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
Tesla has launched a direct campaign targeting its customers in New Jersey, sending emails that warn of pending legislation that could effectively block true driverless technology in the state.
The email focuses on Senate Bill S.1677 and Assembly Bill A.3968, measures intended to create a three-year autonomous vehicle pilot program but laden with requirements that Tesla argues make unsupervised Robotaxis impossible.
Tesla is sending out this email to New Jersey Tesla owners, warning them that NJ could block autonomous vehicles, and to take action.
“Proposed legislation moving through Trenton right now would impose restrictions so severe that true driverless deployment would remain illegal.… pic.twitter.com/2bmY646AUL
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) June 16, 2026
According to the email, the bills impose “restrictions so severe that true driverless deployment would remain illegal.” Specific hurdles include mandates for human safety drivers during operations, multimillion-dollar insurance minimums, reportedly $5 million, and thresholds like 100,000 miles of demonstrated safe autonomous driving before any driverless approval.
Tesla contends these are arbitrary barriers that ignore real-world performance data and favor entrenched competitors over innovative technologies like its Full Self-Driving (FSD) system.
The push comes as Tesla has started expanding Robotaxi operations in states like Texas, where unsupervised vehicles are already providing rides in several cities. New Jersey, by contrast, risks falling behind. The company highlights in the email communication that more than 94 percent of serious crashes result from human error, meaning impairment, distraction, or fatigue. These are all problems that Robotaxis eliminate entirely.
In 2025, New Jersey recorded 582 traffic deaths, underscoring the human cost of delayed adoption.
Tesla’s outreach stresses the transformative potential of robotaxis. For families, they could offer safer school runs without drowsy or distracted drivers. For seniors and people with disabilities, robotaxis promise independence and reliable mobility.
In areas with limited public transit, they could deliver affordable, on-demand transportation, reducing congestion, emissions, and overall transportation costs. Economically, the company warns that restrictive rules could cost New Jersey jobs, innovation investment, and billions in potential growth as autonomous ride-hailing scales elsewhere.
Supporters of the legislation, including Sen. Andrew Zwicker, describe the pilot as a cautious framework with strong safety oversight, including incident reporting, expert task forces, and restrictions in sensitive zones like school areas. They view it as balancing innovation with public protection.
Tesla and pro-AV advocates counter that the bill lacks technology neutrality, creates insurmountable entry barriers for commercial deployment, and prioritizes process over outcomes — effectively functioning as a de facto ban on services like Robotaxi.
This latest clash echoes Tesla’s past battles in New Jersey over direct vehicle sales. The email directs owners to Tesla’s advocacy platform, where they can send customized messages to legislators calling for amendments: outcome-based safety standards, open competition, and clear pathways for fully driverless commercial operations.
As hearings approach, Tesla’s campaign frames the issue as a choice between protecting the status quo and embracing life-saving progress. With robotaxi technology already proving itself in permissive states, New Jersey owners are being asked to ensure their state doesn’t lock out the future of transportation.
Turn-by-turn navigation is not new technology.
For over two decades, drivers have relied on Garmin, TomTom, and later smartphone apps like Google Maps and Waze to receive precise, reliable directions. These systems have guided millions safely through unfamiliar cities, highways, and backroads with remarkable effectiveness. They handle real-time traffic, construction detours, and complex intersections with minimal fuss.
Yet Tesla, the company that promised revolutionary Full Self-Driving (FSD), continues to struggle with this foundational capability. As FSD (Supervised) v14.3.4 has started rolling out to cars this week, navigation remains its glaring Achilles’ heel, undermining the entire autonomous vision.
Tesla Summon got insanely good in FSD v14.3.2 — Navigation? Not so much
Tesla’s FSD excels in many driving behaviors—smooth acceleration, confident lane changes in ideal conditions, and responsive handling of visible obstacles. However, when it comes to following a route accurately, the system falters repeatedly.
Owners report wrong turns, missed exits, inefficient routing through local roads instead of highways, phantom speed limit errors, and even directing vehicles to building rear entrances. Interventions for navigation issues often outnumber those for core driving maneuvers. Tesla has begun surveying owners specifically about these errors, acknowledging the problem after years of complaints.
Navigation is perhaps my biggest complaint when it comes to FSD, because sometimes, we do know better. Some of us have been living in our areas for our entire lives, but even those who have not have years or even decades of experience driving on local roads. We might know a little better about routing.
But the navigation mistakes are more than just FSD potentially taking a slightly different route that may or may not save you a few minutes. Sometimes, they’re genuinely mind-boggling.
This isn’t just annoying; it cascades into broader failures. A flawed route plan confuses the AI’s decision-making, leading to hesitant behavior, unnecessary disengagements, or dangerous maneuvers like attempting impossible U-turns or ignoring clear ramps. In a system meant to operate with minimal supervision, unreliable navigation erodes trust.
More often than not, false or plain incorrect navigation is what causes me to interrupt FSD operation. Unfortunately, I believe the latest FSD version is the worst example of it, and it leads me to believe that Tesla might be making some changes; they’ve just made them in the wrong direction.
It makes you wonder: Why is a company that has done so much with the progress of FSD and autonomy struggling so much with navigation, something that is not new and has been around a long time?
Multiple Data Sources
First, Tesla’s navigation relies on a fragile patchwork of multiple data sources—Google Maps, TomTom, OpenStreetMap, Valhalla, and its own fleet-derived data—stitched together rather than a single authoritative map. When these conflict on lane geometry, road status, or turn details, the system hesitates or chooses incorrectly.
Traditional GPS providers maintain centralized, regularly validated databases with professional curation and rapid updates. Tesla’s hybrid approach, while innovative in crowdsourcing, introduces inconsistencies that a purely vision-based or end-to-end AI approach may not easily reconcile in real time.
Persistent Learning
FSD seems to struggle with persistent learning from driver interventions.
Unlike consumer apps that quickly adapt to repeated corrections or user preferences (e.g., avoiding certain routes or remembering habitual detours), Tesla’s FSD often fails to internalize fixes on the same trip or across similar scenarios. Owners note making the same manual override multiple times without the routing engine updating its behavior meaningfully.
This stems from the neural architecture prioritizing real-time perception and control over long-term route memory and personalization, making navigation feel rigid and “opinionated” compared to the adaptive logic in Waze or Google Maps.
I noticed that when I asked Grok to try and get me home a certain way (a way that FSD routinely took in the past because it was the most efficient), it had to place a waypoint between my location at the time and my house. When I went to edit the waypoint out, as Grok had placed it for a way to get FSD to get off the highway at the right exit, it was stumped again, rerouted, and took a longer way home.
The next thing I’ve noticed, and this might be controversial, is that Nav has gotten even worse.
I think that might actually be a good thing; Tesla seems to be adjusting it. They just need to adjust it the opposite way.
The car is taking extremely strange routes to very… https://t.co/UHg3tVfNA2
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 16, 2026
Reasoning, Scaling, and Intuition
Third, scaling navigation for unsupervised or robotaxi ambitions requires not just accuracy but adaptability and user-like reasoning. Current FSD often defaults to single routes that ignore driver preferences or real-world nuances like time-of-day traffic patterns. It fails to match the intuitive, context-aware planning that traditional systems have refined over the years.
Resolving navigation is critical for several reasons. Practically, it is the backbone of any autonomous journey: without trustworthy routing, the car cannot reliably reach destinations, rendering FSD useless for robotaxis or hands-free commutes. Safety depends on it—mismatched plans create hesitation in merges or intersections, increasing accident risk.
Economically, Tesla’s valuation and future hinge on FSD delivering unsupervised driving; persistent navigation flaws delay regulatory approval and erode consumer confidence. For owners who paid premiums for FSD, these issues represent unfulfilled promises. While it is unlikely Tesla will lose too many customers due to bad navigation, some will be frustrated with the constant need for human input.
Tesla has achieved miracles in electric vehicles and battery tech. Mastering turn-by-turn—technology Garmin nailed in the early 2000s—should not be this hard. By investing in tighter data integration, faster learning loops from interventions, and more intuitive routing algorithms, Tesla could close this gap.
Until then, FSD’s navigation struggles highlight a humbling truth: even the most ambitious innovator must sometimes master the basics before conquering the future.
A Tesla Cybertruck driver in the United Kingdom had their all-electric pickup seized by local police in the Greater Manchester area after the department cited “legitimate concerns.”
Last Thursday, police saw the pickup on the roads and decided to pull the driver over. Greater Manchester Police said:
“Whilst this may seem trivial to some, legitimate concerns exist around the safety of other road users or pedestrians if they were involved in a collision with the Cybertruck.”
🚨 A Tesla Cybertruck, which is illegal to drive in the UK due to safety concerns, has been seized by police in Greater Manchester
“Whilst this may seem trivial to some, legitimate concerns exist around the safety of other road users or pedestrians if they were involved in a… pic.twitter.com/cqhdPok3DM
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 16, 2026
The Cybertruck in question was, according to the BBC, registered and insured abroad and was confiscated. The driver, who is a UK resident, was reported.
The Greater Manchester Police Department then added:
“The Tesla Cybertruck is not road-legal in the UK and does not hold a certificate of conformity.”
The Cybertruck cannot be legally driven in the UK because it has no UK Type Approval for operation in the country. This is due to some safety concerns, which are related to its angular shape and design. The stainless steel exoskeleton has sharp edges and projections that violate UK/EU rules on pedestrian protection.
Tesla has considered creating what it referred to as an “international version” that would be approved for operation in Europe. However, there has been no real movement on that front by the company, as it has been focused on the Robotaxi rollout primarily.
Tesla urges New Jersey owners to oppose new bill that could block Robotaxi
Tesla’s Navigation Nightmare: Why the easiest part of FSD might be the hardest
