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
LG Energy Solution pursuing battery deal for Tesla Optimus, other humanoid robots: report
Optimus is expected to be one of Tesla’s most ambitious projects, with Elon Musk estimating that the humanoid robot could be the company’s most important product.
A recent report has suggested that LG Energy Solution is in discussions to supply batteries for Tesla’s Optimus humanoid robot.
Optimus is expected to be one of Tesla’s most ambitious projects, with Elon Musk estimating that the humanoid robot could be the company’s most important product.
Humanoid robot battery deals
LG Energy Solution shares jumped more than 11% on the 28th after a report from the Korea Economic Daily claimed that the company is pursuing battery supply and joint development agreements with several humanoid robot makers. These reportedly include Tesla, which is developing Optimus, as well as multiple Chinese robotics companies.
China is already home to several leading battery manufacturers, such as CATL and BYD, making the robot makers’ reported interest in LG Energy Solution quite interesting. Market participants interpreted the reported outreach as a signal that performance requirements for humanoid robots may favor battery chemistries developed by companies like LG.
LF Energy Solution vs rivals
According to the report, energy density is believed to be the primary reason humanoid robot developers are evaluating LG Energy Solution’s batteries. Unlike electric vehicles, humanoid robots have significantly less space available for battery packs while requiring substantial power to operate dozens of joint motors and onboard artificial intelligence processors.
LG Energy Solution’s ternary lithium batteries offer higher energy density compared with rivals’ lithium iron phosphate (LFP) batteries, which are widely used by Chinese EV manufacturers. That advantage could prove critical for humanoid robots, where runtime, weight, and compact packaging are key design constraints.
News
Tesla receives approval for FSD Supervised tests in Sweden
Tesla confirmed that it has been granted permission to test FSD Supervised vehicles across Sweden in a press release.
Tesla has received regulatory approval to begin tests of its Full Self-Driving Supervised system on public roads in Sweden, a notable step in the company’s efforts to secure FSD approval for the wider European market.
FSD Supervised testing in Sweden
Tesla confirmed that it has been granted permission to test FSD Supervised vehicles across Sweden following cooperation with national authorities and local municipalities. The approval covers the Swedish Transport Administration’s entire road network, as well as urban and highways in the Municipality of Nacka.
Tesla shared some insights into its recent FSD approvals in a press release. “The approval shows that cooperation between authorities, municipalities and businesses enables technological leaps and Nacka Municipality is the first to become part of the transport system of the future. The fact that the driving of the future is also being tested on Swedish roads is an important step in the development towards autonomy in real everyday traffic,” the company noted.
With approval secured for FSD tests, Tesla can now evaluate the system’s performance in diverse environments, including dense urban areas and high-speed roadways across Sweden, as noted in a report from Allt Om Elbil. Tesla highlighted that the continued development of advanced driver assistance systems is expected to pave the way for improved traffic safety, increased accessibility, and lower emissions, particularly in populated city centers.
Tesla FSD Supervised Europe rollout
FSD Supervised is already available to drivers in several global markets, including Australia, Canada, China, Mexico, New Zealand, and the United States. The system is capable of handling city and highway driving tasks such as steering, acceleration, braking, and lane changes, though it still requires drivers to supervise the vehicle’s operations.
Tesla has stated that FSD Supervised has accumulated extensive driving data from its existing markets. In Europe, however, deployment remains subject to regulatory approval, with Tesla currently awaiting clearance from relevant authorities.
The company reiterated that it expects to start rolling out FSD Supervised to European customers in early 2026, pending approvals. It would then be unsurprising if the company secures approvals for FSD tests in other European territories in the coming months.
News
Tesla owners in Sweden get direct attention from pro-union groups
As part of their efforts, the group has started distributing informational leaflets to Tesla vehicles across Stockholm, urging them to pressure the electric vehicle maker to sign a collective agreement.
Amid Tesla Sweden’s ongoing conflict with trade union IF Metall, a group of pro-union supporters has begun directing their attention to actual Tesla owners.
As part of their efforts, the group has started distributing informational leaflets to Tesla vehicles across Stockholm, urging them to pressure the electric vehicle maker to sign a collective agreement.
Leaflets on parked Tesla vehicles
As noted in a Dagens Arbete (DA) report, participants of the protest place yellow information slips on parked Tesla vehicles across parts of Stockholm. The slips resemble parking notices that contain information related to the unions’ ongoing strike against Tesla Sweden.
Participants involved in the activity said the leaflets were intended to inform consumers rather than target individual owners. The action was carried out in public areas, with leaflets placed on windshields of parked vehicles. When vehicle owners are present, organizers said they provide verbal explanations of the labor dispute.
Tesla has not commented publicly about the matter as of writing.
Recurring demonstrations against Tesla
The leaflet distribution effort follows weekly demonstrations that have taken place outside Tesla’s workshop and office in Upplands Väsby, where protesters typically gather to express support for a collective agreement. Those demonstrations have included informational outreach to customers and workers and, at times, police presence, according to prior reporting.
In a comment, one of the protesters stated that even Tesla owners must be concerned about the unions’ conflict with the electric vehicle maker. “You may think it doesn’t concern you, as you only drive a car. But it does, as we all have a responsibility for the rules in Sweden.
“We are not looking to hunt down individual Tesla owners. Rather, this is a way to spread opinion and increase pressure on Tesla. It should have some impact if several Tesla owners come in and say that you should sign a collective agreement,” one of the protesters stated.