The actual affirmative defense raised says: > Specifically, the Complainant’s claim under Cal. Veh. Code § 24011.5 is barred because the statute is facially in

The actual affirmative defense raised says: > Specifically, the Complainant’s claim under Cal. Veh. Code § 24011.5 is barred because the statute is facially invalid under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 2, of the California Constitution, as a substantial number of the statute’s applications impermissibly restrict constitutionally protected speech that is truthful and nonmisleading. The Complainant’s claims under Cal. Veh. Code § 24011.5, Cal. Civ. Code § 1770(a)(5), Cal. Code Regs. Title 13 § 260.00, and Cal. Veh. Code § 11713(a) are also barred because these statutes and regulations, as applied to Tesla in this proceeding, are unconstitutional under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 2, of the California Constitution, as they impermissibly restrict Tesla’s truthful and nonmisleading speech about its vehicles and their features. Now, to be fair, you have to raise every defense you might want to raise at some point in the litigation in the answer to the complaint, so just because it's listed as an affirmative defense doesn't necessarily mean Tesla is actually going to use that defense. But given that it's the first affirmative defense raised, it does feel like Tesla is going to very strongly litigate this argument. But this is commercial speech, plain and simple, and the First Amendment is widely agreed to permit these kind of restrictions on commercial speech. It's not even close; SCOTUS won't even bother hear to the case should Tesla be stupid enough to appeal it that far.