22 ms·

Offending Tweet: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1098009983931707393 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1098009983931707393

darkpuma 8y ago
Was that particular tweet the offender, or the two subsequent tweets? > "Tesla made 0 cars in 2011, but will make around 500k in 2019" > "Meant to say annualized production rate at end of 2019 probably around 500k, ie 10k cars/week. Deliveries for year still estimated to be about 400k." The article seems to suggest it was tweets about projected numbers. Edit: From the filing: > "On February 19, 2019, Musk tweeted, “Tesla made 0 cars in 2011, but will make around 500k in 2019.” Musk did not seek or receive pre-approval prior to publishing this tweet, which was inaccurate and disseminated to over 24 million people. Musk has thus violated the Court’s Final Judgment by engaging in the very conduct that the pre-approval provision of the Final Judgment was designed to prevent. "
- a-wu 8y ago
  According to the filing posted by another user, the first one.
  - bostonpete 8y ago
    That's incorrect if you read the SEC filling the problem was that he was projecting 2019 production publicly
    - a-wu 8y ago
      Right, he was projecting 2019 production publicly, and the SEC cites the first tweet as the projection that violated the original agreement.
      - mlindner 8y ago
        Except that was already public information.
        jaimex2 8y ago
        Correct. It was in the outlook of the last quarterly: http://ir.tesla.com/static-files/0b913415-467d-4c0d-be4c-9225c2cb0ae0 http://ir.tesla.com/static-files/0b913415-467d-4c0d-be4c-922...
        ikeboy 8y ago
        That says 500k annualized, not 500k for the year
        Dylan16807 8y ago
        And 500k annualized is what he claims the meaning of the tweet to be. Unless Tesla updates their projections soon, that's probably not a lie.
        ikeboy 8y ago
        Nobody's claiming the annualized number is a lie. The claim is the original post is wrongly saying 500k total for the year and wasn't run past someone else like Musk promised he would for all Tesla related statements.
        Dylan16807 8y ago
        > Nobody's claiming the annualized number is a lie. I was talking about whether "Musk meant the annualized number." is true or a lie. > The claim is the original post is wrongly saying 500k total for the year and wasn't run past someone else like Musk promised he would for all Tesla related statements. The agreement was that he would get approval for posts with material information. If he's citing a number everyone already knows from the public report, then it's not material information. (except in some kind of unreasonably-broad sense that would make "Tesla makes cars." an offending tweet) So if he says 500k, and he's talking about the annualized number in the previous public report, then there is a strong argument that he doesn't need approval. If he says 500k and it's not annualized, then it's a new number, and he does need approval.
    - xenadu02 8y ago
      > the problem was that he was projecting 2019 production publicly That is also incorrect. The settlement only mandated that Musk get company approval for Tesla-related tweets. It would have been as simple as him sending an email with the proposed tweet to get signoff before blasting it out there. This is actually extremely common and partially for these sorts of reasons. The SEC asked Tesla if Musk followed the agreement by getting approval for the tweet. He didn't, thus this filing.
      - CydeWeys 8y ago
        I'm just a random nobody and I have to get way more approval posting anything work-related than Elon Musk, apparently.
      - bostonpete 8y ago
        The settlement required approval for statement containing information material to shareholders, not any tweet about Tesla. That's why the 2019 projection was mention as the problematic tweet in the SEC filing
      - Derek_MK 8y ago
        > The SEC asked Tesla if Musk followed the agreement by getting approval for the tweet. He didn't, thus this filing. This is the unbelievable part. "We agree to NOT do X, under penalty of law." [Does X] "Did you do X?" "yeah lol"
        darkpuma 8y ago
        Elon is the guy who fucked up, not Telsa. Whoever the FEC asked that question to at Tesla was probably not Elon himself, and the person on the receiving end of that question probably didn't want to lie to a fed.
        Derek_MK 8y ago
        Yeah, I guess I understand why they confirmed it, it's just wild that this is happening right now.
- travisoneill1 8y ago
  So all he has to do is find a fall guy to say he approved it, and it will be thrown out?
  - avar 8y ago
    Yes. Getting out of contempt of court is so easy! Just add a little perjury on top. Who's keeping track anyway?
  - Rebelgecko 8y ago
    Tesla's legal already said they didn't approve the first tweet, but they worked with him on the correction that was posted 4 hours later. Wonder if that's why their general counsel quit again...

darkpuma 8y ago

Was that particular tweet the offender, or the two subsequent tweets? > "Tesla made 0 cars in 2011, but will make around 500k in 2019" > "Meant to say annualized production rate at end of 2019 probably around 500k, ie 10k cars/week. Deliveries for year still estimated to be about 400k." The article seems to suggest it was tweets about projected numbers. Edit: From the filing: > "On February 19, 2019, Musk tweeted, “Tesla made 0 cars in 2011, but will make around 500k in 2019.” Musk did not seek or receive pre-approval prior to publishing this tweet, which was inaccurate and disseminated to over 24 million people. Musk has thus violated the Court’s Final Judgment by engaging in the very conduct that the pre-approval provision of the Final Judgment was designed to prevent. "

a-wu 8y ago
According to the filing posted by another user, the first one.
- bostonpete 8y ago
  That's incorrect if you read the SEC filling the problem was that he was projecting 2019 production publicly
  - a-wu 8y ago
    Right, he was projecting 2019 production publicly, and the SEC cites the first tweet as the projection that violated the original agreement.
    - mlindner 8y ago
      Except that was already public information.
      - jaimex2 8y ago
        Correct. It was in the outlook of the last quarterly: http://ir.tesla.com/static-files/0b913415-467d-4c0d-be4c-9225c2cb0ae0 http://ir.tesla.com/static-files/0b913415-467d-4c0d-be4c-922...
        ikeboy 8y ago
        That says 500k annualized, not 500k for the year
        Dylan16807 8y ago
        And 500k annualized is what he claims the meaning of the tweet to be. Unless Tesla updates their projections soon, that's probably not a lie.
        ikeboy 8y ago
        Nobody's claiming the annualized number is a lie. The claim is the original post is wrongly saying 500k total for the year and wasn't run past someone else like Musk promised he would for all Tesla related statements.
        Dylan16807 8y ago
        > Nobody's claiming the annualized number is a lie. I was talking about whether "Musk meant the annualized number." is true or a lie. > The claim is the original post is wrongly saying 500k total for the year and wasn't run past someone else like Musk promised he would for all Tesla related statements. The agreement was that he would get approval for posts with material information. If he's citing a number everyone already knows from the public report, then it's not material information. (except in some kind of unreasonably-broad sense that would make "Tesla makes cars." an offending tweet) So if he says 500k, and he's talking about the annualized number in the previous public report, then there is a strong argument that he doesn't need approval. If he says 500k and it's not annualized, then it's a new number, and he does need approval.
  - xenadu02 8y ago
    > the problem was that he was projecting 2019 production publicly That is also incorrect. The settlement only mandated that Musk get company approval for Tesla-related tweets. It would have been as simple as him sending an email with the proposed tweet to get signoff before blasting it out there. This is actually extremely common and partially for these sorts of reasons. The SEC asked Tesla if Musk followed the agreement by getting approval for the tweet. He didn't, thus this filing.
    - CydeWeys 8y ago
      I'm just a random nobody and I have to get way more approval posting anything work-related than Elon Musk, apparently.
    - bostonpete 8y ago
      The settlement required approval for statement containing information material to shareholders, not any tweet about Tesla. That's why the 2019 projection was mention as the problematic tweet in the SEC filing
    - Derek_MK 8y ago
      > The SEC asked Tesla if Musk followed the agreement by getting approval for the tweet. He didn't, thus this filing. This is the unbelievable part. "We agree to NOT do X, under penalty of law." [Does X] "Did you do X?" "yeah lol"
      - darkpuma 8y ago
        Elon is the guy who fucked up, not Telsa. Whoever the FEC asked that question to at Tesla was probably not Elon himself, and the person on the receiving end of that question probably didn't want to lie to a fed.
        Derek_MK 8y ago
        Yeah, I guess I understand why they confirmed it, it's just wild that this is happening right now.
travisoneill1 8y ago
So all he has to do is find a fall guy to say he approved it, and it will be thrown out?
- avar 8y ago
  Yes. Getting out of contempt of court is so easy! Just add a little perjury on top. Who's keeping track anyway?
- Rebelgecko 8y ago
  Tesla's legal already said they didn't approve the first tweet, but they worked with him on the correction that was posted 4 hours later. Wonder if that's why their general counsel quit again...