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.”
SpaceX (NASDAQ: SPCX) got an absolutely crazy price target rating from Raymond James after the company experienced a tough first few weeks following its Initial Public Offering (IPO).
Despite the tumultuous start, SpaceX has plenty of believers, and the company’s massively successful Starship launch last Friday, its 13th test flight of the massive rocket, went so smoothly that Raymond James analysts pushed its price target on the company to roughly 7 times its current trading level.
SpaceX Starship just nailed something it’s never done before
The firm officially put a “Strong Buy” rating and an $800 price target on the stock. It currently trades at around $113. Its all-time high is $225.64, reaching this trading level shortly after shares first went public.
Raymond James’ price target is tied to the firm’s confidence after Starship’s 13th test flight. Analysts at the firm said it was an incremental step that reduces engineering risks, citing the widely successful heat shield test that CEO Elon Musk recently detailed, the smooth deployment of Starlink V3 satellites, and a successful in-space engine relight.
SpaceX also managed to see Starship splash down safely in the Indian Ocean, while the Super Heavy Booster fell down to the Gulf of America with no incidents.
It is interesting to see these launches have such a tremendous impact on the stock and what investors think of it. After SpaceX initially delayed the Starship launch last week, shares fell tremendously. Most probably did not realize that the stand-down is a standard practice, especially if everything is not perfect.
-
The mission was initially aborted due to an issue with Raptor engines. This was resolved, and Starship launched last Friday after another delay on Thursday, which was caused by weather.
Now that analysts have seen what SpaceX launches are capable of and how impressive the feat is, firms are adjusting their price targets accordingly, making it known that they have high expectations for the space exploration company.
Tesla CEO Elon Musk has responded to reports that Volvo is officially discontinuing the LiDAR sensor on two of its cars.
Volvo announced that it would officially scrap LiDAR systems on its EX90 and ES90 vehicles in various markets. In Norway, owners will get a €1,800 compensation for features that will never arrive due to this decision. There will be no option to remove the unit from vehicles, either.
The issue stems from Volvo’s supplier, Luminar, and its bankruptcy filing. Luminar will no longer be able to supply LiDAR units to Volvo for the EX90 and ES90, effectively axing any use the unit has on vehicles. Volvo will phase out the data collection processes via the LiDAR system, and it will not be utilized whatsoever.
Musk saw the story on X and responded, stating:
“I did try to warn them. Humans drive using neural nets and optical sensors. Same is true for robot cars.”
I did try to warn them.
Humans drive using neural nets and optical sensors. Same is true for robot cars.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 29, 2026
-
Musk has been publicly vocal about his disdain for LiDAR systems, once calling them “a fool’s errand,” as he has consistently kept the outlook that they are not needed for effective self-driving.
The typical example used as evidence for this by Musk is humans themselves: made with only eyes and memories, humans are capable of navigating a car by using what they can see and what they’ve personally experienced on the road.
Elon Musk argues lidar and radar make self driving cars more dangerous
“Same is true for robot cars,” Musk says, as Teslas have eight exterior cameras that help see everything surrounding the vehicle, and a neural network that analyzes behavior and tendencies with every mile driven.
Tesla is a vision-only self-driving company that ditched sensors and radar several years ago in favor of cameras. Behind this effort, the company has established a reputation for having one of the most robust self-driving platforms in the world.
Musk’s big bet with Tesla on its self-driving program’s strategy has widely paid off. Other companies continue to utilize things like LiDAR, radar, and sensors for effective self-driving, but Tesla has shown that there is more than one way to give consumers a strong and accurate driver assistance suite.
-
The real question is: who will be the first company to take Musk’s advice and attempt a self-driving platform based on cameras only, or even license FSD for themselves?
Tesla has started to deploy the 2026 Summer Update to owners across its fleet, and among the biggest changes are improvements to Navigation, a new startup animation for the Model 3 and Model Y, Caraoke scoring, and new capabilities for Grok.
As the update has started making its way to some cars, we can now see a few of the features operating in real-time. We will show you what some of the new features look like in this article, along with some additional details on what changed.
Not all of the new features in the 2026 Summer Update have quite made an appearance, but some of them have, so we’ll show those here:
New Animation Screen for 3/Y
Tesla is rolling out a new startup animation for Tesla Model 3 and Model Y owners. This is present in Launch Edition and Performance Model 3 and Model Y, but other trim levels do not have anything like this.
The new animation screen on Model 3/Y with the 2026 Summer Update
Apparently color will also be customizable: pic.twitter.com/wSdwggtG3S
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 27, 2026
-
Owners can adjust the color associated with the startup animation to suit their preferences. It is a surprise that more automakers do not focus on this animation for their vehicles; it can be a great first impression piece and make the car immediately feel more luxurious.
Tesla has included this on more premium trims, but it is nice to see it on the Model 3 and Model Y.
Grok Improvements
Grok can now adjust more things in the car outside of the Navigation system. Now, drivers can adjust anything from climate to driving settings by simply speaking to the AI assistant in the car:
@Tesla‘s AI assistant (Grok) with its new vehicle commands in action.
Set the climate, your destination and vehicle settings all in one go! pic.twitter.com/0bBTqaAk6G
— Not a Tesla App (@NotATeslaApp) July 28, 2026
You don’t even have to push a button, either. Instead, you can just say “Hey, Grok,” if you have it enabled. That feature rolled out with the 2026 Spring Update just a few months back.
-
This is a great feature, especially pertinent for the Robotaxi platform, as there will be no buttons inside the Cybercab when it eventually starts giving rides to the public. It also broadens Grok’s capabilities, which were relatively limited in terms of vehicle setting adjustments beforehand.
SpaceX gets an absolutely crazy price target after rough IPO
Elon Musk responds to Volvo’s latest LiDAR decision
