Assistant Attorney General Rock Wood, who represented the legislators, told Judge Ellen Carmody Thursday that courts generally only lift the veil of internal communications for criminal cases and for civil cases involving voting rights and redistricting, as reported by the Detroit Free Press.
“There would be no reason to make an exception for the Tesla lawsuit,” Wood said.
Wood went on to say that if Carmody allows access to lawmakers’ records in such a case, there will be a raft of lawsuits aimed at harassing and intimidating lawmakers to the extent that “legislators are spending all their time on this, and can’t legislate,” Wood said.
Tesla attorney John Bursch, a former state solicitor general, said there’s no privilege for communications between lawmakers and third parties, such as lobbyists.
And because the case is about potential economic discrimination that harms consumers and violates the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution, communications among lawmakers and between lawmakers and their staff members are also subject to subpoena, Bursch told the court.
The electric automaker had subpoenaed records from Governor Rick Snyder, Senator Joe Hune and Representative Jason Sheppard and others in its federal lawsuit against Snyder.
Tesla especially zeroed in on Senator Hune, who has received contributions from the Michigan Automobile Dealers Association. According to the Detroit Free Press, Tesla attorney John Bursch said in court Thursday that Hune was subpoenaed because he introduced the last minute amendment that effectively created the Anti-Tesla law and that his wife, Marcia, “works for the auto dealers” as a registered lobbyist employed by a firm that has the Auto Dealers of Michigan as a client.
The Hunes had not responded to Detroit Free Press’s request for comment and Sheppard declined a comment through a spokeswoman.
The subpoena also included Representative Sheppard, who wasn’t in office at the time. His inclusion comes from his statement to a Tesla representative that Michigan auto dealers and manufacturers don’t want Tesla in Michigan, “so you’re not going to be here,” as recounted by Bursch.
The subpoena hearing stems from a lawsuit against Snyder, Michigan’s Secretary of State Ruth Johnson and state Attorney General Bill Schuette over a 2014 state law that has colloquially become known as the Anti-Tesla bill. The law bans automakers from selling vehicles directly to consumers, which is Tesla’s sales model.
Tesla’s complaint outlines that the law’s purpose is “to reward the dealers’ generous lobbying efforts by handing them a monopoly,” as we previously reported.
Tesla is seeking two things from the lawsuit: a declaratory judgment that Michigan’s ban on direct-sales violates the Due Process, Equal Protection, and Commerce Clauses of the Constitution as applied to Tesla and a permanent injunction preventing state officials from enforcing the law, including the October 2014 amendment.
News
Tesla wins top loyalty and conquest honors in S&P Global Mobility 2025 awards
The electric vehicle maker secured this year’s “Overall Loyalty to Make,” “Highest Conquest Percentage,” and “Ethnic Loyalty to Make” awards.
Tesla emerged as one of the standout winners in the 2025 S&P Global Mobility Automotive Loyalty Awards, capturing top honors for customer retention and market conquest.
The electric vehicle maker secured this year’s “Overall Loyalty to Make,” “Highest Conquest Percentage,” and “Ethnic Loyalty to Make” awards.
Tesla claims loyalty crown
According to S&P Global Mobility, Tesla secured its 2025 “Overall Loyalty to Make” award following a late-year shift in consumer buying patterns. This marked the fourth consecutive year Tesla has received the honor. S&P Global Mobility’s annual analysis reviewed 13.6 million new retail vehicle registrations in the U.S. from October 2024 through September 2025, as noted in a press release.
In addition to overall loyalty, Tesla also earned the “Highest Conquest Percentage” award for the sixth consecutive year, highlighting the company’s continued ability to attract customers away from competing brands. This achievement is particularly notable given Tesla’s relatively small vehicle lineup, which is largely dominated by just two models: the Model 3 and Model Y.
Ethnic market strength and conquest
Tesla also captured top honors for “Ethnic Market Loyalty to Make,” a category that highlighted especially strong retention among Asian and Hispanic households. According to the analysis, Tesla achieved loyalty rates of 63.6% among Asian households and 61.9% among Hispanic households. These figures exceeded national averages.
S&P Global Mobility executives noted that loyalty margins across categories were exceptionally narrow in 2025, underscoring the significance of Tesla’s wins in an increasingly competitive market. Joe LaFeir, President of Mobility Business Solutions at S&P Global Mobility, shared his perspective on this year’s results.
“For 30 years, this analysis has provided a fact-based measure of brand health, and this year’s results are particularly telling. The data shows the market is not rewarding just one type of strategy. Instead, we see sustained, high-level performance from manufacturers with broad portfolios. In the current market, retaining customers remains a critical performance indicator for the industry,” LaFeir said.
Elon Musk
Elon Musk’s lawsuit against OpenAI and Microsoft is heading to jury trial
The ruling keeps alive claims that OpenAI misled the Tesla CEO about its charitable purpose while accepting billions of dollars in funding.
OpenAI Inc. and Microsoft will face a jury trial this spring after a federal judge rejected their efforts to dismiss Elon Musk’s lawsuit, which accuses the artificial intelligence startup of abandoning its original nonprofit mission. The ruling keeps alive claims that OpenAI misled the Tesla CEO about its charitable purpose while accepting billions of dollars in funding.
As noted in a report from Bloomberg News, a federal judge in Oakland, California, ruled that OpenAI Inc. and Microsoft failed to show that Musk’s claims should be dismissed. U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers stated that while the evidence remains unclear, Musk has maintained that OpenAI “had a specific charitable purpose and that he attached two fundamental terms to it: that OpenAI be open source and that it would remain a nonprofit — purposes consistent with OpenAI’s charter and mission.”
Judge Gonzalez Rogers also rejected an argument by OpenAI suggesting that Musk’s use of an intermediary to donate $38 million in seed money to the company stripped him of legal standing. “Holding otherwise would significantly reduce the enforcement of a large swath of charitable trusts, contrary to the modern trend,” Judge Gonzalez Rogers wrote.
The judge also declined to dismiss Musk’s fraud allegations, citing internal OpenAI communications from 2017 involving co-founder Greg Brockman. In an email cited by the judge, fellow OpenAI board member Shivon Zilis informed Musk that Brockman would “like to continue with the non-profit structure.”
Just two months later, however, Brockman wrote in a private note that he “cannot say that we are committed to the non-profit. don’t want to say that we’re committed. if three months later we’re doing b-corp then it was a lie.”
Marc Toberoff, a member of Musk’s legal team, said Judge Gonzalez Rogers’s ruling confirms that “there is substantial evidence that OpenAI’s leadership made knowingly false assurances to Mr. Musk about its charitable mission that they never honored in favor of their personal self-enrichment.”
OpenAI, for its part, maintained that Musk’s legal efforts are baseless. In a statement, the AI startup said it is looking forward to the upcoming trial. “Mr. Musk’s lawsuit continues to be baseless and a part of his ongoing pattern of harassment, and we look forward to demonstrating this at trial. We remain focused on empowering the OpenAI Foundation, which is already one of the best-resourced nonprofits ever,” OpenAI stated.
News
Tesla arsonist who burned Cybertruck sees end of FAFO journey
The man has now reached the “Find Out” stage.
A Mesa, Arizona man has been sentenced to five years in federal prison for setting fire to a Tesla location and vehicle in a politically motivated arson attack, federal prosecutors have stated.
The April 2025 incident destroyed a Tesla Cybertruck, endangered first responders, and triggered mandatory sentencing under federal arson laws.
A five-year sentence
U.S. District Judge Diane J. Humetewa sentenced Ian William Moses, 35, of Mesa, Arizona, to 5 years in prison followed by 3 years of supervised release for maliciously damaging property and vehicles by means of fire. Moses pleaded guilty in October to all five counts brought by a federal grand jury. Restitution will be determined at a hearing scheduled for April 13, 2026.
As per court records, surveillance footage showed Moses arriving at a Tesla store in Mesa shortly before 2 a.m. on April 28, 2025, carrying a gasoline can and backpack. Investigators stated that he placed fire starter logs near the building, poured gasoline on the structure and three vehicles, and ignited the fire. The blaze destroyed a Tesla Cybertruck. Moses fled the scene on a bicycle and was arrested by Mesa police about a quarter mile away, roughly an hour later.
Authorities said Moses was still wearing the same clothing seen on camera at the time of his arrest and was carrying a hand-drawn map marking the dealership’s location. Moses also painted the word “Theif” on the walls of the Tesla location, prompting jokes from social media users and Tesla community members.
The “Finding Out” stage
U.S. Attorney Timothy Courchaine noted that Moses’ sentence reflects the gravity of his crime. He also highlighted that arson is never acceptable.
“Arson can never be an acceptable part of American politics. Mr. Moses’ actions endangered the public and first responders and could have easily turned deadly. This five-year sentence reflects the gravity of these crimes and makes clear that politically fueled attacks on Arizona’s communities and businesses will be met with full accountability.”
Maricopa County Attorney Rachel Mitchell echoed the same sentiments, stating that regardless of Moses’ sentiments towards Elon Musk, his actions are not defensible.
“This sentence sends a clear message: violence and intimidation have no place in our community. Setting fire to a business in retaliation for political or personal grievances is not protest, it is a crime. Our community deserves to feel safe, and this sentence underscores that Maricopa County will not tolerate political violence in any form.”
Tesla wins top loyalty and conquest honors in S&P Global Mobility 2025 awards
Elon Musk’s lawsuit against OpenAI and Microsoft is heading to jury trial
