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 targets 150Mbps per user for upgraded Starlink Direct-to-Cell
If achieved, the 150Mbps goal would represent a significant jump from the current performance of Starlink Direct-to-Cell.
SpaceX is targeting peak download speeds of 150Mbps per user for its next-generation Direct-to-Cell Starlink service. The update was shared by SpaceX Spectrum & Regulatory Affairs Lead Udrivolf Pica during the International Telecommunication Union’s Space Connect conference.
“We are aiming at peak speeds of 150Mbps per user,” Pica said during the conference. “So something incredible if you think about the link budgets from space to the mobile phone.”
If achieved, the 150Mbps goal would represent a significant jump from the current performance of Starlink Direct-to-Cell.
Today, SpaceX’s cellular Starlink service, offered in partnership with T-Mobile under the T-Satellite brand, provides speeds of roughly 4Mbps per user. The service is designed primarily for texts, low-resolution video calls, and select apps in locations that traditionally have no cellular service.
By comparison, Ookla data shows median 5G download speeds of approximately 309Mbps for T-Mobile and 172Mbps for AT&T in the United States, as noted in a PCMag report. While 150Mbps would still trail the fastest terrestrial 5G networks, it would place satellite-to-phone broadband much closer to conventional carrier performance, even in remote areas.
Pica indicated that the upgraded system would support “video, voice, and data services, clearly,” moving beyond emergency connectivity and basic messaging use cases.
To reach that target, SpaceX plans to upgrade its existing Starlink Direct-to-Cell satellites and add significant new capacity. The company recently acquired access to radio spectrum from EchoStar, which Pica described as key to expanding throughput.
“More spectrum means a bigger pipeline, and this means that we can expand what we can do with partners. We can expand the quality of service. And again, we can do cellular broadband basically, cellular broadband use cases, like AI or daily connectivity needs,” he stated.
SpaceX has also requested regulatory approval to deploy 15,000 additional Direct-to-Cell satellites, beyond the roughly 650 currently supporting the system. The upgraded architecture is expected to begin rolling out in late 2027.
News
Tesla seeks approval to test FSD Supervised in new Swedish city
Tesla has applied to conduct local Full Self-Driving (Supervised) testing in the city of Jönköping, Sweden.
Tesla has applied to conduct local Full Self-Driving (Supervised) testing in the city of Jönköping, Sweden.
As per local outlet Jönköpings-Posten, Tesla has contacted the municipality with a request to begin FSD (Supervised) tests in the city. The company has already received approval to test its Full Self-Driving (Supervised) software in several Swedish municipalities, as well as on the national road network.
Sofia Bennerstål, Tesla’s Head of Public Policy for Northern Europe, confirmed that an application has been submitted for FSD’s potential tests in Jönköping.
“I can confirm that we have submitted an application, but I cannot say much more about it,” Bennerstål told the news outlet. She also stated that Tesla is “satisfied with the tests” in the region so far.
The planned tests in Jönköping would involve a limited number of Tesla-owned vehicles. Trained Tesla safety drivers would remain behind the wheel and be prepared to intervene if necessary.
Tesla previously began testing in Nacka municipality after receiving local approval. At the time, the company stated that cooperation between authorities, municipalities, and industry enables technological progress and helps integrate future transport systems into real-world traffic conditions, as noted in an Allt Om Elbil report.
If approved, Jönköping would become the latest Swedish municipality to allow local Full Self-Driving (Supervised) testing.
Tesla’s Swedish testing program is part of the company’s efforts to validate its supervised autonomous driving software in everyday traffic environments. Municipal approvals allow Tesla to gather data in urban settings that include roundabouts, complex intersections, and mixed traffic conditions.
Sweden has become an increasingly active testing ground for Tesla’s driver-assistance software in Europe, with regulatory coordination between local authorities and national agencies enabling structured pilot programs.
Elon Musk
Microsoft partners with Starlink to expand rural internet access worldwide
The update was shared ahead of Mobile World Congress.
Microsoft has announced a new collaboration with Starlink as part of its expanding digital access strategy, following the company’s claim that it has extended internet connectivity coverage to more than 299 million people worldwide.
The update was shared ahead of Mobile World Congress, where Microsoft detailed how it surpassed its original goal of bringing internet access to 250 million people by the end of 2025.
In a blog post, Microsoft confirmed that it is now working with Starlink to expand connectivity in rural and hard-to-reach regions.
“Through our collaboration with Starlink, Microsoft is combining low-Earth orbit satellite connectivity with community-based deployment models and local ecosystem partnerships,” the company wrote.
The partnership is designed to complement Microsoft’s existing work with local internet providers and infrastructure companies across Africa, Latin America, and India, among other areas. Microsoft noted that traditional infrastructure alone cannot meet demand in some regions, making low-Earth orbit satellite connectivity an important addition.
Kenya was cited as an early example. Working with Starlink and local provider Mawingu Networks, Microsoft is supporting connectivity for 450 community hubs in rural and underserved areas. These hubs include farmer cooperatives, aggregation centers, and digital access facilities intended to support agricultural productivity and AI-enabled services.
Microsoft stated that 2.2 billion people globally remain offline, and that connectivity gaps risk widening as AI adoption accelerates.
Starlink’s expanding constellation, now numbering more than 9,700 satellites in orbit, provides near-global coverage, making it one of the few systems capable of delivering broadband to remote regions without relying on terrestrial infrastructure.
Starlink is expected to grow even more in the coming years as well, especially as SpaceX transitions its fleet to Starship, which is capable of carrying significantly larger payloads compared to its current workhorse, the Falcon 9.