This is a preview from our weekly newsletter. Each week I go ‘Beyond the News’ and handcraft a special edition that includes my thoughts on the biggest stories, why it matters, and how it could impact the future.
Earlier this week, NTSB Chief Jennifer Homendy made some disparaging comments regarding Tesla’s use of “Full Self-Driving” to explain its semi-autonomous driving suite. The remarks from Homendy show that Tesla may not have a fair chance when it ultimately comes to proving the effectiveness of its FSD program, especially considering agency officials, who should remain impartial, are already making misdirected comments regarding the name of the suite.
In an interview with the Wall Street Journal, Homendy commented on the company’s use of the phrase “Full Self-Driving.” While Tesla’s FSD suite is admittedly not capable of Level 5 autonomy, the idea for the program is to eventually roll out a fully autonomous driving program for those who choose to invest in the company’s software. However, instead of focusing on the program’s effectiveness and commending Tesla, arguably the leader in self-driving developments, Homendy concentrates on the terminology.
Homendy said Tesla’s use of the term “Full Self-Driving” was “misleading and irresponsible,” despite the company confirming with each driver who buys the capability that the program is not yet fully autonomous. Drivers are explicitly told to remain vigilant and keep their hands on the wheel at all times. It is a requirement to use Autopilot or FSD, and failure to do so can result in being locked in “Autopilot jail” for the duration of your trip. Nobody wants that.
However, despite the way some media outlets and others describe Tesla’s FSD program, the company’s semi-autonomous driving functionalities are extraordinarily safe and among the most complex on the market. Tesla is one of the few companies attempting to solve the riddle that is self-driving, and the only to my knowledge that has chosen not to use LiDAR in its efforts. Additionally, Tesla ditched radar just a few months ago in the Model Y and Model 3, meaning cameras are the only infrastructure the company plans to use to keep its cars moving. Several drivers have reported improvements due to the lack of radar.
These comments regarding FSD and Autopilot are simple: The terminology is not the focus; the facts are. The truth is, Tesla Autopilot recorded one of its safest quarters, according to the most recently released statistics that outlined an accident occurring on Autopilot just once every 4.19 million miles. The national average is 484,000 miles, the NHTSA says.
It isn’t to say that things don’t happen. Accidents on Autopilot and FSD do occur, and the NHTSA is currently probing twelve incidents that have shown Autopilot to be active during an accident. While the conditions and situations vary in each accident, several have already been proven to be the result of driver negligence, including a few that had drivers operating a vehicle without a license or under the influence of alcohol. Now, remind me: When a BMW driver is drunk and crashes into someone, do we blame BMW? I’ll let that rhetorical question sink in.
Of course, Homendy has a Constitutional right to say whatever is on her mind. It is perfectly reasonable to be skeptical of self-driving systems. I’ll admit, the first time I experienced one, I was not a fan, but it wasn’t because I didn’t trust it. It was because I was familiar with controlling a vehicle and not having it manage things for me. However, just like anything else, I adjusted and got used to the idea, eventually becoming accustomed to the new feelings and sensations of having my car assist me in navigating to my destination.
To me, it is simply unfortunate for an NTSB official to claim that Tesla “has clearly misled numerous people to misuse and abuse technology.” One, because it isn’t possible, two, because it would be a massive liability for the company, and three, because Tesla has never maintained that its cars can drive themselves. Tesla has never claimed that its cars can drive themselves, nor has Tesla ever advised a driver to attempt a fully autonomous trek to a destination.
The numerous safety features and additions to the FSD suite have only solidified Tesla’s position as one of the safest car companies out there. With in-cabin cameras to test driver attentiveness and numerous other safety thresholds that drivers must respond to with the correct behaviors, Tesla’s FSD suite and its Autopilot program are among the safest around. It isn’t favorable for NTSB head Homendy to comment in this way, especially as it seems to be detrimental to not only Tesla’s attempts to achieve Level 5 autonomy but the entire self-driving effort as a whole.
A big thanks to our long-time supporters and new subscribers! Thank you.
I use this newsletter to share my thoughts on what is going on in the Tesla world. If you want to talk to me directly, you can email me or reach me on Twitter. I don’t bite, be sure to reach out!
-Joey
Investor's Corner
Tesla and SpaceX take “Terafab” Trademark fight to Federal Court
Tesla and SpaceX sue a small Illinois firm after cease and desist letters over Terafab.
Tesla and SpaceX are asking a federal judge to rule that their planned Terafab chip factory does not infringe a small Illinois company’s trademark, a request that arrives only after months of quiet negotiation broke down this summer.
The dispute traces to May 18, when Tesla filed three U.S. trademark applications for “Terafab” and “Tesla Terafab,” covering semiconductor chips and related chip making services. TERA-print LLC, a nanotechnology company that has held a federal trademark for “Tera-Fab” since 2021, responded five days later with a cease and desist letter. According to the lawsuit, first reported by Reuters, TERA-print argued that Tesla and SpaceX’s use of “Terafab” would confuse consumers familiar with its own trademark, which covers a desktop photolithography printer sold to researchers for sensor and bioengineering work.
What stands out in the filing is the timing of TERA-print’s own paperwork. One day before sending that cease and desist letter, on May 22, TERA-print applied to expand its existing registration to cover semiconductor materials, silicon chips, nanoelectronic devices and AI design services, categories it had not previously claimed. Tesla and SpaceX call that filing opportunistic in their complaint, noting it arrived two months after Tesla’s public Terafab announcement and just days after Tesla’s own trademark applications went in.
Elon Musk launches TERAFAB: The $25B Tesla-SpaceXAI chip factory that will rewire the AI industry
By June 10, TERA-print was threatening to sue for federal trademark infringement, false designation of origin and unfair competition, the complaint states. Rather than wait to be sued, Tesla, SpaceX and SpaceXAI met with TERA-print six separate times between June and August trying to resolve the dispute directly. Those talks collapsed, and the companies filed for declaratory judgment this week in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, asking a judge to find that “Terafab” does not infringe TERA-print’s mark before TERA-print can file a claim of its own.
TERA-print isn’t backing down. The company told PCMag it discussed a settlement with Tesla as recently as September 2 and feels misled by what it called Tesla’s professed interest in settling. Its CTO, Andrey Ivankin, said TERA-print holds a Defense Department contract to fabricate semiconductors and partially owns Mattiq Inc., an AI company built on TERA-print’s products, and that the company will vigorously defend its rights.
Tesla and SpaceX argue the overlap is superficial. Terafab is planned as a $16.8 billion complex spanning roughly 100 million square feet at the Grimes County site SpaceX confirmed last month, built to produce chips for Optimus robots, Tesla’s AI computing needs and SpaceX’s orbital data center ambitions, a scale and purpose the companies say no reasonable consumer would confuse with a tabletop lab printer. TERA-print’s product line has stayed focused on lithography tools for biological and sensor research since it registered its mark in 2021.
The trademark fight is the second legal dispute tied to the Terafab project in the past week, following a separate SpaceX suit aimed at keeping company records about the facility out of public view, as KBTX reported. Whether construction proceeds under the Terafab name now depends on a federal judge in Austin.
News
NHTSA just escalated its Tesla Cybercab investigation in a big way
NHTSA escalated its Cybercab audit into a sworn Special Order with a September 30 deadline.
Federal regulators have moved from asking Tesla questions about its Cybercab to demanding sworn answers. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issued a Special Order that requires a Tesla officer to sign an affidavit attesting to the completeness of the company’s responses, with a deadline of September 30.
The order builds on Audit Query AQ26002, which NHTSA opened on September 3, the same day Tesla began commercial Cybercab service in Austin. Teslarati covered that initial inquiry when it surfaced, noting the agency wanted to understand how Tesla certified a vehicle with no permanently attached steering wheel, pedals, or mirrors as compliant with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. A Special Order is a different tool and converts a fact finding review into a legally enforceable demand, the same mechanism NHTSA used against Tesla in 2023 during its Autopilot investigation.
Several of the 21 requests target a specific gap in Cybercab’s design. One asks whether Tesla used temporarily attached human controls at any point to help certify the vehicle, and if so, which standards depended on that equipment being present. Another quotes an existing rule directly: “The service brakes shall be activated by means of a foot control.” Cybercab has no foot pedal. NHTSA wants a detailed explanation of how the vehicle satisfies that requirement, and how it complies without the kind of exemption granted to Zoox in July under Part 555, the regulatory pathway built for steering wheel free vehicles.
The order does not claim Cybercab is unsafe or that Tesla broke a rule. It requires Tesla to explain, under oath, the reasoning behind decisions the company already made when it self-certified the vehicle. That distinction matters, but so does the exposure. Motor1’s reporting, summarized here, put potential civil penalty exposure as high as $139 million if NHTSA later finds the certification was flawed, on top of whatever criminal risk comes with a false sworn statement.
Tesla has not said publicly how it plans to respond. Cybercab is still carrying passengers in Austin through the Robotaxi app while the September 30 deadline approaches, and the company has continued expanding the vehicle’s footprint even as the regulatory question remains open. The Special Order does not pause any of that and just sets a date by which Tesla has to put its certification logic on the record, with a company officer’s name attached to it.
In a new interview on Wednesday, Tesla uber bull Ron Baron said that anyone looking to buy the company’s stock should do so as soon as they can.
Baron, founder and CEO of Baron Capital and one of Tesla’s most persistent institutional bulls, used a CNBC Squawk Box appearance on Wednesday to deliver a familiar message with fresh urgency: In his opinion, Tesla stock is a buy:
“The time to buy the stock is now. FSD is catching on, and it’s going to be bigger and bigger. 55% of new buyers are buying it (Teslas) with FSD. It’s going to be everywhere. It’s safer.”
The Baron Capital frontman’s case is built around Full Self-Driving. Tesla reported 1.48 million active FSD subscriptions in the second quarter, up 56 percent year over year, and company officials have said roughly 55 percent of new North American deliveries left with a subscription enabled.
Baron framed that attach rate as proof the product is moving from enthusiast extra to default expectation, and as a reason software, not just vehicle volume, should drive the next phase of value.
His conviction on Tesla shares is not theoretical, as Baron Capital made its first Tesla investment in 2014, after years of meetings that began around the 2010 IPO roadshow. The firm later built a large SpaceX position starting in 2017.
Ron Baron today in new interview on Tesla:
“The time to buy the stock is now. FSD is catching on, and it’s going to be bigger and bigger. 55% of new buyers are buying it (Teslas) with FSD. It’s going to be everywhere. It’s safer.” pic.twitter.com/Rv5PB0bVZ2
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) September 16, 2026
Baron said those Musk-led bets have generated about $30 billion of the $71 billion in profits Baron Capital has produced for clients. He put the firm’s current exposure at roughly $25 billion in SpaceX and $5 billion in Tesla. Personally, he described SpaceX as his largest holding, at about $5 billion, with about $1.5 billion in Tesla and additional Tesla exposure through the firm’s funds.
That concentration is also a statement of loyalty. Asked about talk of a SpaceX-Tesla combination, Baron said he had already walked Elon Musk through arguments for and against a deal, then declined to repeat them on air. His public position was simpler: “Whatever you decide is better is what I’m going to support,” he said to Musk.
Baron also said that he picked up the farewell edition of the Model S after Tesla decided to sunset the vehicle earlier this year, calling it his favorite car he’s ever driven.
Tesla and SpaceX take “Terafab” Trademark fight to Federal Court
NHTSA just escalated its Tesla Cybercab investigation in a big way
