News
Tesla fires back at Fortune with cheeky “Misfortune” blog post
The drama continues between Tesla and Fortune after the media outlet published a story questioning Tesla’s ethics claiming the company sold $2 billion worth of stock but failed to disclose that it was under investigation by the National Highway Transport Association (NHTSA) after Joshua Brown was killed when his Model S in Autopilot mode crashed into a tractor trailer.
Since the story was published, Tesla CEO Elon Musk defended the company’s position that news surrounding the Autopilot related death was not material to its stock price. Fortune disagreed citing that the stock price dropped $6 per share after news broke that the NHTSA was in fact investigating evidence surrounding Brown’s death. That’s when Musk fired back via email picking choice words with Fortune’s writer and stating, “Indeed, if anyone bothered to do the math (obviously, you did not) they would realize that of the over 1M auto deaths per year worldwide, approximately half a million people would have been saved if the Tesla autopilot was universally available. Please, take 5 mins and do the bloody math before you write an article that misleads the public.”
The Tesla vs Fortune debacle spilled over into the public Twittersphere between Fortune’s Editor Alan Murray and Elon Musk. The tweets continued throughout Wednesday with Alan Murray defending the media outlet’s position that Tesla did not disclose news of the Autopilot death. Fortune went as far as quoting statements made in an SEC filing by Tesla which warned investors that a fatal crash related to its Autopilot feature would be a material event to the company’s brand, business, and operating results. Tesla would later bring to light that Fortune mischaracterized the quote within the SEC filing.
Tesla has since released a blog post on this matter titled “Misfortune”.
Misfortune
Fortune’s article is fundamentally incorrect.
First, Fortune mischaracterizes Tesla’s SEC filing. Here is what Tesla’s SEC filing actually says: “We may become subject to product liability claims, which could harm our financial condition and liquidity if we are not able to successfully defend or insure against such claims.” [full text included below] This is just stating the obvious. One of the risks facing Tesla (or any company) is that someone could bring product liability claims against it. However, neither at the time of this SEC filing, nor in the several weeks to date, has anyone brought a product liability claim against Tesla relating to the crash in Florida.
Next, Fortune entirely ignores what Tesla knew and when, nor have they even asked the questions. Instead, they simply assume that Tesla had complete information from the moment this accident occurred. This was a physical impossibility given that the damage sustained by the Model S in the crash limited Tesla’s ability to recover data from it remotely.
When Tesla told NHTSA about the accident on May 16th, we had barely started our investigation. Tesla informed NHTSA because it wanted to let NHTSA know about a death that had taken place in one of its vehicles. It was not until May 18th that a Tesla investigator was able to go to Florida to inspect the car and the crash site and pull the complete vehicle logs from the car, and it was not until the last week of May that Tesla was able to finish its review of those logs and complete its investigation. When Fortune contacted Tesla for comment on this story during the July 4th holiday, Fortune never asked any of these questions and instead just made assumptions. Tesla asked Fortune to give it a day to confirm these facts before it rushed its story to print. They declined and instead ran a misleading article.
Here’s what we did know at the time of the accident and subsequent filing:
- That Tesla Autopilot had been safely used in over 100 million miles of driving by tens of thousands of customers worldwide, with zero confirmed fatalities and a wealth of internal data demonstrating safer, more predictable vehicle control performance when the system is properly used.
- That contrasted against worldwide accident data, customers using Autopilot are statistically safer than those not using it at all.
- That given its nature as a driver assistance system, a collision on Autopilot was a statistical inevitability, though by this point, not one that would alter the conclusion already borne out over millions of miles that the system provided a net safety benefit to society.
Given the fact that the “better-than-human” threshold had been crossed and robustly validated internally, news of a statistical inevitability did not materially change any statements previously made about the Autopilot system, its capabilities, or net impact on roadway safety.
Finally, the Fortune article makes two other false assumptions. First, they assume that this accident was caused by an Autopilot failure. To be clear, this accident was the result of a semi-tractor trailer crossing both lanes of a divided highway in front of an oncoming car. Whether driven under manual or assisted mode, this presented a challenging and unexpected emergency braking scenario for the driver to respond to. In the moments leading up to the collision, there is no evidence to suggest that Autopilot was not operating as designed and as described to users: specifically, as a driver assistance system that maintains a vehicle’s position in lane and adjusts the vehicle’s speed to match surrounding traffic.
Fortune never even addresses that point. Second, Fortune assumes that, putting all of these other problems aside, a single accident involving Autopilot, regardless of how many accidents Autopilot has stopped and how many lives it has saved, is material to Tesla’s investors. On the day the news broke about NHTSA’s decision to initiate a preliminary evaluation into the incident, Tesla’s stock traded up, not down, confirming that not only did our investors know better, but that our own internal assessment of the performance and risk profile of Autopilot were in line with market expectations.
The bottom line is that Fortune jumped the gun on a story before they had the facts. They then sought wrongly to defend that position by plucking boilerplate language from SEC filings that have no bearing on what happened, while failing to correct or acknowledge their original omissions and errors.
Full text referenced above:
We may become subject to product liability claims, which could harm our financial condition and liquidity if we are not able to successfully defend or insure against such claims.
“Product liability claims could harm our business, prospects, operating results and financial condition. The automobile industry experiences significant product liability claims and we face inherent risk of exposure to claims in the event our vehicles do not perform as expected resulting in personal injury or death. We also may face similar claims related to any misuse or failures of new technologies that we are pioneering, including autopilot in our vehicles and our Tesla Energy products. A successful product liability claim against us with respect to any aspect of our products could require us to pay a substantial monetary award. Our risks in this area are particularly pronounced given the limited number of vehicles and energy storage products delivered to date and limited field experience of our products. Moreover, a product liability claim could generate substantial negative publicity about our products and business and would have material adverse effect on our brand, business, prospects and operating results. We self-insure against the risk of product liability claims, meaning that any product liability claims will have to be paid from company funds, not by insurance.”
Tesla is updating Cybertruck owners on its timeline of a massive feature that has yet to ship: Powershare with Powerwall.
Powershare is a bidirectional charging feature exclusive to Cybertruck, which allows the vehicle’s battery to act as a portable power source for homes, appliances, tools, other EVs, and more. It was announced in late 2023 as part of Tesla’s push into vehicle-to-everything energy sharing, and acting as a giant portable charger is the main advantage, as it can provide backup power during outages.
Cybertruck’s Powershare system supports both vehicle-to-load (V2L) and vehicle-to-home (V2H), making it flexible and well-rounded for a variety of applications.
However, even though the feature was promised with Cybertruck, it has yet to be shipped to vehicles. Tesla communicated with owners through email recently regarding Powershare with Powerwall, which essentially has the pickup act as an extended battery.
Powerwall discharge would be prioritized before tapping into the truck’s larger pack.
However, Tesla is still working on getting the feature out to owners, an email said:
“We’re writing to let you know that the Powershare with Powerwall feature is still in development and is now scheduled for release in mid-2026.
This new release date gives us additional time to design and test this feature, ensuring its ability to communicate and optimize energy sharing between your vehicle and many configurations and generations of Powerwall. We are also using this time to develop additional Powershare features that will help us continue to accelerate the world’s transition to sustainable energy.”
Owners have expressed some real disappointment in Tesla’s continuous delays in releasing the feature, as it was expected to be released by late 2024, but now has been pushed back several times to mid-2026, according to the email.
Foundation Series Cybertruck buyers paid extra, expecting the feature to be rolled out with their vehicle upon pickup.
Cybertruck’s Lead Engineer, Wes Morrill, even commented on the holdup:
As a Cybertruck owner who also has Powerwall, I empathize with the disappointed comments.
To their credit, the team has delivered powershare functionality to Cybertruck customers who otherwise have no backup with development of the powershare gateway. As well as those with solar…
— Wes (@wmorrill3) December 12, 2025
He said that “it turned out to be much harder than anticipated to make powershare work seamlessly with existing Powerwalls through existing wall connectors. Two grid-forming devices need to negotiate who will form and who will follow, depending on the state of charge of each, and they need to do this without a network and through multiple generations of hardware, and test and validate this process through rigorous certifications to ensure grid safety.”
It’s nice to see the transparency, but it is justified for some Cybertruck owners to feel like they’ve been bait-and-switched.
Tesla has opened its northernmost Supercharger in Fairbanks, Alaska, with eight V4 stalls located in one of the most frigid cities in the U.S.
Located just 196 miles from the Arctic Circle, Fairbanks’s average temperature for the week was around -12 degrees Fahrenheit. However, there are plenty of Tesla owners in Alaska who have been waiting for more charging options out in public.
There are only 36 total Supercharger stalls in Alaska, despite being the largest state in the U.S.
Eight Superchargers were added to Fairbanks, which will eventually be a 48-stall station. Tesla announced its activation today:
North America’s northernmost Supercharger Fairbanks, AK (8 stalls) opened to public. https://t.co/M4l04DZ6B5 pic.twitter.com/zyL6bDuA93
— Tesla Charging (@TeslaCharging) December 12, 2025
The base price per kWh is $0.43 at the Fairbanks Supercharger. Thanks to its V4 capabilities, it can charge at speeds up to 325 kW.
Despite being the northernmost Supercharger in North America, it is not even in the Top 5 northernmost Superchargers globally, because Alaska is south of Norway. The northernmost Supercharger is in Honningsvåg, Norway. All of the Top 5 are in the Scandanavian country.
Tesla’s Supercharger expansion in 2025 has been impressive, and although it experienced some early-quarter slowdowns due to V3-to-V4 hardware transitions, it has been the company’s strongest year for deployments.
🚨🚨 Tesla Supercharging had a HUGE year, and they deserve to be recognized.
🍔 Opened Tesla Diner, a drive-in movie theater with awesome, Chef-curated cuisine
🔌 Gave access to Superchargers to several EV makers, including Hyundai, Genesis, Mercedes-Benz, Kia, Lucid, Toyota,… pic.twitter.com/yYT2QEbqoW
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) December 10, 2025
Through the three quarters of 2025, the company has added 7,753 stations and 73,817 stalls across the world, a 16 percent increase in stations and an 18 percent increase in stalls compared to last year.
Tesla is on track to add over 12,000 stalls for the full year, achieving an average of one new stall every hour, an impressive statistic.
Recently, the company wrapped up construction at its Supercharger Oasis in Lost Hills, California, a 168-stall Supercharger that Tesla Solar Panels completely power. It is the largest Supercharger in the world.
News
Tesla shocks with latest Robotaxi testing move
Why Tesla has chosen to use a couple of Model S units must have a reason; the company is calculated in its engineering and data collection efforts, so this is definitely more than “we just felt like giving our drivers a change of scenery.”
Tesla Model S vehicles were spotted performing validation testing with LiDAR rigs in California today, a pretty big switch-up compared to what we are used to seeing on the roads.
Tesla utilizes the Model Y crossover for its Robotaxi fleet. It is adequately sized, the most popular vehicle in its lineup, and is suitable for a wide variety of applications. It provides enough luxury for a single rider, but enough room for several passengers, if needed.
However, the testing has seemingly expanded to one of Tesla’s premium flagship offerings, as the Model S was spotted with the validation equipment that is seen entirely with Model Y vehicles. We have written several articles on Robotaxi testing mules being spotted across the United States, but this is a first:
🚨 Tesla is using Model S vehicles fitted with LiDAR rigs to validate FSD and Robotaxi, differing from the Model Ys that it uses typically
Those Model Y vehicles have been on the East Coast for some time. These Model S cars were spotted in California https://t.co/CN9Bw5Wma8 pic.twitter.com/UE55hx5mdd
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) December 11, 2025
Why Tesla has chosen to use a couple of Model S units must have a reason; the company is calculated in its engineering and data collection efforts, so this is definitely more than “we just felt like giving our drivers a change of scenery.”
It seems to hint that Tesla could add a premium, more luxury offering to its Robotaxi platform eventually. Think about it: Uber has Uber Black, Lyft has Lyft Black. These vehicles and services are associated with a more premium cost as they combine luxury models with more catered transportation options.
Tesla could be testing the waters here, and it could be thinking of adding the Model S to its fleet of ride-hailing vehicles.
Reluctant to remove the Model S from its production plans completely despite its low volume contributions to the overall mission of transitioning the world to sustainable energy, the flagship sedan has always meant something. CEO Elon Musk referred to it, along with its sibling Model X, as continuing on production lines due to “sentimental reasons.”
However, its purpose might have been expanded to justify keeping it around, and why not? It is a cozy, premium offering, and it would be great for those who want a little more luxury and are willing to pay a few extra dollars.
Of course, none of this is even close to confirmed. However, it is reasonable to speculate that the Model S could be a potential addition to the Robotaxi fleet. It’s capable of all the same things the Model Y is, but with more luxuriousness, and it could be the perfect addition to the futuristic fleet.
Tesla updates Cybertruck owners about key Powershare feature
Tesla’s northernmost Supercharger in North America opens
