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.”
News
Ford cancels all-electric F-150 Lightning, announces $19.5 billion in charges
“Rather than spending billions more on large EVs that now have no path to profitability, we are allocating that money into higher returning areas, more trucks and van hybrids, extended range electric vehicles, affordable EVs, and entirely new opportunities like energy storage.”
Ford is canceling the all-electric F-150 Lightning and also announced it would take a $19.5 billion charge as it aims to quickly restructure its strategy regarding electrification efforts, a massive blow for the Detroit-based company that was once one of the most gung-ho on transitioning to EVs.
The announcement comes as the writing on the wall seemed to get bolder and more identifiable. Ford was bleeding money in EVs and, although it had a lot of success with the all-electric Lightning, it is aiming to push its efforts elsewhere.
It will also restructure its entire strategy on EVs, and the Lightning is not the only vehicle getting the boot. The T3 pickup, a long-awaited vehicle that was developed in part of a skunkworks program, is also no longer in the company’s plans.
Instead of continuing on with its large EVs, it will now shift its focus to hybrids and “extended-range EVs,” which will have an onboard gasoline engine to increase traveling distance, according to the Wall Street Journal.
“Ford no longer plans to produce select larger electric vehicles where the business case has eroded due to lower-than-expected demand, high costs, and regulatory changes,” the company said in a statement.
🚨 Ford has announced it is discontinuing production of the F-150 Lightning, as it plans to report a charge of $19.5 billion in special items.
The Lightning will still be produced, but instead with a gas generator that will give it over 700 miles of range.
“Ford no longer… pic.twitter.com/ZttZ66SDHL
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) December 15, 2025
While unfortunate, especially because the Lightning was a fantastic electric truck, Ford is ultimately a business, and a business needs to make money.
Ford has lost $13 billion on its EV business since 2023, and company executives are more than aware that they gave it plenty of time to flourish.
Andrew Frick, President of Ford, said:
“Rather than spending billions more on large EVs that now have no path to profitability, we are allocating that money into higher returning areas, more trucks and van hybrids, extended range electric vehicles, affordable EVs, and entirely new opportunities like energy storage.”
CEO Jim Farley also commented on the decision:
“Instead of plowing billions into the future knowing these large EVs will never make money, we are pivoting.”
Farley also said that the company now knows enough about the U.S. market “where we have a lot more certainty in this second inning.”
SpaceX employees, including its CEO Elon Musk, shaded American Airlines on social media this past weekend due to the company’s reported talks with Amazon’s Starlink rival, Leo.
Starlink has been adopted by several airlines, including United Airlines, Qatar Airways, Hawaiian Airlines, WestJet, Air France, airBaltic, and others. It has gained notoriety as an extremely solid, dependable, and reliable option for airline travel, as traditional options frequently cause users to lose connection to the internet.
Many airlines have made the switch, while others continue to mull the options available to them. American Airlines is one of them.
A report from Bloomberg indicates the airline is thinking of going with a Starlink rival owned by Amazon, called Leo. It was previously referred to as Project Kuiper.
American CEO Robert Isom said (via Bloomberg):
“While there’s Starlink, there are other low-Earth-orbit satellite opportunities that we can look at. We’re making sure that American is going to have what our customers need.”
Isom also said American has been in touch with Amazon about installing Leo on its aircraft, but he would not reveal the status of any discussions with the company.
The report caught the attention of Michael Nicolls, the Vice President of Starlink Engineering at SpaceX, who said:
“Only fly on airlines with good connectivity… and only one source of good connectivity at the moment…”
CEO Elon Musk replied to Nicolls by stating that American Airlines risks losing “a lot of customers if their connectivity solution fails.”
American Airlines will lose a lot of customers if their connectivity solution fails
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) December 14, 2025
There are over 8,000 Starlink satellites in orbit currently, offering internet coverage in over 150 countries and territories globally. SpaceX expands its array of satellites nearly every week with launches from California and Florida, aiming to offer internet access to everyone across the globe.
Currently, the company is focusing on expanding into new markets, such as Africa and Asia.
News
Tesla Model Y Standard stuns in new range test, besting its Premium siblings
Tesla’s newer vehicles have continued to meet or exceed their EPA estimates. This is a drastic change, as every 2018-2023 model year Tesla that Edmunds assessed did not meet its range estimates.
The Tesla Model Y Standard stunned in a new range test performed by automotive media outlet Edmunds, besting all of its Premium siblings that are more expensive and more luxurious in terms of features.
Testing showed the Model Y Standard exceeded its EPA-estimated range rating of 321 miles, as Edmunds said it is the “longest-range Model Y that we’ve ever put on our loop.” In the past, some vehicles have come up short in comparison with EPA ranges; for example, the Model Y’s previous generation vehicle had an EPA-estimated range of 330 miles, but only drove 310.
Additionally, the Launch Series Model Y, the first configuration to be built in the “Juniper” program, landed perfectly on the EPA’s range estimates at 327 miles.
It was also more efficient than Premium offerings, as it utilized just 22.8 kWh to go 100 miles. The Launch Series used 26.8 kWh to travel the same distance.
It is tested using Edmunds’ traditional EV range testing procedure, which follows a strict route of 60 percent city and 40 percent highway driving. The average speed throughout the trip is 40 MPH, and the car is required to stay within 5 MPH of all posted speed limits.
Each car is also put in its most efficient drive setting, and the climate is kept on auto at 72 degrees.
“All of this most accurately represents the real-world driving that owners do day to day,” the publication says.
With this procedure, testing is as consistent as it can get. Of course, there are other factors, like temperature and traffic density. However, one thing is important to note: Tesla’s newer vehicles have continued to meet or exceed their EPA estimates. This is a drastic change, as every 2018-2023 model year Tesla that Edmunds assessed did not meet its range estimates.
Tesla Model Y Standard vs. Tesla Model Y Premium
Tesla’s two Model Y levels both offer a great option for whichever fits your budget. However, when you sit in both cars, you will notice distinct differences between them.
The Premium definitely has a more luxurious feel, while the Standard is stripped of many of the more premium features, like Vegan Leather Interior, acoustic-lined glass, and a better sound system.
You can read our full review of the Model Y Standard below:
Tesla Model Y Standard Full Review: Is it worth the lower price?
Ford cancels all-electric F-150 Lightning, announces $19.5 billion in charges
SpaceX shades airline for seeking contract with Amazon’s Starlink rival
