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
News
Tesla Robotaxi fleet reaches new milestone that should expel common complaint
There have been many complaints in the eight months that the Robotaxi program has been active about ride availability, with many stating that they have been confronted with excessive wait times for a ride, as the fleet was very small at the beginning of its operation.
Tesla Robotaxi is active in both the Bay Area of California and Austin, Texas, and the fleet has reached a new milestone that should expel a common complaint: lack of availability.
It has now been confirmed by Robotaxi Tracker that the fleet of Tesla’s ride-sharing vehicles has reached 200, with 158 of those being available in the Bay Area and 42 more in Austin. Despite the program first launching in Texas, the company has more vehicles available in California.
The California area of operation is much larger than it is in Texas, and the vehicle fleet is larger because Tesla operates it differently; Safety Monitors sit in the driver’s seat in California while FSD navigates. In Texas, Safety Monitors sit in the passenger’s seat, but will switch seats when routing takes them on the highway.
Tesla has also started testing rides without any Safety Monitors internally.
Tesla Robotaxi goes driverless as Musk confirms Safety Monitor removal testing
This new milestone confronts a common complaint of Robotaxi riders in Austin and the Bay, which is vehicle availability.
There have been many complaints in the eight months that the Robotaxi program has been active about ride availability, with many stating that they have been confronted with excessive wait times for a ride, as the fleet was very small at the beginning of its operation.
I attempted to take a @robotaxi ride today from multiple different locations and time of day (from 9:00 AM to about 3:00 PM in Austin but never could do so.
I always got a “High Service Demand” message … I really hope @Tesla is about to go unsupervised and greatly plus up the… pic.twitter.com/IOUQlaqPU2
— Joe Tegtmeyer 🚀 🤠🛸😎 (@JoeTegtmeyer) November 26, 2025
With that being said, there have been some who have said wait times have improved significantly, especially in the Bay, where the fleet is much larger.
Robotaxi wait times here in Silicon Valley used to be around 15 minutes for me.
Over the past few days, they’ve been consistently under five minutes, and with scaling through the end of this year, they should drop to under two minutes. pic.twitter.com/Kbskt6lUiR
— Alternate Jones (@AlternateJones) January 6, 2026
Tesla’s approach to the Robotaxi fleet has been to prioritize safety while also gathering its footing as a ride-hailing platform.
Of course, there have been and still will be growing pains, but overall, things have gone smoothly, as there have been no major incidents that would derail the company’s ability to continue developing an effective mode of transportation for people in various cities in the U.S.
Tesla plans to expand Robotaxi to more cities this year, including Miami, Las Vegas, and Houston, among several others.
Elon Musk
Tesla announces closure date on widely controversial Full Self-Driving program
Tesla has said that it will officially bring closure to its free Full Self-Driving transfer program on March 31, 2026, giving owners until the end of the quarter to move their driving suite to another vehicle with no additional cost.
Tesla has officially announced a closure date for a widely controversial Full Self-Driving program, which has been among the most discussed pieces of the driving suite for years.
The move comes just after the company confirmed it would no longer offer the option to purchase the suite outright, instead opting for a subscription-based platform that will be available in mid-February.
Tesla has said that it will officially bring closure to its free Full Self-Driving transfer program on March 31, 2026, giving owners until the end of the quarter to move their driving suite to another vehicle with no additional cost.
NEWS: Tesla has started to inform customers in the U.S. that free FSD transfer will end on March 31, 2026.
Tesla has previously said free FSD transfers would end “that quarter,” but this is the first time in many quarters they’ve communicated a specific end date. Time will tell… pic.twitter.com/iCKDvGuBds
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) January 18, 2026
After that date, Tesla owners who purchased the FSD suite outright will have to adopt the exclusive subscription-only program, which will be the only option available after February 14.
CEO Elon Musk announced earlier this month that Tesla would be ending the option to purchase Full Self-Driving outright, but the reasoning for this decision is unknown.
However, there has been a lot of speculation that Tesla could offer a new tiered program, which would potentially lower the price of the suite and increase the take rate.
Tesla is shifting FSD to a subscription-only model, confirms Elon Musk
Others have mentioned something like a pay-per-mile platform that would charge drivers based on usage, which seems to be advantageous for those who still love to drive their cars but enjoy using FSD for longer trips, as it can take the stress out of driving.
Moving forward, Tesla seems to be taking any strategy it can to increase the number of owners who utilize FSD, especially as it is explicitly mentioned in Musk’s new compensation package, which was approved last year.
Musk is responsible for getting at least 10 million active Full Self-Driving subscriptions in one tranche, while another would require the company to deliver 20 million vehicles cumulatively.
The current FSD take rate is somewhere around 12 percent, as the company revealed during the Q3 2025 Earnings Call. Tesla needs to bump this up considerably, and the move to rid itself of the outright purchase option seems to be a move to get things going in the right direction.
News
Tesla Model Y leads South Korea’s EV growth in 2025
Data from the Korea Automobile and Mobility Industry Association showed that the Tesla Model Y emerged as one of the segment’s single biggest growth drivers.
South Korea’s electric vehicle market saw a notable rise in 2025, with registrations rising more than 50% and EV penetration surpassing 10% for the first time.
Data from the Korea Automobile and Mobility Industry Association showed that the Tesla Model Y, which is imported from Gigafactory Shanghai, emerged as one of the segment’s single biggest growth drivers, as noted in a report from IT Home News.
As per the Korea Automobile and Mobility Industry Association’s (KAMA) 2025 Korea Domestic Electric Vehicle Market Settlement report, South Korea registered 220,177 new electric vehicles in 2025, a 50.1% year-over-year increase. EV penetration also reached 13.1% in the country, entering double digits for the first time.
The Tesla Model Y played a central role in the market’s growth. The Model Y alone sold 50,397 units during the year, capturing 26.6% of South Korea’s pure electric passenger vehicle market. Sales of the Giga Shanghai-built Model Y increased 169.2% compared with 2024, driven largely by strong demand for the all-electric crossover’s revamped version.
Manufacturer performance reflected a tightly contested market. Kia led with 60,609 EV sales, followed closely by Tesla at 59,893 units and Hyundai at 55,461 units. Together, the three brands accounted for nearly 80% of the country’s total EV sales, forming what KAMA described as a three-way competitive market.
Imported EVs gained ground in South Korea in 2025, reaching a market share of 42.8%, while the share of domestically produced EVs declined from 75% in 2022 to 57.2% last year. Sales of China-made EVs more than doubled year over year to 74,728 units, supported in no small part by Tesla and its Model Y.
Elon Musk, for his part, has praised South Korean customers and their embrace of the electric vehicler maker. In a reply on X to a user who noted that South Koreans are fond of FSD, Musk stated that, “Koreans are often a step ahead in appreciating new technology.”
Tesla Robotaxi fleet reaches new milestone that should expel common complaint
Tesla announces closure date on widely controversial Full Self-Driving program
