Elon Musk celebrates successful lawsuit over Tesla self-driving claims with embarrassing protection

Nevertheless, when reporting on the dismissal, Musk and his followers didn’t look at the argument his attorneys used to defend him.

Let’s be clear on what Musk is celebrating right here: he’s celebrating a decide siding together with his attorneys, who argued that his deceptive statements relating to Tesla’s self-driving effort have been easy “company puffery” and never “actionable materials misrepresentations.”

That’s it.

The lawsuit is filled with “company puffery” arguments by Tesla’s attorneys:

Defendants argue that the Timeline Statements that FSDC expertise “seem[ed] to be on observe,” could be obtainable “aspirationally by the tip of the yr,” and Tesla was “aiming to launch [it] this yr,” [..] have been nonactionable statements of company puffery and optimism. […] Plaintiffs contend that the statements offered a “concrete description” of the state of Tesla’s expertise in a manner that misled buyers. […]. These statements about Tesla’s goals and aspirations to develop Tesla’s expertise by the tip of the yr and Musk’s confidence within the growth timeline are too obscure for an investor to depend on them. […] Thus, along with being protected underneath the PSLRA protected harbor, Statements (10, 11, and 18) are nonactionable puffery.

In a mind-numbing assertion, Musk’s attorneys argue that his claims about Tesla Autopilot security have been “obscure statements of company optimism aren’t objectively verifiable”:

Defendants additionally assert that a number of Security Statements are company puffery. For instance, statements that security is “paramount” (FAC ¶ 325), Tesla automobiles are “absurdly protected” (id.), autopilot is “superhuman” (FAC ¶ 337), and “we need to get to as near perfection as attainable” (FAC¶363). Mot. at 19. Plaintiffs reply that “tremendous” in “superhuman” will not be puffery as a result of it represents that ADT is safer than human and “absurdly protected” conveys greater-than-human security. Opp. at 12. Nevertheless, these obscure statements of company optimism aren’t objectively verifiable.

The attorneys even argued, efficiently, that “no cheap investor would rely” on most of the alleged deceptive statements as a result of they’re “mere puffing”:

Defendants subsequent argue that a number of Timeline and Security Statements, (Statements 7, 11th of September, 13, 16, 18, and 26 FAC 325, 329, 331, 333, 337, 343, 347, 363), are nonactionable statements of company puffery and optimism. Mot. at 15, 19. Within the Ninth Circuit, “obscure, generalized assertions of company optimism or statements of ‘mere puffing’ aren’t actionable materials misrepresentations underneath federal securities legal guidelines” as a result of no cheap investor would depend on such statements.

Subsequently, sure, Tesla gained a dismissal, however at the price of a decide agreeing with Musk’s attorneys that his assertion about Tesla’s Full Self-Driving effort was “mere puffing.”

Electrek’s Take

Look. They don’t seem to be incorrect. I don’t suppose many cheap buyers are taking Elon’s phrases severely. ‘Cheap’ is the key phrase right here.

There are many unreasonable ones who do, although.

I’m not well-versed sufficient within the legislation to have a powerful opinion on this, however you don’t have to be well-versed within the legislation to learn the arguments of Tesla and Elon’s attorneys, who clearly state that Elon’s self-driving claims are simply company puffing.

It’s humorous that Elon is celebrating this victory. He’s principally saying, ” Hey, look, I gained this courtroom case as a result of the decide agrees that cheap buyers wouldnt imagine what I say.”