In this episode, we unpack the stunning $243 million jury verdict against Tesla tied to a 2019 fatal crash in Key Largo. The case took a dramatic turn when a hacker—known online as @greentheonly—recovered key crash data inside a Miami Starbucks that Tesla claimed it couldn't find for years. That file became the centerpiece of a courtroom battle over Autopilot’s role in the death of Naibel Benavides Leon and the catastrophic injuries suffered by Dillon Angulo.

We explore how Tesla’s own systems automatically uploaded and then unlinked the data after the crash, and why the company said it didn’t intentionally suppress the evidence. You’ll hear how internal testimony revealed that someone at Tesla may have deleted the file from its servers and how a persistent legal team and one technical expert uncovered it anyway.

This episode also looks at the broader legal and financial fallout: pending lawsuits, investor backlash, and new questions about Tesla’s approach to data transparency and Autopilot safety. Plus, we break down what the annotated crash video revealed about the vehicle’s final moments—and why this case could shift how future Autopilot lawsuits are fought in court.

Topics Covered:

• The 2019 crash and its aftermath

• Tesla’s handling of Autopilot crash data

• The hacker’s role in recovering the missing file

• Legal strategy and courtroom evidence

• Jury verdict and damages

• Federal investigations into Autopilot

• Investor lawsuits tied to Tesla’s autonomy claims

• The road ahead for Tesla’s legal challenges

SpaceX Starship flight 10 Update

Elon Musk Speech At SpaceX Starship Launch #10

Schatz Warns That Codifying DOGE Cuts Will Boomerang Once Democrats Retake Power

Elon Musk just dropped one of the boldest moves in AI this year. His company xAI has fully open-sourced Grok 2.5, a massive language model that rivals GPT-4 in benchmarks. Unlike OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google, which keep their most advanced systems locked away, Musk released Grok under the Apache 2.0 license. That means anyone can download it, tweak it, and even use it for commercial projects with no strings attached.

In this episode, we break down what Grok 2.5 actually is, from its 314 billion parameter mixture-of-experts design to the smaller 25 billion parameter version for lighter deployments. We look at why Musk made this move now, how it ties into his ongoing feud with OpenAI, and what it means for developers who want strong models without corporate restrictions.

We’ll also unpack the strategic side: how open-sourcing Grok 2.5 helps xAI compete without Amazon- or Microsoft-level funding, how it leverages the X platform to grow faster, and why Musk thinks openness beats secrecy when it comes to AI. Whether you’re building apps, following AI politics, or just curious how Musk plans to fight Big Tech with code, this episode gives you the full story.

Elon Musk's xAI is working on a secretive project called MacroHard, designed to recreate Microsoft's core software products using AI alone. The internal effort uses Grok and other xAI models to simulate tools like Excel, Word, Windows, and GitHub, without relying on human-written code or Microsoft’s APIs. This article breaks down Musk’s strategy, how AI agents are being trained to function as full-stack developers, and why this could challenge Microsoft's dominance in enterprise software.

A federal lawsuit against Elon Musk’s X Corp has ended with a settlement that requires the company to pay $500 million in severance to thousands of former Twitter employees. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, accused X of violating federal labor laws by refusing to provide severance pay after Musk’s acquisition of Twitter in October 2022. The company, now known simply as “X,” terminated over half of its workforce in the weeks after Musk completed his $44 billion purchase.

How did a deal that was supposed to redefine social media turn into a legal battle over unpaid severance? The question surfaces from the scale and speed of Twitter’s layoffs and the way those exits were handled. When Musk took control of Twitter, he slashed roughly 6,000 jobs across the company. Many of those employees said they were promised specific severance packages under the previous ownership. The lawsuit, led by former Twitter employee Courtney McMillian, alleged that Musk and his team chose to ignore those agreements and instead offered significantly reduced exit terms.

A SpaceX Super Heavy rocket will launch a Starship prototype on its tenth test flight, designated IFT-10 (Integrated Flight Test). Starship will perform a payload deployment test with 8 Starlink v3 simulators and a relight of a single Raptor engine while in space. Super Heavy will perform a water landing in the Gulf of Mexico. The booster/ship combination is designated as B15/S37, both of the Block 2 variant.

Two separate federal court rulings have struck legal and financial blows against Elon Musk and his business interests, raising questions about whether the world’s richest man is losing leverage in the court system he’s long relied on to defend his corporate strategies.

On Monday, a judge in Delaware formally invalidated Musk’s $56 billion Tesla compensation package, denying the company’s request to move its incorporation to Texas. That same day, a federal judge in California ruled against Musk’s attempt to dismiss a lawsuit accusing him of illegally firing employees at SpaceX who had circulated an internal letter criticizing his behavior.

The Delaware decision directly affects the most valuable CEO pay package ever created. Judge Kathaleen McCormick denied Tesla's motion to transfer its incorporation from Delaware to Texas, which the company had hoped would retroactively affirm shareholder approval of Musk’s compensation. She ruled that the original shareholder vote on Musk's 2018 pay package had not been fully informed due to undisclosed conflicts of interest among Tesla’s board members.

Tesla attempted to shift its corporate charter after McCormick voided the pay package in January, stating that Musk had undue influence over the supposedly independent directors who approved it. Monday’s ruling now cements her earlier opinion, keeping Tesla under Delaware jurisdiction and invalidating the proposed Texas move.

Tesla claimed that 77% of shareholders voted in favor of reincorporation to Texas. McCormick concluded that such votes did not repair the flawed process used to approve Musk’s compensation. She emphasized that the Texas vote did not constitute a ratification of the original pay package because shareholders still lacked full information at the time.

In California, Judge Maggie B. Corley rejected Musk’s request to throw out a wrongful termination lawsuit filed by eight former SpaceX employees. These workers claim they were fired after distributing a letter calling Musk’s online behavior damaging to the company’s culture. Musk’s lawyers argued that the letter itself disrupted SpaceX’s mission and violated internal policies.

Corley dismissed those arguments. She stated that the terminated employees had exercised protected rights under the National Labor Relations Act. She ruled that Musk’s defense failed to show that the firings were lawful or that the internal letter disrupted business operations to a degree that would justify dismissal.

The California ruling moves the case toward trial. It also affirms the position of the National Labor Relations Board, which has supported the fired workers’ claims since 2022. If SpaceX loses at trial, the company could face orders to reinstate the employees or pay damages.

The dual rulings came just hours apart. Neither involved criminal charges, but both potentially carry long-term consequences. Musk could lose tens of billions in stock options if the Tesla compensation package remains void. He also risks reputational harm and further scrutiny into labor practices at his companies.

The Delaware ruling may increase shareholder pressure on Tesla’s board to renegotiate Musk’s compensation. Several investors have raised concerns about the pay package's scale and the influence Musk holds over board members. The board has not signaled plans for a revised compensation deal.

The California decision draws attention to Musk’s management style and public conduct, which critics say can alienate workers and investors. The internal letter cited examples of Musk's tweets and online behavior as distractions that conflicted with SpaceX's workplace values.

Musk’s legal team has not yet announced plans to appeal either ruling. Tesla has not released a statement following the Delaware court’s decision, and SpaceX has declined to comment on the wrongful termination case.

Musk’s Lawsuit Against Media Matters Nears Dismissal in Texas