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 has reportedly pushed the unveiling of the Roadster once again, but there are also evidently new details about the event that the company plans to show off.
The Information reported this morning that Tesla will now unveil, for the second time, the next-generation Roadster in August, a further delay from the multiple timeline that the company had previously stated.
The report has not been confirmed or denied by Tesla at any capacity.
It also states the unveiling event will take place in Texas, the same place that Tesla executives revealed in May would be the place of manufacture for the company’s highly-anticipated supercar, which boasts a top speed of over 250 MPH and 650 miles of range, according to its website.
Tesla is also expected to showcase the SpaceX package, which will be used for faster acceleration and potentially hovering capabilities, at the unveiling event, the report states. Musk has always planned for this to happen, but now it seems it is more realistic than ever
The report also states the Roadster unveiling is planned for August pic.twitter.com/By26XZIJzU
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 5, 2026
The Roadster has had its unveiling date and manufacturing date pushed back on many occasions. It was set to start production in 2020, but the COVID-19 pandemic crippled supply chain operations, forcing Tesla to push its timeline back considerably.
However, COVID has been over for some time, and Tesla has still not managed to successfully schedule and execute an unveiling event, which is something fans and enthusiasts, as well as those who have put down a $50,000 deposit, have been waiting for.
The vehicle was close to completion last year, but Musk truly wanted Lars Moravy and Franz von Holzhausen to push the limits of the Roadster. In July of last year, Moravy said:
“Roadster is definitely in development. We did talk about it last Sunday night. We are gearing up for a super cool demo. It’s going to be mind-blowing; We showed Elon some cool demos last week of the tech we’ve been working on, and he got a little excited.”
It is important to note two things: Tesla has not confirmed these details, and the company has regularly pushed these dates back. Until Tesla sends out formal invitations with a concrete date, taking any unveiling event reports with a grain of salt is a good idea.
Tesla is offering a tasty Supercharging incentive on certain Model 3 trims, but the company has officially put a concrete end date on it, so those interested should act fast.
Tesla is offering Free Supercharging for One Year on the Model 3 Premium and Performance trims, the top two offerings of the all-electric sedan. There are three trims of the Model 3 that will have the Free Supercharging offer attached:
- Premium Rear-Wheel-Drive – $42,490
- Premium All-Wheel-Drive – $47,490
- Performance – $54,990
Tesla has now announced that this offer will expire on June 15, giving potential buyers about ten days to take advantage of the incentive.
This could be an additional incentive for car buyers to transition to electric vehicles. Many states are showing gas prices well over $4 per gallon, with the national average currently sitting at $4.22, according to AAA.
A free year of Supercharging miles would allow people to charge and travel for free, other than routine maintenance, which is already incredibly cheap compared to a gas car.
🚨 Tesla is now showing that it’s Free Supercharging offer for Model 3 Premium and Performance trims ends June 15 pic.twitter.com/VCLeddNSj8
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 5, 2026
At Tesla Superchargers, peak rates, meaning prices between 8 a.m. and 10 p.m., average between $0.45 and $0.60. One year of driving at an average of 12,000 miles would cost between $1,000 and $1,500 at $0.50 per kWh. It’s a pretty good deal.
Supercharging prices have also increased recently:
Many of the Superchargers in my area just had their peak rates increased from $0.44 per kWh to $0.49, $0.52, and $0.54 per kWh
If you’re looking to save on your commute/travel for the next year, this Model 3 Free Supercharging incentive might not be a bad idea https://t.co/YDwwl4xxHk pic.twitter.com/DleURW7eqa
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 5, 2026
Tesla has used Free Supercharging to move units in the past, and it’s a great strategy for those who plan to use the car for longer commutes, cross-country drives, or do not have reliable access to home charging.
It should be noted that Tesla recommends that Supercharging be used at a minimum to preserve the life of the battery, as fast-charging is more stressful on the cells.
However, some people might not have an option, so the Free Supercharging incentive could truly be a great reason for many people to charge their cars.
The Supercharging incentive is short-term, and it is pretty rare that Tesla utilizes it, so once this offer is gone, we probably will not see it on the Model 3 for some time.
Ferrari CEO Benedetto Vigna revealed that the Italian automaker’s future will not involve self-driving, a point that echoes that of Tesla CEO Elon Musk’s — sort of.
You might be thinking, “Are you insane? Musk has been so incredibly hellbent on delivering self-driving vehicles to the public, so much so that he has even hinted that Tesla won’t need the ever-popular and widely-requested Model Y L in the U.S.”
However, when it comes to electric supercars with high-performance specs and lofty price tags, Vigna’s stance is exactly what Musk wants for Tesla’s own hypercar project, the Tesla Roadster.
🚨 Tesla Roadster vs. Ferrari Luce
Price – $250,000 vs. $640,000
Horsepower – 1,000+ vs. 1,035
0-60 MPH – 1.1s OR 1.9s vs. 2.4s
Top Speed – 250+ MPH vs. 194 MPH
Range – 620 miles vs. 280 miles https://t.co/uEgswwVLeD pic.twitter.com/XcP58ZRO6Z— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 5, 2026
In a new interview with Australian media outlet Drive, Vigna made it clear that Ferrari’s ambitions for the future do not involve autonomy, simply because the company’s cars are not designed for anything but manual, spirited driving.
He said:
“We will not make fully autonomous cars — loud and clear. We want the people to have fun, not the [computer] chips. We want to have a steering wheel and a man or a woman behind the steering wheel. Otherwise, why do you buy a Ferrari?”
This seems to be a reasonable assertion. Ferraris are not made for daily commutes, cross-country road trips, or bumper-to-bumper traffic. They’re made for fast, spirited driving, and many of their buyers will only put a few thousand miles on them throughout their lifetime. True, exciting, fun driving is meant to be done manually.
That is not to say Full Self-Driving or other semi-autonomous suites are not “fun,” but they are meant to take the stress out of driving. They are made for the daily commutes, the rush hour traffic, and the parking lots and garages. It’s made to take the stress out of driving.
Tesla Full Self-Driving attempts 150-mile stress test: the good and the bad
Musk had stated in an interview in early 2026 that the Roadster would also be geared toward fun, manually-controlled driving. On the Moonshots podcast with Peter Diamandis, Musk said about the Roadster:
“This is not a…safety is not the main goal. If you buy a Ferrari, safety is not the number one goal. I say, if safety is your number one goal, do not buy the Roadster…We’ll aspire not to kill anyone in this car. It’ll be the best of the last of the human-driven cars. The best of the last.”
There are cars out there that simply are meant to be driven by humans, and Ferraris and Roadsters are a few of them. Ferrari has no true advantage in developing self-driving; their cars sell at low volumes with high price tags, and their performance specs and engineering are all geared toward spirited driving.
Tesla Roadster unveiling gets pushed again, but new event details emerge
Tesla Model 3 has a tasty Supercharging incentive, but it’s ending soon
