Honestly surprised any of this made it past the legal department at Tesla. Any company I've worked at has always been super careful and conservative with the language you use to describe anything.
"managed to randomly announce" is a very odd way of saying "the CEO committed securities fraud because bankruptcy was imminent and his entire net worth was sunk into the company".
Tesla did nothing of the sort. Elon got into trouble for influencing the Tesla share price. Which is almost comical to think about due to how common it is to do exactly that.
Elon made a mistake of giving a specific number. If he just made any run of the mill bullshit grandiose claims it would have been fine. I really have no idea why people are so caught up on this. There is massive securities fraud actually happening every day, and people are hung up on some Twitter banter from half a decade ago.
FWIW, I have no idea, I just know that Tesla's inability to keep a legally-sound lid on Elon Musk has been a recurring topic for Matt Levine for years. He got in trouble with the SEC for the take-private stuff.
Their legal team has reportedly had some issues of late: “At least a dozen company lawyers have left their posts this year, according to three people familiar with Tesla’s operations. They include some attorneys who worked in business units outside of legal, including human resources and tax, the people said. The company has no lawyer or legal chief listed among its three top executives and has been without a permanent general counsel since December 2019.”
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/business-and-practice/tesla-la...
Because the legal departments don't have veto power on anything. In-house counsel is just that - counsel, but in-house instead of some outside firm. Managers are free to ignore anything their lawyers say, just as you can ignore anything your lawyers say.
The lawyers will cover themselves by writing memos about how they "informed the client to not do thing X, but they indicated that they don't care," but because those are work product, they're confidential. They're only for future malpractice suits, should they come.
I'd phrase that as legal departments don't have veto power on anything unless management gives it to them.
If I -- Minion #64752 in BigCorp -- run my ad copy by legal and they strike it all as a legal hazard, but I run the ad anyway, my boss -- Low-Level Manager #11235 -- is going to fire me the next day, and hope that keeps his boss -- Mid-Level Manager #3142 -- from doing the same to him.
If legal doesn't have veto power on ad copy, it's because the management hasn't given it to them, or because management is making the decision to disregard legal's advice.
That’s not how “legal departments” work. You don’t have to “run it by legal” to get approval. You do that to understand potential legal risks and then you make a business decision. Legal doesn’t run the business unless you’ve explicitly set up the business that way.
Tesla likely has a complete understanding of all the possible legal outcomes. At present Tesla isn’t actually facing ANY criminal charges. They are being investigated, but that investigation has been ongoing for more than a year. This very article cites Tesla marketing and usage language which complicates any potential DOJ case.
Or actuall Tesla has a great legal department. I am definitely not happy how they pitch Autopilot/FSD, but if you check all the wording, the small print, carefully, there are no fraudulent claims.
