_{BROUGHT TO YOU BY}

Welcome to The Fineprint, where we turn the cryptic into the clear and the mundane into the memorable—because who said legal talk had to be boring?

True or false… In California, it is illegal to wear cowboy boots unless you own at least two cows.
_{You can find the answer at the end!}

Now let’s take a look at the most interesting legal developments since we last saw you.

But first…

How do 500,000+ working professionals (like yourself) stay up to date with all of the latest AI tools and updates?

They read AI Tool Report’s free daily newsletter!

Use the link below to subscribe with a single click and learn how to save time and earn more with AI in under 5 minutes a day.

DISCLOSURE

Tesla Verdict Reveals Thin Line Between Optimism And Fraud

Why we’re paying attention… Tesla's new legal verdict is an excellent case study on the fine line companies walk when making bold statements about their products and future prospects. On one side of the line, companies make bold claims and express optimism about their future. On the other side, they risk misleading investors by promising more than they can deliver or hiding significant risks. This case helps clarify where that boundary lies.

Elon Musk scored a legal win on Monday after a federal judge in San Francisco dismissed a lawsuit against Tesla.

The case accused both Musk and his company of making misleading statements about the company’s self-driving technologies.

While the plaintiffs argued that these statements amounted to fraud, the judge struck down their claims on multiple grounds.

We all know that corporate leaders make bold claims about the companies they represent.

But when do these bold claims drift into illegal territory?

A closer look at the arguments from yesterday’s ruling offers some precious insight…

1. Ain’t no harm in hoping

One major claim put forward by the claimants was that Musk and Tesla made misleading statements about the company’s full self-driving technology.

Musk, for instance, said “I think we will be feature complete, full self-driving, this year,” in 2020, and promised that self-driving robotaxis were around the corner.

Previously Musk claimed that customers would be able to “go to sleep” in their cars by 2020.

These promises, among others, never materialized.

But the judge anchored this part of the case in the ‘PSLRA’ safe harbor.

The PSLRA (Private Securities Litigation Reform Act) protects “forward looking statements” and optimistic predictions from liability.

It means companies can say things like “we’re expecting profits to skyrocket after we enter the pet meditation market” and not get sued out of existence if it doesn’t come true.

2. Puffed up claims

Claimants weren’t just unhappy about Tesla’s claims of future greatness—they lodged complaints about Tesla’s claims of present capabilities.

For example, Musk and Tesla made several statements about the safety of their vehicles.

Specifically, that “Tesla cars are ‘absurdly safe,’” autopilot is “superhuman,” and that “we want to get to as close to perfection as possible.”

Investors say these claims were misleading and that they lost money as a result of their impact on Tesla’s stock price.

The judge, however, ruled that most of these statements were “non-actionable statements of corporate puffery.”

Puffery is when a company makes a vague statement of positivity that investors should not reasonably base their decisions on.

Examples of corporate puffery include:

• We sell the tastiest burger in the midwest

• This skincare cream will change your life

• Our chocolate is so rich, it has its own offshore bank account.

Puffed up claims are not meant to be taken literally and cannot be proven or disproven.

An example of a claim that would be not exempted by puffery would be telling customers that your pumpkin spice kombucha won a taste test competition, when it actually did not.

3. The road to self-driving is paved with unprovable intentions

“Scienter” is a legal term that refers to the intent or knowledge of wrongdoing.

The plaintiffs also claimed that statements made by Tesla and Musk were made with the intention of deceive—or, at the very least, were recklessly indifferent to the truth of their statements.

Confidential witnesses asserted that it was “absolutely known” within Tesla that Musk's statements were exaggerations.

But evidence of intent has a high bar.

Ultimately the judge found that the witness statements lacked specificity regarding the knowledge of Tesla’s leadership.

Similarly, the evidence presented did not convincingly show that Musk knew his statements were false or that he was consciously ignoring the truth.

Finally...

4. One swallow does not make a summer

Public companies have a responsibility to offer investors accurate, complete, and truthful information.

In the United States, this is enshrined in law by Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933.

More specifically, Section 11 requires companies to disclose any significant trend they’re aware of that could impact their business.

The plaintiffs contended that Tesla violated Section 11 by failing to adequately disclose known trends and risks related to the safety of its self-driving technology.

How so?

Because there were reports of Tesla’s autopilot being involved in a high number of crashes.

Therefore, they argued that this information reflected a broad pattern of safety issues that Tesla did not disclose.

But the judge ruled that:

1. A few isolated incidents does not constitute a significant market trend

2. Tesla has publicly acknowledged the crashes and so this wouldn’t count as a failure to disclose anyway

Speed Bumps Ahead

This ruling is a resounding win for Tesla and Elon Musk.

But the road ahead has plenty of potential potholes: the judge’s dismissal was granted with leave to amend, allowing plaintiffs until October 30, 2024, to file an amended complaint.

Then there’s the fact that Musk is engaged in a litany of other lawsuits across the country.

For our purposes, this case offers some great insight into the kind of claims that businesses are allowed to make without running afoul of the law.

SNIPPETS

🦸‍♂️ Marvel and DC quietly let go of the "Super Hero" trademark. After decades of jointly guarding the term, the comic book giants have lost their exclusive rights. As we reported in our 6th edition back in May, a small company called “Super Babies” filed a complaint, arguing that "Super Hero" had become a generic phrase and no longer suitable for trademark protection. On September 30th, the U.S. Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ruled in favor of Super Babies after neither Marvel's parent company, Disney, nor DC's parent company, Warner Bros., responded to the request to invalidate the trademark. The ruling places "Super Hero" in the public domain, securing its status as a universal symbol of heroism accessible to all storytellers and without fear of any villainous trademark lawsuits. Kapow! Copyright justice prevails.

🎙️ Miley Cyrus is being sued for allegedly ripping off Bruno Mars. On September 16th, a lawsuit was filed against Cyrus, claiming that her hit single Flowers borrows heavily from Mars' “When I Was Your Man”. However, it’s not Bruno Mars himself who’s behind the legal action. Instead, Tempo Music Investments, which owns a share of Mars' song’s copyright, has filed the suit, accusing Cyrus of copying not just the overall vibe but specific melodic, harmonic, and lyrical elements. Some might say this case could hit the music industry like a wrecking ball. Most analysis think this will fail given that there is a long tradition of artists taking inspiration from other artists, but if this succeeds If Tempo Music is successful, it could open the door for copyright share owners, rather than the artists themselves, to go after musicians for profit, sidelining the original creators in crucial decisions. Any judge that rules in favour of this case could hit the whole music industry like a wrecking ball.

👾 MrBeast and Amazon sued over alleged exploitation in a $5m prize game show. On September 16th, five anonymous contestants filed a lawsuit against MrBeast's production company and Amazon, accusing them of unsafe working conditions and failure to pay wages during the filming of Beast Games. The lawsuit claims contestants endured "unsafe and unlawful employment conditions," including inadequate food, hydration, and medical treatment, with over a dozen participants hospitalized as a result. It also details allegations of physical injuries, misogyny, and sexual harassment. Beyond the personal harms inflicted, the case also accuses MrBeast and Amazon of tax fraud. Nevada granted the production $2 million in tax credits for featuring Nevada residents as contestants. However, the case alleges that the contestants were not actually from Nevada and that MrBeast and Amazon falsified their residential status to obtain the tax benefit. At this rate, it looks like more than one person could walk away with a sizable cash prize.

💰 Johnson & Johnson has filed for bankruptcy for the third time. On September 20th, a subsidiary of J&J, LTL Management, sought bankruptcy protection to address thousands of lawsuits alleging that J&J’s talc-based products, including baby powder, caused cancer. The company has proposed an $8 billion settlement despite denying any wrongdoing and maintaining that its products are scientifically safe. If the court approves the subsidiary’s bankruptcy status, all outstanding lawsuits against J&J from across the globe would be combined into the single $8bn settlement. This amounts to about 10% of J&J’s annual revenue. Approval would also block any future lawsuits related to talc complaints, allowing J&J’s main business to continue operating without liability. However, convincing the court may prove challenging, especially after the U.S. Supreme Court recently blocked Purdue Pharma’s similar attempt to use bankruptcy to escape litigation, part of a broader effort to prevent financially robust companies like J&J from exploiting bankruptcy laws for legal protection.

🃏 Cards Against Humanity sues Elon Musk for trespassing. As one Musk-related lawsuit draws to a close, another opens. The Chicago-based games company, Cards Against Humanity, bought a plot of land on the US-Mexico border in Cameron County, Texas, back in 2017. The company originally made the purchase in order to frustrate President Donald Trump’s plans to build a border wall. On September 24th, Cards Against Humanity filed a $15 million lawsuit against SpaceX, claiming that Musk’s rocket company has been damaging and trespassing on their land, effectively treating it as their own. SpaceX might be experts at defying gravity, but now their ability to defy land ownership laws will be put to the test!

🦌 Netflix failed to dismiss the defamation lawsuit over its Emmy Award-winning series, Baby Reindeer. A few months ago, Fiona Harvey, recently revealed as the real-life inspiration for the character Martha in Baby Reindeer, sued the streaming giant for allegedly spreading "brutal lies" to over 50 million viewers worldwide. The controversy stems from a key distinction: while creator Richard Gadd described the show as "based on a true story," implying some creative liberties, Netflix marketed it as "a true story," suggesting a fully accurate depiction. The court found Netflix disregarded Gadd’s reservations and demonstrated a “reckless disregard” for the truth. It turns out that dropping a single word (in this case, “based”) from your marketing can make all the difference between liability and immunity.

MEME

Was this email forwarded to you by someone spectacular? You can sign up here.

The answer to today’s “did you know” is…

True. In Blythe, California, cowboy boots are indeed a very serious matter—you can’t legally wear them unless you own at least two cows.

Remember: always read the Fineprint!