could eventually produce millions of Cybercabs annually if demand and production capacity scale as planned.
News
Tesla VP explains latest updates in trade secret theft case
Tesla reportedly caught Matthews copying the tech into machines that were sold to competitors, claiming they lied about doing so for three years, and continued to ship it. That is when Tesla chose to sue Matthews in July 2024 in Federal court, demanding over $1 billion in damages due to trade secret theft.
Tesla Vice President Bonne Eggleston explained the latest updates in a trade secret theft case the company has against a former manufacturing equipment supplier, Matthews International.
Back in 2024, Tesla had filed a lawsuit against Matthews International, alleging that the firm stole trade secrets about battery manufacturing and shared those details with some of Tesla’s competitors.
Early last year, a U.S. District Court Judge denied Tesla’s request to block Matthews International from selling its dry battery electrode (DBE) technology across the world. The judge, Edward Davila, said that the patent for the tech was due to Matthews’ “extensive research and development.”
The two companies’ relationship began back in 2019, as Tesla hired Matthews to help build the equipment for its 4680 battery cell. Tesla shared confidential software, designs, and know-how under strict secrecy rules.
Fast forward a few years, and Tesla reportedly caught Matthews copying the tech into machines that were sold to competitors, claiming they lied about doing so for three years, and continued to ship it. That is when Tesla chose to sue Matthews in July 2024 in Federal court, demanding over $1 billion in damages due to trade secret theft.
Now, the latest twist, as this month, a Judge issued a permanent injunction—a court order banning Matthews from using certain stolen Tesla parts or designs in their machines. Matthews is also officially “liable” for damages. The exact amount would still to be calculated later.
Bonne Eggleston, a VP for Tesla, said on X today that Matthews is a supplier who “exploited customer IP through theft or deception,” and has no place in Tesla’s ecosystem:
Buyer beware: Matthews International stole Tesla’s DBE technology and is now subject to an injunction and liable for damages.
During our work with Matthews, we caught them red-handed copying our technology—including proprietary software and sensitive mechanical designs—into… https://t.co/Toc8ilakeM
— Bonne Eggleston (@BonneEggleston) March 10, 2026
Tesla calls this a big win and warns other companies: “Buyer beware—don’t buy from thieves.”
Matthews hit back with a press release claiming victory. They say an arbitrator ruled they can keep selling their own DBE equipment to anyone and rejected Tesla’s request for a total sales ban. They call Tesla’s claims “nonsense” and insist their 20-year-old tech is independent. Both sides are spinning the same narrow ruling: Matthews can sell their version, but they’re blocked from using Tesla’s specific secrets.
What are Tesla’s Current Legal Options
The case isn’t over—it’s moving to the damages phase. Tesla can:
- Push forward in court or arbitration to calculate and collect huge financial penalties (potentially $1 billion+ if willful theft is proven).
- Enforce the permanent injunction with contempt charges, fines, or even jail time if Matthews violates it.
- Challenge Matthews’ new patents that allegedly copy Tesla’s work, asking courts to invalidate them or add Tesla as co-inventor.
- Seek extra damages, lawyer fees, and possibly punitive awards under the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act and California law.
Tesla could also refer evidence to federal prosecutors for possible criminal trade-secret charges (rare but serious). Settlement is always possible, but Tesla’s fiery public response suggests they want full accountability.
This isn’t just corporate drama. It shows why trade secrets matter even when Tesla open-sources some patents, confidential know-how shared in trust must stay protected. For the EV industry, it’s a reminder: steal from your biggest customer, and you risk losing everything.
News
Tesla Cybercab includes this small but significant feature
The Cybercab is Tesla’s big plan to introduce fully autonomous ride-sharing in a seamless fashion. In fact, the Full Self-Driving suite was geared toward alleviating the need to manually drive vehicles.
Tesla Cybercab manufacturing is strikingly close, as the company is still aiming for an April start date. But small and significant features are still being identified for the first time as production units appear all over the country for testing and for regulatory events, like one yesterday in Washington, D.C.
The Cybercab is Tesla’s big plan to introduce fully autonomous ride-sharing in a seamless fashion. In fact, the Full Self-Driving suite was geared toward alleviating the need to manually drive vehicles.
This was for everyone, including the disabled, who are widely reliant on ride-sharing platforms, family members, and medical shuttles for transportation of any kind. Cybercab aims to change that, and Tesla evidently put a focus on those riders while developing the vehicle, evident in a small but significant feature revealed during its appearance in the Nation’s Capital.
Tesla Cybercab display highlights interior wizardry in the small two-seater
Tesla has implemented Braille within the Cybercab to make it easier for blind passengers to utilize the vehicle. On both the ‘Stop/Hazard Lights’ button and the Door Releases, Tesla has placed Braille so that blind passengers can navigate their way through the vehicle:
The hazard lights button will be used as an emergency stop. Smart pic.twitter.com/vkYBioqmKm
— Whole Mars Catalog (@wholemars) March 10, 2026
We have braille on the interior door releases as well
— Eric (@EricETesla) March 11, 2026
This is a great addition to the Cybercab, especially as Full Self-Driving has been partially pointed at as a solution for those with disabilities that would keep them from driving themselves from place to place.
It truly is a great addition and just another way that Tesla is showing they are making this massive product inclusive for everyone out there, including those who have not been able to drive due to not having vision.
The Cybercab is set to enter mass production sometime in April, and it will be responsible for launching Tesla’s massive plans for an autonomous ride-sharing program.
Tesla Cybercab production line is targeting hundreds of vehicles weekly: report
Tesla VP explains latest updates in trade secret theft case
