5 ms·

Ah, but they have an 'airtight' defense! > "Nikola never stated its truck was driving under its own propulsion in the video," Nikola wrote. "Nikola described t

Ah, but they have an 'airtight' defense! > "Nikola never stated its truck was driving under its own propulsion in the video," Nikola wrote. "Nikola described this third-party video on the Company’s social media as 'In Motion.' It was never described as 'under its own propulsion' or 'powertrain driven.'

xkjkls 6y ago
tbh thats probably legalistically enough for them to avoid getting sued But the very idea that "yeah, you're right on all the facts, its just that we didn't really 'lie'" isn't a great defense of the business
- lordnacho 6y ago
  The law normally considers what a reasonable person would think, doesn't it? Who would think it was anything other than moving under its own power?
  - xkjkls 6y ago
    It depends on the circumstance. In the case of an investor, there's much more assumed due diligence than just "what a reasonable person would think".
    - lordnacho 6y ago
      If the guy shows you a video, are you gonna actually ask him whether it was what it looks like? I guess you ought to kick the tyres on the real thing though.
      - awb 6y ago
        Investors are supposed to conduct their own due diligence which could include talking to the engineers or setting up a demo under mutually agreed conditions at which point the difference between "in motion" and "driving" would be uncovered. It's definitely not a good look though.
  - duskwuff 6y ago
    Context matters too. No reasonable person would expect a company to post a promotional video of their vehicle "in motion" just to show off that it has wheels that can roll.
- valuearb 6y ago
  The CEO directly said it was a working truck at the time. Today’s press release is skirting that fact.
snowwrestler 6y ago
You laugh, but if we make this a matter of regulatory oversight, this sort of word parsing is exactly what every case will come down to.
- vlovich123 6y ago
  Or you just look through the communications surrounding this video during discovery to see if there was a pattern establishing intent to mislead investors.
  - swivelmaster 6y ago
    Bingo. Subpoena their emails and undoubtedly their whole defense falls apart.
- Retric 6y ago
  The article suggested that it was more than just a video at issue. Milton said. "This thing fully functions and works, which is really incredible." Further, internal emails not just public statements are often used to decide if something was intended to deceive or not.
kempbellt 6y ago
In other words "I'm not touching you..." but the adult version.
pbhjpbhj 6y ago
Fraud is about intent. They intended to defraud, that's the salient fact.
- mbreese 6y ago
  They also stated that investors at the time were aware of the limitations. If that is true, then who would have been defrauded? I’m not trying to defend them, but at that stage of the (private) company, if they were honest with investors then is there an issue? Where is that line? If they weren’t honest with them, then that’s a whole other story. (And I’m not sure you can assume they were in fact honest with investors.)
  - jfoutz 6y ago
    NKLA I thought was around for a couple years. Maybe major shareholders were informed?
    - mbreese 6y ago
      Were they public or private at the time? (Because if they were public, that would be a problem...)
      - jfoutz 6y ago
        let's see - "Nikola Motor Company stock ticker is NKLA. It went public on the NASDAQ on June 4, 2020." (random google search) but the article indicates "When Nikola Motor Company founder Trevor Milton unveiled a prototype of the Nikola One truck in December 2016, he portrayed it as fully functional." So there you go!
6gvONxR4sf7o 6y ago
There are 'reasonable person' laws all over. Maybe there should be one to apply here. Like 'unlimited* data' plans technically have fine print redefining the word unlimited, but a reasonable person will see the ad across the street and be misled.
- sellyme 6y ago
  Also even if it wasn't fine print, it's still comically illegal. Imagine someone saying "Our cereal cures cancer! Where cancer is defined as 'hunger'."

xkjkls 6y ago

tbh thats probably legalistically enough for them to avoid getting sued But the very idea that "yeah, you're right on all the facts, its just that we didn't really 'lie'" isn't a great defense of the business

lordnacho 6y ago
The law normally considers what a reasonable person would think, doesn't it? Who would think it was anything other than moving under its own power?
- xkjkls 6y ago
  It depends on the circumstance. In the case of an investor, there's much more assumed due diligence than just "what a reasonable person would think".
  - lordnacho 6y ago
    If the guy shows you a video, are you gonna actually ask him whether it was what it looks like? I guess you ought to kick the tyres on the real thing though.
    - awb 6y ago
      Investors are supposed to conduct their own due diligence which could include talking to the engineers or setting up a demo under mutually agreed conditions at which point the difference between "in motion" and "driving" would be uncovered. It's definitely not a good look though.
- duskwuff 6y ago
  Context matters too. No reasonable person would expect a company to post a promotional video of their vehicle "in motion" just to show off that it has wheels that can roll.
valuearb 6y ago
The CEO directly said it was a working truck at the time. Today’s press release is skirting that fact.

snowwrestler 6y ago

You laugh, but if we make this a matter of regulatory oversight, this sort of word parsing is exactly what every case will come down to.

vlovich123 6y ago
Or you just look through the communications surrounding this video during discovery to see if there was a pattern establishing intent to mislead investors.
- swivelmaster 6y ago
  Bingo. Subpoena their emails and undoubtedly their whole defense falls apart.
Retric 6y ago
The article suggested that it was more than just a video at issue. Milton said. "This thing fully functions and works, which is really incredible." Further, internal emails not just public statements are often used to decide if something was intended to deceive or not.

kempbellt 6y ago

In other words "I'm not touching you..." but the adult version.

pbhjpbhj 6y ago

Fraud is about intent. They intended to defraud, that's the salient fact.

mbreese 6y ago
They also stated that investors at the time were aware of the limitations. If that is true, then who would have been defrauded? I’m not trying to defend them, but at that stage of the (private) company, if they were honest with investors then is there an issue? Where is that line? If they weren’t honest with them, then that’s a whole other story. (And I’m not sure you can assume they were in fact honest with investors.)
- jfoutz 6y ago
  NKLA I thought was around for a couple years. Maybe major shareholders were informed?
  - mbreese 6y ago
    Were they public or private at the time? (Because if they were public, that would be a problem...)
    - jfoutz 6y ago
      let's see - "Nikola Motor Company stock ticker is NKLA. It went public on the NASDAQ on June 4, 2020." (random google search) but the article indicates "When Nikola Motor Company founder Trevor Milton unveiled a prototype of the Nikola One truck in December 2016, he portrayed it as fully functional." So there you go!

6gvONxR4sf7o 6y ago

There are 'reasonable person' laws all over. Maybe there should be one to apply here. Like 'unlimited* data' plans technically have fine print redefining the word unlimited, but a reasonable person will see the ad across the street and be misled.

sellyme 6y ago
Also even if it wasn't fine print, it's still comically illegal. Imagine someone saying "Our cereal cures cancer! Where cancer is defined as 'hunger'."