This podcast is brought to you by CURRENT Redefine your Banking
with Current The Future of personal Finance.
Manage your money smarter, faster, and on the go.
No hidden fees, instant transaction alerts, and savings
goals you can actually achieve. I've been using Current for
years and they're a great institution.
If you'd like to get $50 by signing up to Current, please
follow the link in the show notes Join Current Today and
Experience Banking that Keeps up with you.
Welcome back to the Elon Musk Podcast.
This is a show where we discuss the critical crossroads that
shape SpaceX, Tesla X, The Boring Company, and Neuralink.
And I'm your host Will Walden. The US Supreme Court recently
decided not to consider a challenge from Elon Musk against
an agreement he made with the Securities and Exchange
Commission, the SEC, which mandates that his social media
posts be pre approved by a legal expert if they pertain to his
company, Tesla. This decision effectively
upholds earlier rulings from lower courts and sustains the
stipulations of the 2018 settlement that followed Musk
controversial tweets about potentially taking Tesla
private. Musk had appealed to the Supreme
Court following a decision by the 2nd US Circuit Court of
Appeals in New York, which sided with the SEC, and his contention
centered on what he refers to as the Twitter sitter provision,
arguing that it unjustly limits his freedom of expression
online, specifically regarding matters related to Tesla.
The provisions that Musk disputed were put in place after
his tweet in August of 2018, where he claimed to have secured
the funding needed to take Tesla private at $420.00 per share.
Now these tweets significantly impacted Tesla stock price and
LED to temporary trading halts prompting an SEC investigation
into their accuracy and compliance with security laws.
Now the SEC alleged that Musk statements were materially false
and misleading, thus violating security laws designed to
prevent fraud and protect investors.
As a result, Musk and Tesla faced civil securities actions
culminating any settlement that included civil fines and the
contested pre approval requirement for Musk's relevant
tweets. The settlement terms required
that any public communications by Musk that could affect Tesla
stock must first be reviewed and approved by a qualified attorney
from Tesla. This was intended to prevent any
dissemination of potentially misleading information that
could affect the market and Tesla shareholders.
Now, despite agreeing to the terms of the settlement in 2018,
Musk later pushed back against them, arguing that they imposed
an unconstitutional restriction of his speech.
His lawyers maintained that the SEC had exceeded its authority
by opposing conditions that were not only restrictive, but also
unrelated to the original misconduct.
Lower courts had consistently dismissed Musk's arguments,
ruling that he had voluntarily agreed to the terms of the
settlement. The courts highlighted that by
signing the agreement, Musk had waived any rights to challenge
the pre approval provisions on the basis of free speech.
Now, the Supreme Court's refusal to hear Musk's appeal leaves the
lower court's decision intact, confirming that the provisions
of the 2018 settlement will remain unforciable.
This decision shows that the court stance on the
enforceability of settlement agreements, particularly those
involving regulatory oversight and public interest.
Legal experts suggest the outcome of this case reflects
the judiciary's deference to settlement agreements that are
entered into voluntarily, especially those that involve
regulatory agencies like the SEC, which are tasked with
maintaining market integrity and investor confidence.
Additionally, the case has broader implications for
corporate executives and their use of social media, showing
that the legal responsibilities that come with disseminating
information that has the potential to impact markets and
also investor decisions now. Musk's acquisition of Twitter,
now renamed X, in 2022, further complicates his personal
entanglement with issues of corporate governance and
communication, given his active presence and substantial
following on the platform. And the outgoing scrutiny of
Musk's tweets by the SEC, including a 2011 inquiry into
whether he violated the settlement by failing to obtain
pre approval for a tweet about selling Tesla stock, illustrates
the continuous regulatory oversight he's under as a result
of his online activities. And supporters of Musk argue
that the SE CS actions reflect an overly aggressive regulatory
approach that stifles innovation in free speech.
In the corporate realm. They claim that such stringent
controls on communications are detrimental to the dynamic
environment needed for technological and corporate
advancement. Critics, however, applaud the SE
CS firm stance as necessary to ensure transparency and honesty
in corporate communications. Particularly in an era where
social media can instantly alter market landscapes and influence
investor behavior. The finality of the Supreme
Court's decision not to intervene may serve as a
cautionary tale for other executives about the legal and
the financial responsibilities and repercussions of their
statements on social media, especially those capable of
influencing company value and investor actions.
It also signals a reinforcement of the boundaries of corporate
communication, especially for figures like Elon Musk, whose
statements have the power to cause significant market
movements and attract intense public and regulatory scrutiny.
While Musk has not publicly commented on the Supreme Court's
decision, the resolution of this battle makes an important
chapter in the ongoing debate over the intersection of free
speech rights and regulatory obligations in the digital age.
Hey, thank you so much for listening today.
I really do appreciate your support.
If you could take a second and hit the subscribe or the follow
button on whatever podcast platform that you're listening
on right now, I greatly appreciate it.
It helps out the show tremendously and you'll never
miss an episode and each episode is about 10 minutes or less to
get you caught up quickly. And please, if you want to
support the show even more, go to patreon.com stage zero, and
please take care of yourselves and each other and I'll see you
tomorrow.