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.”
Despite many recent rumors and various reports, Elon Musk confirmed today that SpaceX is not developing a phone based on Starlink, not once, but twice.
Today’s report from Reuters cited people familiar with the matter and stated internal discussions have seen SpaceX executives mulling the idea of building a mobile device that would connect directly to the Starlink satellite constellation.
Musk did state in late January that SpaceX developing a phone was “not out of the question at some point.” However, He also said it would have to be a major difference from current phones, and would be optimized “purely for running max performance/watt neural nets.”
Not out of the question at some point. It would be a very different device than current phones. Optimized purely for running max performance/watt neural nets.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) January 30, 2026
While Musk said it was not out of the question “at some point,” that does not mean it is currently a project SpaceX is working on. The CEO reaffirmed this point twice on X this afternoon.
Musk said, “Reuters lies relentlessly,” in one post. In the next, he explicitly stated, “We are not developing a phone.”
Reuters lies relentlessly
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) February 5, 2026
We are not developing a phone
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) February 5, 2026
Musk has basically always maintained that SpaceX has too many things going on, denying that a phone would be in the realm of upcoming projects. There are too many things in the works for Musk’s space exploration company, most notably the recent merger with xAI.
SpaceX officially acquires xAI, merging rockets with AI expertise
A Starlink phone would be an excellent idea, especially considering that SpaceX operates 9,500 satellites, serving over 9 million users worldwide. 650 of those satellites are dedicated to the company’s direct-to-device initiative, which provides cellular coverage on a global scale.
Nevertheless, there is the potential that the Starlink phone eventually become a project SpaceX works on. However, it is not currently in the scope of what the company needs to develop, so things are more focused on that as of right now.
Tesla has added a notable improvement to its Dashcam feature after complaints from owners have pushed the company to make a drastic change.
Perhaps one of the biggest frustrations that Tesla owners have communicated regarding the Dashcam feature is the lack of ability to retain any more than 60 minutes of driving footage before it is overwritten.
It does not matter what size USB jump drive is plugged into the vehicle. 60 minutes is all it will hold until new footage takes over the old. This can cause some issues, especially if you were saving an impressive clip of Full Self-Driving or an incident on the road, which could be lost if new footage was recorded.
This has now been changed, as Tesla has shown in the Release Notes for an upcoming Software Update in China. It will likely expand to the U.S. market in the coming weeks, and was first noticed by NotaTeslaApp.
The release notes state:
“Dashcam Dynamic Recording Duration – The dashcam dynamically adjusts the recording duration based on the available storage capacity of the connected USB drive. For example, with a 128 GB USB drive, the maximum recording duration is approximately 3 hours; with a 1 TB or larger USB drive, it can reach up to 24 hours. This ensures that as much video as possible is retained for review before it gets overwritten.”
Tesla Adds Dynamic Recording
Instead of having a 60-minute cap, the new system will now go off the memory in the USB drive. This means with:
- 128 GB Jump Drive – Up to Three Hours of Rolling Footage
- 1TB Jump Drive – Up to 24 Hours of Rolling Footage
This is dependent on the amount of storage available on the jump drive, meaning that if there are other things saved on it, it will take away from the amount of footage that can be retained.
While the feature is just now making its way to employees in China, it will likely be at least several weeks before it makes its way to the U.S., but owners should definitely expect it in the coming months.
It will be a welcome feature, especially as there will now be more customization to the number of clips and their duration that can be stored.
With the news of a merger between SpaceX and xAI being confirmed earlier this week by CEO Elon Musk directly, the first moves of an umbrella company that combines all of the serial tech entrepreneur’s companies have been established.
The move aims to combine SpaceX’s prowess in launches with xAI’s expanding vision in artificial intelligence, as Musk has detailed the need for space-based data centers that will require massive amounts of energy to operate.
It has always been in the plans to bring Musk’s companies together under one umbrella.
“My companies are, surprisingly in some ways, trending toward convergence,” Musk said in November. With SpaceX and xAI moving together, many are questioning when Tesla will be next. Analysts believe it is a no-brainer.
SpaceX officially acquires xAI, merging rockets with AI expertise
Dan Ives of Wedbush wrote in a note earlier this week that there is a “growing chance” Tesla could be merged in some form with the new conglomeration over the next 12 to 18 months.
“In our view, there is a growing chance that Tesla will eventually be merged in some form into SpaceX/xAI over time. The viewis this growing AI ecosystem will focus on Space and Earth together… and Musk will look to combine forces,” Ives said.
Let’s take a look at the potential.
The Case for Synergies – Building the Ultimate AI Ecosystem
A triple merger would create a unified “Musk Trinity,” blending Tesla’s physical AI with Robotaxi, Optimus, and Full Self-Driving, SpaceX’s orbital infrastructure through Starlink and potential space-based computer, and xAI’s advanced models, including Grok.
This could accelerate real-world AI applications, more specifically, ones like using satellite networks for global autonomy, or even powering massive training through solar-optimized orbital data centers.
The FCC welcomes and now seeks comment on the SpaceX application for Orbital Data Centers.
The proposed system would serve as a first step towards becoming a Kardashev II-level civilization and serve other purposes, according to the applicant. pic.twitter.com/TDnUPuz9w7
— Brendan Carr (@BrendanCarrFCC) February 4, 2026
This would position the entity, which could ultimately be labeled “X,” as a leader in multiplanetary AI-native tech.
It would impact every level of Musk’s AI-based vision for the future, from passenger use to complex AI training models.
Financial and Structural Incentives — and Risks
xAI’s high cash burn rate is now backed by SpaceX’s massive valuation boost, and Tesla joining the merger would help the company gain access to private funding channels, avoiding dilution in a public-heavy structure.
The deal makes sense from a capital standpoint, as it is an advantage for each company in its own specific way, addressing specific needs.
Because xAI is spending money at an accelerating rate due to its massive compute needs, SpaceX provides a bit of a “lifeline” by redirecting its growing cash flows toward AI ambitions without the need for constant external fundraising.
Additionally, Tesla’s recent $2 billion investment in xAI also ties in, as its own heavy CapEx for Dojo supercomputers, Robotaxis, and Optimus could potentially be streamlined.
Musk’s stake in Tesla and SpaceX, after the xAI merger, is also uneven. His ownership in Tesla equates to about 13 percent, only increasing as he achieves each tranche of his most recent compensation package. Meanwhile, he owns about 43 percent of the private SpaceX.
A triple merger between the three companies could boost his ownership in the combined entity to around 26 percent. This would give Musk what he wants: stronger voting power and alignment across his ventures.
It could also be a potential facilitator in private-to-public transitions, as a reverse merger structure to take SpaceX public indirectly via Tesla could be used. This avoids any IPO scrutiny while accessing the public markets’ liquidity.
Timeline and Triggers for a Public Announcement
As previously mentioned, Ives believes a 12-18 month timeline is realistic, fueled by Musk’s repeated hints at convergence between his three companies. Additionally, the recent xAI investment by Tesla only points toward the increased potential for a conglomeration.
Of course, there is speculation that the merger could happen in the shorter term, before June 30 of this year, which is a legitimate possibility. While this possibility exists but remains at low probability, especially when driven by rapid AI/space momentum, longer horizons, like 2027 or later, allow for key milestones like Tesla’s Robotaxi rollout and Cybercab ramp-up, Optimus scaling, or regulatory clarity under a favorable administration.
Credit: Grok Imagine
The sequencing matters: SpaceX-xAI merger as “step one” toward a unified stack, with a potential SpaceX IPO setting a valuation benchmark before any Tesla tie-up.
Full triple convergence could follow if synergies prove out.
Prediction markets are also a reasonable thing to look at, just to get an idea of where people are putting their money. Polymarket, for example, sits at between a 12 and 24 percent chance that a Tesla-SpaceX merger is officially announced before June 30, 2026.
Looking Ahead
The SpaceX-xAI merger is not your typical corporate shuffle. Instead, it’s the clearest signal yet that Musk is architecting a unified “Muskonomy” where AI, space infrastructure, and real-world robotics converge to solve humanity’s biggest challenges.
Yet the path is fraught with execution risks that could turn this visionary upside into a major value trap. Valuation mismatches remain at the forefront of this skepticism: Tesla’s public multiples are unlike any company ever, with many believing they are “stretched.” On the other hand, SpaceX-xAI’s private “marked-to-muth” pricing hinges on unproven synergies and lofty projects, especially orbital data centers and all of the things Musk and Co. will have to figure out along the way.
Ultimately, the entire thing relies on a high-conviction bet on Musk’s ability to execute at scale. The bullish case is transformative: a vertically integrated AI-space-robotics giant accelerates humanity toward abundance and multi-planetary civilization faster than any siloed company could.
Elon Musk confirms SpaceX is not developing a phone
Tesla adds notable improvement to Dashcam feature
