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.”
Ferrari unveiled its Luce EV over the weekend, and so far, its reception has been an absolute disaster, gathering negative reactions from a wide variety of people, including former executives.
The stock even took a hit on its first day of trading following the unveiling, dropping over 7 percent.
Ferrari moving to EVs from its traditional V12s and mid-engine sports cars is a massive move. It was designed by Sir Jony Ive and Marc Newsom’s LoveFrom studio, which is known for design work for tech giant Apple. “Luce” means “light” in Italian, so Ferrari drew inspiration for its name from its sleek design, characterized by a smooth, sculpted body with rounded edges.
But its reception has been far from what Ferrari expected. The overall design has drawn some harsh criticism since its reveal, and it is simply stunning that such a storied company, with a rich history of beautiful, powerful cars has revealed a design that many are not a fan of.
Ferrari unveiled its all-electric Luce over the weekend, and it has truly gotten some attention…not for the right reasons.
From an Italian legend that has built some beautiful cars in its history, this almost feels like a ploy to inevitably cancel its electric program. pic.twitter.com/rczSSb3pJx
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) May 26, 2026
Responses to the design were widely negative, with some saying, “Enzo is rolling in his grave,” and “This looks like a Nissan LEAF with a bad body kit.”
Former Ferrari Chairman Luca di Montezemolo said:
“I’ve seen the project has already been delayed more than two years. I don’t like commenting from the stands—when I was in the game, it annoyed me when people did that. I think for now the electric Ferrari could have been avoided, but clearly Ferrari made huge investments in plants and the car itself for their own reasons. Maybe Porsche’s lesson is useful for reflection.”
🚨 Luca di Montezemolo former Ferrari chairman reacts to the new electric Ferrari Luce:
“I’ve seen the project has already been delayed more than two years. I don’t like commenting from the stands—when I was in the game, it annoyed me when people did that. I think for now the… https://t.co/TzIDxFzHso
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) May 26, 2026
Ferrari has scaled back EV commitments in the past, primarily in response to weaker-than-expected demand for its electric powertrains.
Priced at roughly $640,000 in the U.S., it is tough to see how this car will ever truly live up to the massive expectations many had for it. It almost feels like, to a certain extent, Ferrari is looking for a way to get out of building EVs.
Tesla unveiled a juicy new detail on the Roadster, its long-delayed supercar project, and additionally hinted at a new unveiling timeline, as it appears yet another month will pass without seeing the capabilities of the vehicle.
Vice President of Vehicle Engineering at Tesla, Lars Moravy, revealed on the Ride the Lightning podcast that the Roadster will be built at Gigafactory Texas, adding that “you’ll start to see a lot of things unfold in the next months.”
While we get a good detail on the plant of manufacture, we also get another letdown, as it appears the unveiling event will not take place in May, as CEO Elon Musk hinted during the Earnings Call.
Franz von Holzhausen revealed in the Ride the Lightning podcast that the Tesla Roadster will be built at Gigafactory Texas https://t.co/t9Bu9k824Q pic.twitter.com/TT01IWJaFD
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) May 24, 2026
The Roadster was first unveiled back in 2017, alongside the Semi, which entered production earlier this year. It was Tesla’s attempt at a true supercar; it would be rare, expensive, and lightning quick, among other incredible capabilities, like potentially hovering for a short period thanks to a collaboration project with SpaceX.
However, the vehicle was set to be delivered in 2020. Parts and supply chain issues due to the COVID-19 pandemic started these delays, and since then, Tesla, and specifically Musk, have wanted to push the capabilities of the Roadster to somewhere the human mind may not be able to currently comprehend.
Both Chief Designer Franz von Holzhausen and Moravy have said many things about the Roadster over the past few years, hinting that the car truly could be worth the wait. However, the continuous delays we’ve seen have undoubtedly been discouraging.
With that being said, it’s not like Tesla has been doing nothing. Instead, the company has been focusing on revamping current models, phasing out others, and working on developing the cars of the future, specifically, the Cybercab, which entered production at Giga Texas in April.
Despite the Roadster’s delays, there is still a ton of anticipation for the vehicle to be released. It will have a steering wheel, as Musk said it will be “the best of the last of the human-driven cars.”
NASA has filed a procurement notice announcing its intent to add six post-certification missions to SpaceX’s existing Commercial Crew Transportation Capability contract. The agency said it would order up to three of those missions immediately upon adding them to the contract, with the remaining three available as needed through the end of the International Space Station’s planned operations in 2030.
The reason for the expansion is straightforward. NASA cited recently shortened ISS mission durations, technical issues and schedule delays encountered by Boeing, the allocation of missions between Boeing and SpaceX, and the ongoing technical challenges of maintaining a reliable crew transportation capability as the driving factors behind the decision. Boeing’s CST-100 Starliner has still not been certified for crewed flights, and a cargo-only Starliner mission was not included on NASA’s most recent mission manifest. With Boeing effectively sidelined for the foreseeable future, SpaceX is the only American company capable of rotating crews to the station.
The history behind this contract tells the fuller story of how SpaceX got here. NASA originally awarded SpaceX its Commercial Crew contract in 2014 for $2.6 billion. In 2022 NASA modified the contract to add five missions covering Crew-10 through Crew-14, worth $1.436 billion, bringing the total contract value at that point to $4.9 billion. The recent May 18 filing by NASA extends that runway further, with Crew-12 currently docked at the station and Crew-13 assigned and targeting a mid-September 2026 launch.
According to a report by SpaceNews, NASA stated in its filing: “It is necessary to award additional PCMs to SpaceX given the recently shortened ISS mission durations, technical issues and schedule delays encountered by Boeing, the allocation of missions between Boeing and SpaceX, NASA’s projections for when an alternative crew transportation system may become available, and the ongoing technical challenges of maintaining a reliable capability for crewed flights to ISS.”
No dollar value for the new six missions has been publicly confirmed yet, but based on the 2022 precedent of roughly $287 million per mission, the new block could represent close to $1.7 billion in additional contract value. With SpaceX simultaneously preparing Starship as NASA’s Artemis lunar lander, filing its S-1 for a June IPO, and now absorbing more ISS crew rotation work, the company’s role as the primary contractor for American human spaceflight is no longer a matter of circumstance. It is NASA policy.
Ferrari unveils its Luce EV, and its reception has been a disaster
Tesla unveils juicy new detail on the Roadster and hints at new unveil timeline
