Maybe someone with a legal background can weigh in more intelligently, but skimming through the US Code that she was actually convicted of doesn't make any dist

Maybe someone with a legal background can weigh in more intelligently, but skimming through the US Code that she was actually convicted of doesn't make any distinction between past and future. Most of it is centered around claims of material fact (i.e., not subjective) and intentional and realized damage. I think some of the grey area with Musk is the marketing of the product, like terming it "autopilot" which has a very specific connotation in the public perception. I'm granting that's not fraud in the same sense as the Theranos case, but I think it (probably deliberately) walks into a grey area of ethics. I think the damage claim is readily apparent but the intentional claim may be more difficult, in part because I don’t think there is a standardized definition of “autopilot”, even if it knowingly means something specific to the general public. If I create an EV model named the "ThousandMiler" but put an asterisk in the manual that says it's only capable of 500 miles, maybe that's not fraud but it's skirting the line.