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
- Distributing Go binaries like sqlite-scanner through PyPI using go-to-wheel - 4th February 2026
- Moltbook is the most interesting place on the internet right now - 30th January 2026
- Adding dynamic features to an aggressively cached website - 28th January 2026