I read their actual claims. They claim as part of their defenses to California’s various misleading speech regulations are facially invalid under the first amen

I read their actual claims. They claim as part of their defenses to California’s various misleading speech regulations are facially invalid under the first amendment. it might surprise you to learn that this particular thing has actually been litigated before many many years ago, and upheld ever since . they are not facially invalid. They are not invalid at all. I could also point out that facial invalidity charges are remarkably disfavored. you can only really win on facial invalidity if every application of the law to everyone would be invalid (rather than an as-applied challenge, which basically says the law is invalid as applied to you). The defense here is beyond a waste of time. It borders on sanctionable frivolity, and if a court finds that they’re not doing it in good faith, it would be sanctionable. as for what they’re doing it to generate news or not, you honestly believe that Tesla is above PR? of course, they are doing it to generate news - if you generate enough PR in your favor, people will push the government to change its mind or drop the case. This happens in any meaningful lawsuit involving government - there is always a PR campaign with it. You may or may not like it, but it's reality. Not to mention the defense reads like an Elon tweet, so ...