Advertisement
Australia markets closed
  • ALL ORDS

    8,153.70
    +80.10 (+0.99%)
     
  • ASX 200

    7,896.90
    +77.30 (+0.99%)
     
  • AUD/USD

    0.6520
    -0.0016 (-0.24%)
     
  • OIL

    82.36
    +1.01 (+1.24%)
     
  • GOLD

    2,229.60
    +16.90 (+0.76%)
     
  • Bitcoin AUD

    109,287.93
    +1,931.72 (+1.80%)
     
  • CMC Crypto 200

    885.54
    0.00 (0.00%)
     
  • AUD/EUR

    0.6033
    +0.0002 (+0.04%)
     
  • AUD/NZD

    1.0898
    +0.0018 (+0.16%)
     
  • NZX 50

    12,105.29
    +94.63 (+0.79%)
     
  • NASDAQ

    18,280.57
    -0.27 (-0.00%)
     
  • FTSE

    7,960.79
    +28.81 (+0.36%)
     
  • Dow Jones

    39,736.99
    -23.09 (-0.06%)
     
  • DAX

    18,489.40
    +12.31 (+0.07%)
     
  • Hang Seng

    16,541.42
    +148.58 (+0.91%)
     
  • NIKKEI 225

    40,168.07
    -594.66 (-1.46%)
     
Engadget has been testing and reviewing consumer tech since 2004. Our stories may include affiliate links; if you buy something through a link, we may earn a commission. Read more about how we evaluate products.

The SEC wrote Tesla in 2019 and 2020 about Elon Musk's tweets

That's about as far as the reaction went.

ODD ANDERSEN via Getty Images

In 2018 the government sued Tesla CEO Elon Musk over his tweets about taking the company private after the tweets sent Tesla's stock price down. A settlement in 2019 established rules requiring pre-approval from Tesla lawyers for tweets about certain topics, but as Musk told 60 Minutes, "Well, I guess we might make some mistakes. Who knows?."

If you ask the SEC, two specific tweets were "mistakes," as the Wall Street Journal reports that the agency wrote to Tesla about both incidents, saying that they hadn't been pre-approved per the agreement.

One, about Tesla's stock price being "too high" initiated a lawsuit by a shareholder, and the company described it as falling outside the agreed topics because it's Musk's "personal opinion." While the SEC is apparently "very concerned by Tesla’s repeated determinations that there have been no policy violations because of purported carve-outs," at least so far, it hasn't taken additional action against the company or its CEO.