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.”
Tesla has updated its Robotaxi app so riders can pick which vehicle they want before they book. The latest in-app screens now show two options side by side: the two-seat Cybercab and the four-seat Model Y.
A screenshot circulating Thursday shows the change in practice. In Austin, a rider could choose a gold Cybercab for two people or a Model Y for four. Tesla’s updated description calls Cybercab “our first purpose-built autonomous vehicle,” designed for safety, accessibility, and comfort, and says the lineup is available only through the Robotaxi app.
Tesla has updated their Robotaxi page in the App Store. You’ll be able to select if you want a Cybercab or Model Y Robotaxi.
“Our Robotaxi vehicle lineup now includes Cybercab, our first purpose-built autonomous vehicle. Designed for safety, accessibility and comfort, Cybercab… pic.twitter.com/Jff4klilDr
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) September 3, 2026
The distinction is more than cosmetic, and it’s important to note that Robotaxi refers to the platform, while Cybercab refers to a vehicle.
Model Y Robotaxis have carried the service since it opened in Austin in mid-2025 and later expanded to Dallas, Houston, and parts of Florida. Those vehicles are converted production SUVs that still have steering wheels and pedals.
Cybercab is different. It has no driver controls, butterfly doors, a low seat height meant to work with wheelchairs, extra trunk space for assistive devices, and braille on the handles. Tesla has registered dozens of the two-seaters with Texas regulators in the days leading up to its September 3 Austin event.
Giving riders a choice lets Tesla match the vehicle to the trip. Most rides involve one or two people, which is where Cybercab is meant to be cheaper and more efficient to operate. Groups of three or four, or anyone who needs more space, can still request a Model Y.
The same app handles booking, payment, cabin settings, and, on Cybercab, features such as phone-based door opening and in-cabin voice controls.
The update does not mean every city suddenly has both cars available. Cybercab support is listed for Austin first, and the purpose-built fleet is still small compared with the existing Model Y roster. Even so, the app change marks a shift from a single-vehicle pilot to a mixed fleet.
Riders can now choose between the compact, purpose-built robotaxi and the familiar SUV that launched the service.
Tesla Cybercab sightings are broadening far and wide, well outside of downtown Austin, Texas, with autonomy in focus as the company plans to launch the all-electric, two-seater this evening in the Lone Star State.
Tesla is set to launch Cybercab to a small group of people this evening in a dedicated event in Austin, Texas. Public details on the event are relatively slim.
However, Tesla’s focus on Cybercab falls well outside of the downtown Austin area and is expanding well across the United States as things continue to move quickly with the company’s autonomous efforts in 2026. Today, various images of Cybercab fleets in interesting locations have started to circulate.
The most notable is a fleet of at least 20 Cybercabs at Miami International Airport in Florida. Spotted last night, the fleet is expansive and is indicative of a looming release of Cybercabs once regulatory boxes are checked off.
Tesla has already been operating the Robotaxi platform in Miami for several months, but this Cybercab fleet at the airport could be joining the ride-hailing platform as approvals arrive:
20+ Cybercabs spotted near Miami international airport. pic.twitter.com/ORLsw8yFhf
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) September 3, 2026
Another fleet of Cybercabs was spotted at the Devon, PA showroom just outside of Philadelphia. We have seen several Cybercab units testing around the Philadelphia Metro Area, which is interesting considering Tesla does not have any active Robotaxi geofence in Pennsylvania.
Cybercab at the Devon location in PA has multiplied over the weekend. Seeing a few more test vehicles in the lot 👀 pic.twitter.com/DhJT4P1EkU
— Billy (@billykyle) August 22, 2026
Philadelphia would be an ideal location to test ride-hailing due to its dense tourist population, large, sprawling city layout, and to compete with other ride-hailing companies that operate in the city.
Expansive fleets of Cybercabs will be popping up in and around major cities throughout the rest of the year, if we were betting on it. Tesla has made it obvious that the Cybercab rollout will be aggressive and fast-paced, but within reason. Tesla is still prioritizing safety, so these testing phases will likely go on for some period of time before more members of the public are able to snag a Cybercab for a personal chariot.
The Tesla Model Y L is arguably the most hyped trim of the all-electric crossover, other than the Performance configuration that comes with white-knuckle speed and sports car-level handling.
However, it is not all perfect. Tesla owners in China who took delivery of the Model Y L, denoted with an L to highlight its longer wheelbase, are experiencing what they are referring to as “collapsing” of the rear wheels, as suspension issues appear to be an issue with some of the builds.
🚨 Model Y L owners in China report rear suspension sag
• Six-seat long-wheelbase Y. Shanghai. On sale since August 2025
• Owners say the rear tire-to-arch gap shrinks after mileage or a full load. Some cases after about 9,000 km loaded. Others near 30,000 km
• Tesla service… pic.twitter.com/Lr6i5Tbi07— Joe Hansen (@joehansen) September 1, 2026
The gap between the wheel arch and tire has narrowed to the point that “not even a single finger” could fit, according to a report from Car News China. The failures are not tied to a specific mileage, as one owner said that after just 9,000 kilometers (5,600 miles), they noticed the suspension issue when their car was fully loaded.
Another one had the issue at 30,000 kilometers (18,640 miles) and noticed that the wheel gap shrank to two fingers, so not as drastic as the person who reported a similar issue at 9,000 km.
Tesla Model Y L is gaining momentum in China’s premium segment
Along with the visual recognition of the issue, others are saying the sagging is causing abnormal wear on the inside of the tires. Extra weight and instant torque already provide additional stress on the tires in electric vehicles during normal operation, so it is no surprise that this is another complaint.
There has been no recall issued by Tesla, and the company has not yet publicly acknowledged the issue.
Some are suggesting that owners use a “finger test” to self-diagnose whether there is an issue with the suspension. There should be four fingers between the tire and the wheel well; anything less than that starts to get dicey.
Tesla Robotaxi riders will face the best dilemma when booking a ride
Tesla Cybercab sightings broaden well outside of Austin with autonomy in focus
