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 China extends its 7-year financing promotion once more
The move marks Tesla’s second extension of the program this year.
Tesla has extended its seven-year ultra-low-interest and five-year interest-free financing programs in China once more, pushing the offers through March 31, the end of the first quarter.
The move marks Tesla’s second extension of the program this year. The financing plan was first introduced on January 6 as a strategy aimed at offsetting higher ownership costs ahead of China’s planned 5% NEV purchase tax in 2026.
The original promotion was set to expire at the end of January but was extended to the end of February. This has now been extended again through March.
The repeated extensions reflect growing competitive pressure. Tesla’s 2025 retail sales in China totaled 625,698 units, representing a 4.78% year-on-year decline, as per data compiled by CNEV Post. That being said, this decline is partly caused by the Model Y’s changeover to its new variant in Q1 2025, which resulted in lower sales during the quarter.
In early 2026, the Model Y also lost its position as China’s top-selling EV in January to Xiaomi’s YU7, though this was also a month when Tesla primarily exported vehicles to foreign territories, which pushed local delivery numbers lower.
During January 2026, Tesla China exported 50,644 vehicles, roughly 1.7 times higher than the same month a year ago and more than 15 times higher than December’s level.
Tesla’s financing push has not gone unanswered. BYD this week introduced its own seven-year low-interest plan across its Ocean lineup and Fang Cheng Bao sub-brand, also valid through March 31. Other competitors including NIO, XPeng, Li Auto, and Geely Auto have already rolled out extended-term loan programs as well.
News
Tesla China focuses on local deliveries as Q1 enters final month
Tesla’s estimated delivery times for all variants of the Model 3 and Model Y in China were listed at just one to three weeks.
Tesla’s delivery wait times in China have dropped to some of their shortest levels in years, an apparent hint that Giga Shanghai has largely cleared its order backlog and currently has strong production capacity.
As of February 26, estimated delivery times for all variants of the Model 3 and Model Y in China were listed at just one to three weeks, as per observations of Tesla China’s official webpages by CNEV Post.
That marks a notable shift from the several-week or even two-month waits seen late last year.
The one-to-three-week delivery window suggests that Giga Shanghai is likely focusing on the local market, at least for now as the company enters the final month of the first quarter. Tesla China typically spends the first half of the quarter catering to markets that import vehicles from Giga Shanghai.
Historically, when Tesla’s wait times in China compress to their shortest levels, the company often follows with fresh market actions.
In past cycles, shortened delivery timelines were followed by promotional activity. After delivery windows narrowed to one to three weeks in early 2024, for example, Tesla later introduced an RMB 10,000 instant discount on Model Y final payments that year.
To spur local demand, Tesla recently extended its seven-year ultra-low-interest and five-year interest-free financing offers through March 31. This marks the second extension of the policy this year.
So far, posts from the Tesla community suggest that interest in the company’s vehicles among consumers in China is still strong. Videos of busy delivery centers across China have been shared on social media.
China’s competitive EV landscape has evolved as of late. With regulators discouraging aggressive price wars, automakers are increasingly leaning on financing incentives instead of direct price cuts. Major players including BYD, NIO, XPeng, and Li Auto have introduced similar loan extensions and promotional financing packages.
Elon Musk
Elon Musk’s The Boring Company closes Tunnel Vision Challenge
The Tunnel Vision Challenge invited individuals, companies, and governments to propose a tunnel project up to one mile long.
Elon Musk’s The Boring Company has officially closed submissions for its Tunnel Vision Challenge, confirming that a total of 487 entries were received before the deadline.
In a post on X, the company wrote, “Tunnel Vision Challenge is closed! 487 entries received – TBC team is excited to go through them all!” The company added that “We will select the top ~15 in the next week, and reach out with follow-up questions,” and that an “overall winner will be announced on March 23.”
The Tunnel Vision Challenge invited individuals, companies, and governments to propose a tunnel project up to one mile long with a 12-foot inner diameter. The winning entry will have its tunnel constructed free of charge.
Submissions could range from Loop passenger tunnels to freight, pedestrian, utility, or water tunnels. The only requirement was that the project clearly demonstrate how tunneling would meaningfully improve transportation or infrastructure between two points.
Just days before the deadline, the company provided an interim update noting that 407 entries had already been received. “Update on the Tunnel Vision Challenge – 1 mile of free tunnel! With 3 days left to submit, 407 entries have been received. Great to see enthusiasm for tunnels!” The Boring Company wrote at the time on X. By the close of submissions, the total had grown closer to 500 entries, hinting at strong interest in underground transportation solutions.
Entries are being evaluated on usefulness, stakeholder engagement, and technical, economic, and regulatory feasibility. Applicants were required to quantify projected benefits, such as time saved per rider or cost savings per shipment, and provide maps showing proposed alignments and other details. Submissions that included geotechnical or subsurface data are expected to receive additional consideration.
The Boring Company will fund the tunnel’s construction itself, though related infrastructure costs may be discussed with the winning team. The company also retains discretion to modify or cancel the challenge.
Tesla China extends its 7-year financing promotion once more
Tesla China focuses on local deliveries as Q1 enters final month
