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.”
Elon Musk
SpaceX Board has set a Mars bonus for Elon Musk
SpaceX has given Elon Musk the goal to put one million people on Mars.
SpaceX’s board approved a compensation plan for Elon Musk that ties his pay directly to colonizing Mars and building data centers in outer space. The details surfaced this week after Reuters reviewed SpaceX’s confidential registration statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, making it one of the first concrete looks inside the company’s financials ahead of a public offering.
The pay package will reportedly award Musk 200 million super-voting restricted shares if the company hits a market valuation milestone, with the most ambitious targets going further. To unlock the full award, SpaceX would need to reach a $7.5 trillion valuation and help establish a permanent human settlement on Mars with at least one million residents. Additional incentives are tied to developing space-based computing infrastructure capable of delivering at least 100 terawatts of processing power.
SpaceX wins its first MARS contract but it comes with a catch
Long before SpaceX filed anything with the SEC, Elon Musk had already spent years framing Mars colonization as an insurance policy against human extinction. The philosophy traces back to at least 2001, when Musk first began researching Mars missions independently, before SpaceX even existed. By 2002 he had founded the company with Mars as the stated long-term goal.
In a 2017 presentation at the International Astronautical Congress, Musk outlined the specific vision that still underpins SpaceX’s architecture today. He described a self-sustaining city on Mars requiring roughly one million people to become viable, the same number now written into his compensation package.
SpaceX’s Starship, still in active development, was designed from the ground up to support the eventual colonization of Mars. Musk has stated publicly that getting the cost per ton to Mars below $100,000 is necessary to make mass migration economically feasible. Everything from Starship’s payload capacity to its full reusability targets flows from that single constraint. One can say that Musk’s latest compensation package has put a formal valuation on Mars for the first time.
SpaceX is targeting an IPO around June 28, Musk’s birthday, at a valuation of approximately $1.75 trillion. Between the Mars rover contract, the Golden Dome software group, Space Force satellite launches, and now a pay structure built around interplanetary colonization, SpaceX has become the single most consequential contractor in American space and defense. The IPO will put a public price tag on all of it for the first time.
Earlier this week, we wrote a story on how Tesla is launching a new Supercharging Queue system to mitigate problems between drivers when there is a wait to charge.
Rather than potentially having people end up in a physical conflict, Tesla’s approach is to determine who is next to charge based on geographic data.
Tesla launches solution to end Supercharger fights once and for all
But some companies, notably Tesla’s biggest rival in China, BYD, are taking a different approach, focusing on charging speeds rather than how they will manage delays.
BYD’s approach, especially with its tests of ultra-fast “Flash Charging” technology, is to eliminate the length of a charging session. At the heart of this strategy is BYD’s second-generation Blade Battery paired with 1,500-kW Flash Chargers.
Real-world FLASH Charging in action.
⚡ 10% → 70% in 5 minutes
⚡ 10% → 97% in 9 minutesIntroducing BYD’s 2nd Generation Blade Battery + FLASH Charging Technology.
20,000 stations will bring faster, safer, and smarter EV charging across China by the end of 2026. pic.twitter.com/uzQC8q1xGf
— BYD (@BYDCompany) March 9, 2026
Unveiled earlier this year, the system charges compatible vehicles from 10 percent to 70 percent state of charge in just five minutes and from 10 percent to 97 percent in nine minutes.
Real-world demonstrations on models like the Yangwang U7 and Denza Z9 GT have shown the tech delivering roughly 250 miles (400 kilometers) of range in just five minutes. This would essentially match or beat the time it takes to fill a gas tank.
Sometimes, gas pumps get congested, and there are lines. You rarely see conflicts at pumps because filling up a tank rarely takes more than five minutes.
Tesla’s fastest Supercharger build currently is the v4, which can deliver up to 325 kW for Cybertruck and 250 kW for other models, but there are “true” sites that are capable of up to 500 kW. This enables speeds of up to 1,000 miles per hour, or 1,400 miles for 350 kW-capable vehicles.
The breakthrough stems from BYD’s vertically integrated ecosystem: a new 1,000-volt architecture, 10C charging rates, and proprietary silicon-carbide chips that minimize internal resistance while protecting battery health.
The company plans to install 20,000 Flash Charging stations across China by the end of 2026, with thousands already operational and global expansion eyed for Europe and beyond later this year.
Early rollout targets popular models, including upgrades to high-volume sellers like the Seal and Sealion series, bringing five-minute charging to mainstream prices around 100,000 yuan (about $14,000).
This approach contrasts sharply with Tesla’s software solution. Tesla’s Virtual Queue uses geofencing and the app to assign turns at crowded sites, addressing driver disputes and idle time. It’s a clever fix for today’s network realities.
Yet, BYD’s philosophy is simpler: make charging so fast that waits barely exist. A five-minute stop becomes as convenient as a gas-station visit, reducing station dwell time, easing grid strain, and lowering range anxiety for long trips.
For consumers, the difference is potentially tangible. They’ll spend more time driving and less time parked. It is just another way Tesla and BYD are pushing one another to improve the overall experience of EV ownership.
News
Tesla wins big as NHTSA drops three-year, 120k unit probe against Model Y
In all, 120,089 Model Ys were impacted, but in two cases, drivers reported the complete detachment of the steering wheel from the steering column while the vehicle was in motion. NHTSA’s initial review revealed that the vehicles had been delivered without the critical retaining bolt that secures the steering wheel to the splined steering column.
A probe into over 120,000 2023 Tesla Model Y units has been closed by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). The probe ends without the agency requiring any action from Tesla.
The probe, designated PE23-003, opened in March 2023 and stemmed from just two consumer complaints involving low-mileage Model Y SUVs.
In all, 120,089 Model Ys were impacted, but in two cases, drivers reported the complete detachment of the steering wheel from the steering column while the vehicle was in motion. NHTSA’s initial review revealed that the vehicles had been delivered without the critical retaining bolt that secures the steering wheel to the splined steering column.
NHTSA has ended a probe into over 120,000 Tesla Model Y vehicles after claims that the steering wheel could detach from the steering column due to a missing retaining bolt
There is no action needed by Tesla pic.twitter.com/YpAO3bKugA
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) April 28, 2026
Factory records showed each car had undergone an “end-of-line” repair at Tesla’s facility, during which the steering wheel was removed and reinstalled. The bolt was apparently omitted after the repair, leaving only a friction fit between the wheel and column to hold it in place temporarily.
According to NHTSA documents, this friction fit maintained the connection during initial low-mileage driving until forces during normal operation caused the wheel to detach. Both vehicles that were impacted were repaired under warranty with no injuries reported, and no additional incidents surfaced during the agency’s three-year review.
After analyzing manufacturing processes, complaint data, and field reports, NHTSA concluded the issue was isolated to those two post-repair vehicles rather than indicative of a systemic defect in Tesla’s production or quality control.
The closure means the agency has determined no recall or further enforcement is warranted for this specific missing-bolt condition.
This outcome marks the second NHTSA investigation into Tesla closed without action this month, as a recent probe into the company’s “Actually Smart Summon” feature was also resolved in April.
The two resolutions provide some relief for Tesla amid the continuous and somewhat unfair regulatory scrutiny of its vehicles, including open inquiries into driver assistance systems.
Importantly, the closed probe does not involve or affect Tesla’s separate May 2023 voluntary recall of certain 2022-2023 Model Y vehicles. That recall addressed a different issue—steering-wheel fasteners that were installed but not torqued to specification—prompted by a service technician’s observation of a loose wheel during unrelated repairs.
Tesla identified a small number of related warranty claims and proactively addressed the matter without NHTSA mandate.
The Model Y remains one of the world’s best-selling vehicles, and Tesla continues to refine its lineup, including the recent “Juniper” refresh. While federal oversight of the electric vehicle pioneer remains intense, this decision underscores that isolated manufacturing anomalies do not always translate into broader safety defects requiring recalls.
SpaceX Board has set a Mars bonus for Elon Musk
Tesla’s biggest rivals fights charging wait times with a modern approach
