Policy

tesla-again-threatens-to-sue-cybertruck-buyers-who-try-to-resell-the-cars

Tesla again threatens to sue Cybertruck buyers who try to resell the cars

Cars, Policy, Tesla Cybertruck / /

Do not sell happy fun truck —

Clause deleted from public version of terms is in the contract sent to buyers.

–

Tesla's boxy cybertruck displayed outdoors in New York.

Enlarge / Tesla Cybertruck displayed at Lincoln Center in New York.

Getty Images | Roman Tiraspolsky

Tesla has revived a contract clause that says the electric carmaker could sue Cybertruck buyers for $50,000 or more if they resell during their first year of ownership.

As we reported a month ago, the Cybertruck-only clause was added to the public version of Tesla’s Motor Vehicle Order Agreement Terms & Conditions and then deleted after the lawsuit threat attracted some attention. But now, people who ordered the limited launch edition “Foundation Series” Cybertruck say the order agreement they received from Tesla has the clause added back in.

The clause says Cybertruck buyers must offer the car back to Tesla at a reduced price before any attempt to resell the vehicle within one year of delivery. If Tesla declines to buy the Cybertruck back, the owner could resell it only if Tesla provides “written consent.”

“You agree that in the event you breach this provision, or Tesla has reasonable belief that you are about to breach this provision, Tesla may seek injunctive relief to prevent the transfer of title of the Vehicle or demand liquidated damages from you in the amount of $50,000 or the value received as consideration for the sale or transfer, whichever is greater. Tesla may also refuse to sell you any future vehicles,” the clause said.

Ars was contacted by one Cybertruck buyer who provided us with a copy of the order agreement he received after submitting a $122,135 order. The agreement received by this buyer contains the resale-lawsuit clause that was deleted last month from the public version of the order agreement. The public version has a rule against quick resales but not a specific lawsuit threat.

The buyer told us that he paid a $250 order fee on Friday and previously paid a $100 reservation fee. According to the order agreement, Tesla doesn’t have to refund those types of fees if a buyer cancels a purchase after submitting a completed order.

Invitations to order sent Friday

The clause’s reappearance was also confirmed Friday in a post on a Cybertruck buyers forum. People who made early Cybertruck reservations received their invitations to order the limited-availability Foundation Series edition on Friday.

As an Electrek article notes, it’s unclear whether the clause applies only to the Foundation Series version of the Cybertruck. “It might just be for the Foundation series, or might be for all Cybertrucks for a while—until it is available in more than ‘limited quantity,'” the article said.

The public version of Tesla’s Cybertruck pre-order agreement has an anti-resale clause that says the company “may unilaterally cancel any order that we believe has been made with a view toward resale of the Vehicle or that has otherwise been made in bad faith.” That version doesn’t include the lawsuit threat that was sent to buyers.

One person who posted in the Cybertruck forum was unhappy that they only received the version of the order agreement with the lawsuit warning after paying a $250 order fee. The buyer who provided us with a copy of his order agreement called it “ridiculous” that the clause “is not in bold print on the order page.”

The $120,000 Foundation Series is reportedly limited to 1,000 cars. Tesla’s website says the Cybertruck versions costing $68,890 and $96,390 will be available in 2024, and a $49,890 version will be available in 2025.

Tesla again threatens to sue Cybertruck buyers who try to resell the cars Read More »

opec-members-keep-climate-accords-from-acknowledging-reality

OPEC members keep climate accords from acknowledging reality

carbon emissions, climate change, COP28, fossil fuels, paris agreement, Policy, Science, UN / /

Avoiding the truth —

COP28 agreement draft no longer includes calls to phase out fossil fuels.

–

Image of a person standing in front of a doorway with

Enlarge / Saudi Arabia’s presence at COP28 has reportedly been used to limit progress on fossil fuel cutbacks.

Oil-producing countries are apparently succeeding in their attempts to eliminate language from an international climate agreement that calls for countries to phase out the use of fossil fuels. Draft forms of the agreement had included text that called upon the countries that are part of the Paris Agreement to work toward “an orderly and just phase out of fossil fuels.” Reports now indicate that this text has gone missing from the latest versions of the draft.

The agreement is being negotiated at the United Nations’ COP28 climate change conference, taking place in the United Arab Emirates. The COP, or Conference of the Parties, meetings are annual events that attempt to bring together UN members to discuss ways to deal with climate change. They were central to the negotiations that brought about the Paris Agreement, which calls for participants to develop plans that should bring the world to net-zero emissions by the middle of the century.

Initial plans submitted by countries would lower the world’s greenhouse gas emissions, but not by nearly enough to reach net zero. However, the agreement included mechanisms by which countries would continue to evaluate their progress and submit more stringent goals. So, additional COP meetings have included what’s termed a “stocktake” to evaluate where countries stand, and statements are issued to encourage and direct future actions.

The language of that statement needs to be agreed upon by every party and is invariably contentious. This year’s statement has been especially difficult, as early drafts (such as this one) included the potential to call for parties to stop using fossil fuels, along with a separate, vague alternative:

Option 1: An orderly and just phase out of fossil fuels;

Option 2: Accelerating efforts toward phasing out unabated fossil fuels and to rapidly reducing their use so as to achieve net zero CO2 in energy systems by or around mid-century;

Option 3: No text.

The “unabated” language in the alternative is widely interpreted as referring to abatement via the use of large-scale carbon capture to offset the emissions from continued fossil fuel use.

While we know that carbon capture can work, it has not been tried at large scales, much less on anything close to the scales needed to offset continued fossil fuel use. Critical details like the capacity and stability of different storage options haven’t been worked out, nor has the very tricky question of who will be paying to operate all the infrastructure that would be required for it to work.

As a result, carbon capture is not generally considered a viable option for offsetting anything more than a few difficult-to-decarbonize use cases, such as international shipping. Which why most countries and NGOs are supporting the UN’s secretary-general, who promoted the alternate language calling for a phase-out of fossil fuels.

Most, but not all. One notable NGO, OPEC, directly called on its members to reject any language that targeted fossil fuels. And a prominent OPEC member, Saudia Arabia, appears to have been trying to block any deals that would include that language, in part by bogging down all negotiations at COP28. Matters weren’t helped when a video surfaced that showed the conference’s host, Sultan Al Jaber, saying that there was “no science” behind calls to phase out fossil fuels, although he quickly disavowed that position.

The loss of Option 1 from the latest drafts is a sign that oil-producing nations have succeeded. Which in turn indicates that they have no intention of slowing production even as indications of continued warming and its consequences have grown ever more dramatic. It will also provide cover for many other countries that may be looking for excuses to act.

That said, the same draft includes several actions that do not have any alternative language and call for countries to take significant actions:

  • Triple renewable energy capacity by 2030.
  • Double the annual rate of energy efficiency improvements.
  • Immediately stop issuing permits for coal plants that do not include carbon capture and rapidly phase out any existing plants of this sort.
  • Rapidly phase in zero-emissions vehicles.
  • Eliminate fossil fuel subsidies.

Negotiations are ongoing, and that draft is nearly a week old, but it may indicate that some positive things could be accomplished while everyone is distracted by arguments over the phase-out of fossil fuels.

OPEC members keep climate accords from acknowledging reality Read More »

after-losing-everywhere-else,-elon-musk-asks-scotus-to-get-sec-off-his-back

After losing everywhere else, Elon Musk asks SCOTUS to get SEC off his back

elon musk, elon musk sec, Policy, Supreme Court / /

Musk v. SEC —

Musk’s last-ditch effort to terminate settlement over “funding secured” tweets.

–

Elon Musk on stage at an event, resting his chin on his hand

Enlarge / Elon Musk at an AI event with Britain Prime Minister Rishi Sunak in London on Thursday, Nov. 2, 2023.

Getty Images | WPA Pool

Elon Musk yesterday appealed to the Supreme Court in a last-ditch effort to terminate his settlement with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Musk has claimed he was coerced into the deal with the SEC and that it violates his free speech rights, but the settlement has been upheld by every court that’s reviewed it so far.

In his petition asking the Supreme Court to hear the case, Musk said the SEC settlement forced him to “waive his First Amendment rights to speak on matters ranging far beyond the charged violations.”

The SEC case began after Musk’s August 2018 tweets stating, “Am considering taking Tesla private at $420. Funding secured” and “Investor support is confirmed. Only reason why this is not certain is that it’s contingent on a shareholder vote.” The SEC sued Musk and Tesla, saying the tweets were false and “led to significant market disruption.”

The settlement required Musk and Tesla to each pay $20 million in penalties, forced Musk to step down from his board chairman post, and required Musk to get Tesla’s pre-approval for tweets or other social media posts that may contain information material to the company or its shareholders.

Musk told the Supreme Court that the need to get pre-approval for tweets “is a quintessential prior restraint that the law forbids.”

In the settlement, “the SEC demanded that Mr. Musk refrain indefinitely from making any public statements on a wide range of topics unless he first received approval from a securities lawyer,” Musk’s petition said. “Only months later, the SEC sought to hold Mr. Musk in contempt of court on the basis that Mr. Musk allegedly had not obtained such approval for a post on Twitter (now X). In effect, the SEC sought contempt sanctions—up to and including imprisonment—for Mr. Musk’s exercise of his First Amendment rights.”

Musk’s court losses

In April 2022, Musk’s attempt to get out of the settlement was rejected by a US District Court judge. Musk appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, but a three-judge panel unanimously ruled against him in May 2023. Musk asked the appeals court for an en banc rehearing in front of all the court’s judges, but that request was denied in July, leaving the Supreme Court as his only remaining option.

The 2nd Circuit panel ruling dismissed Musk’s argument that the settlement is a “prior restraint” on his speech, writing that “Parties entering into consent decrees may voluntarily waive their First Amendment and other rights.” The judges also saw “no evidence to support Musk’s contention that the SEC has used the consent decree to conduct bad-faith, harassing investigations of his protected speech.”

There is no guarantee that the Supreme Court will take up Musk’s case. Musk’s petition says the case presents the constitutional question of whether “a party’s acceptance of a benefit prevents that party from contending that the government violated the unconstitutional conditions doctrine in requiring a waiver of constitutional rights in exchange for that benefit.”

Musk argues that his settlement violates the unconstitutional conditions doctrine, which “limits the government’s ability to condition benefits on the relinquishment of constitutional rights.” He says his case also presents the question of “whether the government can insulate its demands that settling defendants waive constitutional rights from judicial scrutiny.”

“This petition presents an apt opportunity for the Court to clarify that government settlements are not immune from constitutional scrutiny, to the immediate benefit of the hundreds of defendants who settle cases with the SEC each year,” Musk’s petition said.

Musk complains about SEC investigations

Musk claims he is burdened with an “ever-present chilling effect that results from the pre-approval provision” and complained that the SEC has continued to investigate him. “In the past three years, the SEC has at all times kept at least one investigation open regarding Mr. Musk or Tesla. The SEC’s actions—in seeking contempt and then maintaining a steady stream of investigations—chills Mr. Musk’s speech,” the petition said.

As previously noted, the 2nd Circuit appeals court judges did not think the SEC investigations of Musk had gone too far. “To the contrary, the record indicates that the SEC has opened just three inquiries into Musk’s tweets since 2018,” the May 2023 appeals court decision said. The first of those three investigations led to the settlement that Musk is trying to get out of. The second and third investigations sought information about tweets in 2019 and 2021.

Although Musk has repeatedly lost his attempts to undo the SEC settlement, he prevailed against a class-action lawsuit that sought financial damages for Tesla shareholders. The judge in that case ruled that Musk’s tweets about having secured funding to take Tesla private were false and reckless, but a jury sided with Musk on the questions of whether he knew the tweets were false and whether they caused Tesla investors to lose money.

Despite the class-action suit’s failure, Tesla investors are getting some money. The $40 million in fines paid to the SEC by Musk and Tesla, plus interest, is in the process of being distributed to investors.

After losing everywhere else, Elon Musk asks SCOTUS to get SEC off his back Read More »

verizon-fell-for-fake-“search-warrant,”-gave-victim’s-phone-data-to-stalker

Verizon fell for fake “search warrant,” gave victim’s phone data to stalker

Policy, stalking, verizon, verizon wireless / /
A Verizon logo on top of a black background.

Enlarge / A Verizon logo at GSMA Mobile World Congress 2019 on February 26, 2019 in Barcelona, Spain.

Verizon Wireless gave a female victim’s address and phone logs to an alleged stalker who pretended to be a police officer, according to an affidavit filed by an FBI special agent. The man, Robert Michael Glauner, was later arrested near the victim’s home and found to be carrying a knife at the time, according to the affidavit submitted in court yesterday.

Glauner allegedly traveled from New Mexico to Raleigh, North Carolina, after finding out where she lived and, before arriving, sent a threatening message that said, “if I can’t have you no one can.” He also allegedly threatened to send nude photos of the victim to her family members.

Glauner was charged yesterday with stalking and fraud “in connection with obtaining confidential phone records” in US District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. We aren’t posting or linking directly to the court record because it seems to contain the victim’s home address. The incident was previously reported by 404 Media.

Glauner and the victim met in August or September 2023 on xhamster.com, a porn website with dating features, and “had an online romantic relationship,” the affidavit said. The victim ended the relationship, but Glauner “continued to contact or try to contact” her, the document said.

Glauner tricked Verizon into providing sensitive information by sending an email and fake search warrant to [email protected], the email address for the Verizon Security Assistance Team (VSAT), which handles legal requests. Verizon didn’t realize the request was fraudulent even though it came from a Proton Mail address rather than from a police department or other governmental agency, according to the affidavit filed yesterday by FBI Special Agent Michael Neylon.

Fake cop, forged judge’s signature

An email to Verizon from “[email protected]” on September 26, 2023, said, “Here is the pdf file for search warrant. We are in need if the [sic] this cell phone data as soon as possible to locate and apprehend this suspect. We also need the full name of this Verizon subscriber and the new phone number that has been assigned to her. Thank you.”

The email’s attached document contained a fake affidavit written by “Detective Steven Cooper” of the Cary, North Carolina Police Department. The Cary Police Department confirmed that no officer named Steven Cooper is employed by their agency, Neylon wrote.

VSAT received a phone call the same day from a man identifying himself as Cooper, who stated that he needed information on a suspect in a homicide case. “The caller stated that the person involved changed her phone number,” Neylon wrote.

The fake affidavit asked for the new phone number as well as “call records both outgoing and incoming” and “locations and text messages incoming and outgoing.” The affidavit for a search warrant was supposedly approved by Superior Court Judge Gale Adams.

Adams is a real judge and she later confirmed to authorities “that the signature displayed on the document was not hers,” Neylon wrote. Neylon’s affidavit also said the “search warrant” was “not in the proper format and does not have form AOC-CR-119, as required for State of North Carolina search warrants.”

Verizon provides address and phone logs

But after reviewing the email and document sent by “Cooper,” Verizon provided an address and phone logs. “On October 5, 2023, Verizon Wireless provided Victim 1’s phone records, including address and phone logs, to Glauner,” according to Neylon’s affidavit.

Verizon’s website says that the Verizon Security Assistance Team ensures that “court orders, search warrants, subpoenas and other legal demands served upon Verizon are processed confidentially and in compliance with all applicable law.”

“Verizon Security Assistance Team will only accept valid legal demands (subpoena, court order or search warrant) for records,” the VSAT webpage says.

We contacted Verizon about the incident today and will update this article if we get a response. A Verizon spokesperson told 404 Media that the company is cooperating with law enforcement on this matter.

Verizon fell for fake “search warrant,” gave victim’s phone data to stalker Read More »