What Tesla is contending is deeply troubling to the Court. Their position is that because Mr. Musk is famous and might be more of a target for deep fakes, his public statements are immune. In other words, Mr. Musk, and others in his position, can simply say whatever they like in the public domain, then hide behind the potential for their recorded statements being a deep fake to avoid taking ownership of what they did actually say and do. The Court is unwilling to set such a precedent by condoning Tesla's approach here.
Recent articles
- Fly's new Sprites.dev addresses both developer sandboxes and API sandboxes at the same time - 9th January 2026
- LLM predictions for 2026, shared with Oxide and Friends - 8th January 2026
- Introducing gisthost.github.io - 1st January 2026