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 analyst Gary Black of The Future Fund claims that the company is making a big mistake getting rid of the Model S and Model X. Instead, he believes another vehicle within the company’s lineup should be discontinued: the Cybertruck.
Black divested The Future Fund from all Tesla holdings last year, but he still covers the stock as an analyst as it falls in the technology and autonomy sectors, which he covers.
In a new comment on Thursday, Black said the Cybertruck should be the vehicle Tesla gets rid of due to the negatives it has drawn to the company.
The Cybertruck is also selling in an underwhelming fashion considering the production capacity Tesla has set aside for it. It’s worth noting it is still the best-selling electric pickup on the market, and it has outlasted other EV truck projects as other manufacturers are receding their efforts.
Black said:
“IMHO it’s a mistake to keep Tesla Cybertruck which has negative brand equity and sold 10,000 units last year, and discontinue S/X which have strong repeat brand loyalty and together sold 30K units and are highly profitable. Why not discontinue CT and covert S/X to be fully autonomous?”
IMHO it’s a mistake to keep $TSLA Cybertruck which has negative brand equity and sold 10,000 units last year, and discontinue S/X which have strong repeat brand loyalty and together sold 30K units and are highly profitable. Why not discontinue CT and covert S/X to be fully…
— Gary Black (@garyblack00) January 29, 2026
On Wednesday, CEO Elon Musk confirmed that Tesla planned to transition Model S and Model X production lines at the Fremont Factory to handle manufacturing efforts of the Optimus Gen 3 robot.
Musk said that it was time to wind down the S and X programs “with an honorable discharge,” also noting that the two cars are not major contributors to Tesla’s mission any longer, as its automotive division is more focused on autonomy, which will be handled by Model 3, Model Y, and Cybercab.
Tesla begins Cybertruck deliveries in a new region for the first time
The news has drawn conflicting perspectives, with many Tesla fans upset about the decision, especially as it ends the production of the largest car in the company’s lineup. Tesla’s focus is on smaller ride-sharing vehicles, especially as the vast majority of rides consist of two or fewer passengers.
The S and X do not fit in these plans.
Nevertheless, the Cybertruck fits in Tesla’s future plans. Musk said the pickup will be needed for the transportation of local goods. Musk also said Cybertruck would be transitioned to an autonomous line.
In a groundbreaking new report from Reuters, SpaceX is reportedly discussing merger possibilities with xAI ahead of the space exploration company’s plans to IPO later this year, in what would be a blockbuster move.
The outlet said it would combine rockets and Starlink satellites, as well as the X social media platform and AI project Grok under one roof. The report cites “a person briefed on the matter and two recent company filings seen by Reuters.”
Musk, nor SpaceX or xAI, have commented on the report, so, as of now, it is unconfirmed.
With that being said, the proposed merger would bring shares of xAI in exchange for shares of SpaceX. Both companies were registered in Nevada to expedite the transaction, according to the report.
On January 21, both entities were registered in Nevada. The report continues:
“One of them, a limited liability company, lists SpaceX and Bret Johnsen, the company’s chief financial officer, as managing members, while the other lists Johnsen as the company’s only officer, the filings show.”
The source also stated that some xAI executives could be given the option to receive cash in lieu of SpaceX stock. No agreement has been reached, nothing has been signed, and the timing and structure, as well as other important details, have not been finalized.
SpaceX is valued at $800 billion and is the most valuable privately held company, while xAI is valued at $230 billion as of November. SpaceX could be going public later this year, as Musk has said as recently as December that the company would offer its stock publicly.
The plans could help move along plans for large-scale data centers in space, something Musk has discussed on several occasions over the past few months.
At the World Economic Forum last week, Musk said:
“It’s a no-brainer for building solar-powered AI data centers in space, because as I mentioned, it’s also very cold in space. The net effect is that the lowest cost place to put AI will be space and that will be true within two to three years, three at the latest.”
He also said on X that “the most important thing in the next 3-4 years is data centers in space.”
If the report is true and the two companies end up coming together, it would not be the first time Musk’s companies have ended up coming together. He used Tesla stock to purchase SolarCity back in 2016. Last year, X became part of xAI in a share swap.
Tesla has announced it has hit a major milestone with Full Self-Driving subscriptions, shortly after it said it would exclusively offer the suite without the option to purchase it outright.
Tesla announced on Wednesday during its Q4 Earnings Call for 2025 that it had officially eclipsed the one million subscription mark for its Full Self-Driving suite. This represented a 38 percent increase year-over-year.
This is up from the roughly 800,000 active subscriptions it reported last year. The company has seen significant increases in FSD adoption over the past few years, as in 2021, it reported just 400,000. In 2022, it was up to 500,000 and, one year later, it had eclipsed 600,000.
NEWS: For the first time, Tesla has revealed how many people are subscribed or have purchased FSD (Supervised).
Active FSD Subscriptions:
• 2025: 1.1 million
• 2024: 800K
• 2023: 600K
• 2022: 500K
• 2021: 400K pic.twitter.com/KVtnyANWcs— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) January 28, 2026
In mid-January, CEO Elon Musk announced that the company would transition away from giving the option to purchase the Full Self-Driving suite outright, opting for the subscription program exclusively.
Musk said on X:
“Tesla will stop selling FSD after Feb 14. FSD will only be available as a monthly subscription thereafter.”
The move intends to streamline the Full Self-Driving purchase option, and gives Tesla more control over its revenue, and closes off the ability to buy it outright for a bargain when Musk has said its value could be close to $100,000 when it reaches full autonomy.
It also caters to Musk’s newest compensation package. One tranche requires Tesla to achieve 10 million active FSD subscriptions, and now that it has reached one million, it is already seeing some growth.
The strategy that Tesla will use to achieve this lofty goal is still under wraps. The most ideal solution would be to offer a less expensive version of the suite, which is not likely considering the company is increasing its capabilities, and it is becoming more robust.
Tesla is shifting FSD to a subscription-only model, confirms Elon Musk
Currently, Tesla’s FSD subscription price is $99 per month, but Musk said this price will increase, which seems counterintuitive to its goal of increasing the take rate. With that being said, it will be interesting to see what Tesla does to navigate growth while offering a robust FSD suite.
Tesla analyst claims another vehicle, not Model S and X, should be discontinued
SpaceX reportedly discussing merger with xAI ahead of blockbuster IPO
