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.