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
Tesla opens Supercharging Network to other EVs in new country
Tesla’s Supercharging infrastructure is the most robust in the world, and it has done a wonderful job of keeping things up and running for the millions of owners out there. As it expanded access to non-Tesla EVs a couple years back, it has still managed to keep things pretty steady, although the need for more charging is apparent.
Tesla has started opening its Supercharging Network, which is the most expansive in the world, to other EVs in a new country for the first time.
After expanding its Supercharging offerings to other car companies in the United States a few years ago, Tesla is still making the move in other markets, as it aims to make EV ownership easier for everyone, regardless of what manufacturer a consumer chose to purchase from.
Tesla’s Supercharging infrastructure is the most robust in the world, and it has done a wonderful job of keeping things up and running for the millions of owners out there. As it expanded access to non-Tesla EVs a couple years back, it has still managed to keep things pretty steady, although the need for more charging is apparent.
Tesla just added a cool new feature for leaving your charger at home or even leaving the Supercharger pic.twitter.com/iw0SDrWuX6
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) March 10, 2026
Now, Tesla is expanding access to the Supercharger Network to non-Tesla EVs in Malaysia. The automaker just opened up a charging stie at the Pavilion KL Mall in Kuala Lumpur to non-Tesla owners, giving them eight additional Superchargers to utilize with a charging speed of up to 250 kW.
Tesla is also opening up the four-Supercharger site in Shah Alam, a four-Supercharger site at the IOI City Mall, and a six-Supercharger site in Gamuda Cove Township.
Electrive first reported the opening of these Superchargers in Malaysia.
The initiative from Tesla helps make EV ownership much simpler for those who only have access to third-party charging solutions or at-home charging. While at-home charging is the most advantageous, it is not an end-all solution as every driver will eventually need to grab some range on the road.
Tesla has been offering its Superchargers to non-Tesla EVs in the United States since 2024, as Ford became the first company to gain access to the massive network early that year when CEO Elon Musk and Ford frontman Jim Farley announced it together. Since then, Tesla has offered its chargers to nearly every EV maker, as companies like Rivian and Lucid, and even legacy car companies like General Motors have gained access.
It’s best for everyone to have the ability to use Tesla Superchargers, but there are of course some growing pains.
Charging cables are built to cater to Tesla owners, so pull-in Superchargers are most advantageous for non-Tesla EVs currently, but the company’s V4 Superchargers, which are not as plentiful in the U.S. quite yet, do enable easier reach for those vehicles.
News
Tesla Semi expands pilot program to Texas logistics firm: here’s what they said
Mone said the Tesla Semi it put into its fleet for this test recorded 1.64 kWh per mile efficiency, beating Tesla’s official 1.7 kWh per mile target and delivering a massive leap over conventional diesel trucks.
Tesla has expanded its Semi pilot program to a new region, as it has made it to Texas to be tested by logistics from Mone Transport. With the Semi entering production this year, Tesla is getting even more valuable data regarding the vehicle and its efficiency, which will help companies cut expenditures.
Mone Transport operates in Texas and on the Southern border, and it specializes in cross-border U.S.-Mexico freight operations. After completing some rigorous testing, Mone shared public results, which stand out when compared to efficiency metrics offered by diesel vehicles.
“Mone Transport recently had the opportunity to put the Tesla Semi to the test, and we’re thrilled with the results! Over 4,700 miles of operations at 1.64 kWh/mile in our Texas operation. We’re committed to providing zero-emission transportation to our customers!” the company said in a post on X.
🚨 Mone Transport just recorded an extremely impressive Tesla Semi test:
1.64 kWh per mile over 4,700 miles! https://t.co/xwS2dDeomP pic.twitter.com/oLZHoQgXsu
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) March 10, 2026
Mone said the Tesla Semi it put into its fleet for this test recorded 1.64 kWh per mile efficiency, beating Tesla’s official 1.7 kWh per mile target and delivering a massive leap over conventional diesel trucks.
Comparable Class 8 diesel semis, typically achieving 6-7 miles per gallon, consume roughly 5.5 kWh per mile in energy-equivalent terms, meaning the Semi uses three to four times less energy while also producing zero tailpipe emissions.
Tesla Semi undergoes major redesign as dedicated factory preps for deliveries
The performance of the Tesla Semi in Mone Transport’s testing aligns with data from other participants in the pilot program. ArcBest’s ABF Freight Division logged 4,494 miles over three weeks in 2025, averaging 1.55 kWh per mile across varied routes, including a grueling 7,200-foot Donner Pass climb. The truck “generally matched the performance of its diesel counterparts,” the carrier said.
PepsiCo, which operates the largest known Semi fleet, recorded 1.7 kWh per mile in North American Council for Freight Efficiency testing. Additional pilots showed similar gains: DHL hit 1.72 kWh per mile, and Saia achieved 1.73 kWh per mile.
These metrics underscore the Semi’s ability to slash operating costs through superior efficiency, lower maintenance, and zero-emission operation. As charging infrastructure scales and production ramps toward 2026 targets, participants like Mone Transport are proving electric semis can seamlessly integrate into freight networks, accelerating the industry’s shift to sustainable, high-performance trucking.
Tesla continues to prep for a more widespread presence of the Semi in the coming months as it recently launched the first public Semi Megacharger site in Los Angeles. It is working on building out infrastructure for regional runs on the West Coast initially, with plans to expand this to the other end of the country in the coming years.
Elon Musk
SpaceX weighs Nasdaq listing as company explores early index entry: report
The company is reportedly seeking early inclusion in the Nasdaq-100 index.
Elon Musk’s SpaceX is reportedly leaning toward listing its shares on the Nasdaq for a potential initial public offering (IPO) that could become the largest in history.
As per a recent report, the company is reportedly seeking early inclusion in the Nasdaq-100 index. The update was reported by Reuters, citing people familiar with the matter.
According to the publication, SpaceX is considering Nasdaq as the venue for its eventual IPO, though the New York Stock Exchange is also competing for the listing. Neither exchange has reportedly been informed of a final decision.
Reuters has previously reported that SpaceX could pursue an IPO as early as June, though the company’s plans could still change.
One of the publication’s sources also suggested that SpaceX is targeting a valuation of about $1.75 trillion for its IPO. At that level, the company would rank among the largest publicly traded firms in the United States by market capitalization.
Nasdaq has proposed a rule change that could accelerate the inclusion of newly listed megacap companies into the Nasdaq-100 index.
Under the proposed “Fast Entry” rule, a newly listed company could qualify for the index in less than a month if its market capitalization ranks among the top 40 companies already included in the Nasdaq-100.
If SpaceX is successful in achieving its target valuation of $1.75 trillion, it would become the sixth-largest company by market value in the United States, at least based on recent share prices.
Newly listed companies typically have to wait up to a year before becoming eligible for major indexes such as the Nasdaq-100 or S&P 500.
Inclusion in a major index can significantly broaden a company’s shareholder base because many institutional investors purchase shares through index-tracking funds.
According to Reuters, Nasdaq’s proposed fast-track rule is partly intended to attract highly valued private companies such as SpaceX, OpenAI, and Anthropic to list on the exchange.
Tesla opens Supercharging Network to other EVs in new country
Tesla Semi expands pilot program to Texas logistics firm: here’s what they said
