Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2022
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Note 12 – Commitments and Contingencies Operating Lease Arrangement in Buffalo, New York We have an operating lease through the Research Foundation for the State University of New York (the “SUNY Foundation”) with respect to Gigafactory New York. Under the lease and a related research and development agreement, we are continuing to further develop the facility. Under this agreement, we are obligated to, among other things, meet employment targets as well as specified minimum numbers of personnel in the State of New York and in Buffalo, New York and spend or incur $5.00 billion in combined capital, operational expenses, costs of goods sold and other costs in the State of New York during the 10-year period beginning April 30, 2018. On an annual basis during the initial lease term, as measured on each anniversary of such date, if we fail to meet these specified investment and job creation requirements, then we would be obligated to pay a $41 million “program payment” to the SUNY Foundation for each year that we fail to meet these requirements. Furthermore, if the arrangement is terminated due to a material breach by us, then additional amounts may become payable by us. As we temporarily suspended most of our manufacturing operations at Gigafactory New York pursuant to a New York State executive order issued in March 2020 as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, we were granted a deferral of our obligation to be compliant with our applicable targets through December 31, 2021 in an amendment memorialized in August 2021. The amendment also extended our overall agreement to spend or incur $5.00 billion in combined capital, operational expenses, costs of goods sold and other costs in the State of New York through December 31, 2029. On February 1, 2022, we reported to the State of New York that we had met and exceeded our annual requirements for jobs and investment in Buffalo and New York State. As of September 30, 2022, we are currently in excess of such targets relating to investments and personnel in the State of New York and Buffalo and do not currently expect any issues meeting our applicable obligations following this expected deferral or in the years beyond. However, if our expectations as to the costs and timelines of our investment and operations at Buffalo or our production ramp of the Solar Roof prove incorrect, we may incur additional expenses or be required to make substantial payments to the SUNY Foundation. Operating Lease Arrangement in Shanghai, China We have an operating lease arrangement for an initial term of 50 years with the local government of Shanghai for land use rights where we are constructing Gigafactory Shanghai. Under the terms of the arrangement, we are required to spend RMB 14.08 billion in capital expenditures by the end of 2023 and to generate RMB 2.23 billion of annual tax revenues starting at the end of 2023. If we are unwilling or unable to meet such target or obtain periodic project approvals, in accordance with the Chinese government’s standard terms for such arrangements, we would be required to revert the site to the local government and receive compensation for the remaining value of the land lease, buildings and fixtures. We expect to meet the capital expenditure and tax revenue requirements based on our current level of spend and sales. Legal Proceedings Litigation Relating to the SolarCity Acquisition Between September 1, 2016 and October 5, 2016, seven lawsuits were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery by purported stockholders of Tesla challenging our acquisition of SolarCity Corporation (“SolarCity”). Following consolidation, the lawsuit names as defendants the members of Tesla’s board of directors as then constituted and alleges, among other things, that board members breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the acquisition. The complaint asserts both derivative claims and direct claims on behalf of a purported class and seeks, among other relief, unspecified monetary damages, attorneys’ fees and costs. On January 22, 2020, all of the director defendants except Elon Musk reached a settlement to resolve the lawsuit against them for an amount to be paid entirely under the applicable insurance policy. The settlement, which does not involve an admission of any wrongdoing by any party, was approved by the Court on August 17, 2020. Tesla received payment of approximately $43 million on September 16, 2020, which has been recognized in our consolidated statements of operations as a reduction to Selling, general and administrative operating expenses for costs previously incurred related to the acquisition of SolarCity. On February 4, 2020, the Court issued a ruling that denied plaintiffs’ previously-filed motion for summary judgment and granted in part and denied in part defendants’ previously-filed motion for summary judgment. The case was set for trial in March 2020 until it was postponed by the Court due to safety precautions concerning COVID-19. The trial was held from July 12 to July 23, 2021 and on August 16, 2021. On October 22, 2021, the Court approved the parties’ joint stipulation that (a) the class is decertified and the action shall continue exclusively as a derivative action under Court of Chancery Rule 23.1 and (b) the direct claims against Elon Musk are dismissed with prejudice. Following post-trial briefing, post-trial argument was held on January 18, 2022. On April 27, 2022, the Court entered judgment in favor of Mr. Musk on all counts.  On May 26, 2022, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal. The parties have completed briefing and argument will be held before the Supreme Court of Delaware during the January 2023 session. These plaintiffs and others filed parallel actions in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware on or about April 21, 2017. They include claims for violations of the federal securities laws and breach of fiduciary duties by Tesla’s board of directors. Those actions have been consolidated and stayed pending the above-referenced Chancery Court litigation. Litigation Relating to 2018 CEO Performance Award On June 4, 2018, a purported Tesla stockholder filed a putative class and derivative action in the Delaware Court of Chancery against Elon Musk and the members of Tesla’s board of directors as then constituted, alleging corporate waste, unjust enrichment and that such board members breached their fiduciary duties by approving the stock-based compensation plan awarded to Elon Musk in 2018. The complaint seeks, among other things, monetary damages and rescission or reformation of the stock-based compensation plan. On August 31, 2018, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint; plaintiff filed its opposition brief on November 1, 2018; and defendants filed a reply brief on December 13, 2018. The hearing on the motion to dismiss was held on May 9, 2019. On September 20, 2019, the Court granted the motion to dismiss as to the corporate waste claim but denied the motion as to the breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment claims. Defendants’ answer was filed on December 3, 2019. On January 25, 2021, the Court conditionally certified certain claims and a class of Tesla stockholders as a class action. On September 30, 2021, plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a verified amended derivative complaint. On October 1, 2021, defendants Kimbal Musk and Steve Jurvetson moved for summary judgment as to the claims against them. Following the motion, plaintiff agreed to voluntarily dismiss the claims against Kimbal Musk and Steve Jurvetson. Plaintiff also moved for summary judgment on October 1, 2021. On October 27, 2021, the Court approved the parties’ joint stipulation that, among other things, (a) all claims against Kimbal Musk and Steve Jurvetson in the Complaint are dismissed with prejudice; (b) the class is decertified and the action shall continue exclusively as a derivative action under Court of Chancery Rule 23.1; and (c) the direct claims against the remaining defendants are dismissed with prejudice. On November 18, 2021, the remaining defendants (a) moved for partial summary judgment, (b) opposed plaintiff’s summary judgment motion and (c) opposed the plaintiff’s motion to amend his complaint. In January 2022, the case was assigned to a different judge. On February 24, 2022, the court (i) granted plaintiff’s motion to amend his complaint, and (ii) canceled oral argument on the summary judgment motions, stating that the court is “skeptical that this litigation can be resolved based on the undisputed facts” and the “case is going to trial,” but that the “parties may reassert their arguments made in support of summary judgment in their pre-trial and post-trial briefs.” Trial is currently set for November 14-18, 2022. Litigation Related to Directors’ Compensation On June 17, 2020, a purported Tesla stockholder filed a derivative action in the Delaware Court of Chancery, purportedly on behalf of Tesla, against certain of Tesla’s current and former directors regarding compensation awards granted to Tesla’s directors, other than Elon Musk, between 2017 and 2020. The suit asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment and seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, unspecified damages and other relief. Defendants filed their answer on September 17, 2020. On September 20, 2022, the parties filed the Third Amended Stipulation and Proposed Order Governing Case Schedule, with trial from November 27, 2023, to December 1, 2023. The Proposed Order is pending before the Court. Litigation Relating to Potential Going Private Transaction Between August 10, 2018 and September 6, 2018, nine purported stockholder class actions were filed against Tesla and Elon Musk in connection with Mr. Musk’s August 7, 2018 Twitter post that he was considering taking Tesla private. All of the suits are now pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Although the complaints vary in certain respects, they each purport to assert claims for violations of federal securities laws related to Mr. Musk’s statement and seek unspecified compensatory damages and other relief on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of Tesla’s securities. Plaintiffs filed their consolidated complaint on January 16, 2019 and added as defendants the members of Tesla’s board of directors. The now-consolidated purported stockholder class action was stayed while the issue of selection of lead counsel was briefed and argued before the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit ruled regarding lead counsel. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on November 22, 2019. The hearing on the motion was held on March 6, 2020. On April 15, 2020, the Court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss. The parties stipulated to certification of a class of stockholders, which the court granted on November 25, 2020. On January 11, 2022, plaintiff filed a motion for partial summary judgment. On April 1, 2022, the Court granted in part plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment. The Company disagrees with the ruling and accordingly, on April 22, 2022, asked the Court for reconsideration or, in the alternative, certification to file an interlocutory appeal. On June 16, 2022, in response to Tesla’s motions, the Court denied certification to appeal and declined to reconsider its opinion but clarified its summary judgment ruling to make clear that it had not ruled that any misstatements it identified met the required materiality element under the securities statute. The issue of materiality and reliance will both be questions for the jury to decide at trial, which is set for January 17, 2023. Between October 17, 2018 and March 8, 2021, seven derivative lawsuits were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery, purportedly on behalf of Tesla, against Mr. Musk and the members of Tesla’s board of directors, as constituted at relevant times, in relation to statements made and actions connected to a potential going private transaction, with certain of the lawsuits challenging additional Twitter posts by Mr. Musk, among other things. Five of those actions were consolidated, and all seven actions have been stayed pending resolution of the above-referenced consolidated purported stockholder class action. In addition to these cases, two derivative lawsuits were filed on October 25, 2018 and February 11, 2019 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, purportedly on behalf of Tesla, against Mr. Musk and the members of the Tesla board of directors as then constituted. Those cases have also been consolidated and stayed pending resolution of the above-referenced consolidated purported stockholder class action. On October 21, 2022, a lawsuit was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery by a purported shareholder of Tesla alleging, among other things, that board members breached their fiduciary duties in connection with their oversight of the Company’s 2018 settlement with the SEC, as amended. Among other things, the plaintiff seeks reforms to the Company’s corporate governance and internal procedures, unspecified damages, and attorneys’ fees. Unless otherwise stated, the individual defendants named in the stockholder proceedings described above and the Company with respect to the stockholder class action proceedings described above believe that the claims in such proceedings have no merit and intend to defend against them vigorously. We are unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any, associated with these claims. On November 15, 2021, JPMorgan Chase Bank (“JP Morgan”) filed a lawsuit against Tesla in the Southern District of New York alleging breach of a stock warrant agreement that was entered into as part of a convertible notes offering in 2014. In 2018, JP Morgan informed Tesla that it had adjusted the strike price based upon Mr. Musk’s August 7, 2018 Twitter post that he was considering taking Tesla private. Tesla disputed JP Morgan’s adjustment as a violation of the parties’ agreement. In 2021, Tesla delivered shares to JP Morgan per the agreement, which they duly accepted. JP Morgan now alleges that it is owed approximately $162 million as the value of additional shares that it claims should have been delivered as a result of the adjustment to the strike price in 2018. On January 24, 2022, Tesla filed multiple counterclaims as part of its answer to the underlying lawsuit, asserting among other points that JP Morgan should have terminated the stock warrant agreement in 2018 rather than make an adjustment to the strike price that it should have known would lead to a commercially unreasonable result. Tesla believes that the adjustments made by JP Morgan were neither proper nor commercially reasonable, as required under the stock warrant agreements. JP Morgan filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, which Tesla opposed, and that motion is currently pending before the Court. Litigation and Investigations Relating to Alleged Discrimination and Harassment On October 4, 2021, in a case captioned Diaz v. Tesla, a jury in the Northern District of California returned a verdict of $136.9 million against Tesla on claims by a former contingent worker that he was subjected to race discrimination while assigned to work at Tesla’s Fremont Factory from 2015-2016. On November 16, 2021, Tesla filed a post-trial motion for relief that included a request for a new trial or reduction of the jury’s damages. The Court held a hearing on Tesla’s motion on January 19, 2022. On April 13, 2022, the Court granted Tesla’s motion in part, reducing the total damages to $15 million and conditionally denied the motion for a new trial subject to the plaintiff’s acceptance of the reduced award. On June 21, 2022, the plaintiff rejected the reduced award and, as a result, on June 27, 2022, the Court ordered a new trial to commence on March 27, 2023. Tesla continues to believe that the facts and law do not justify the damages awarded and is assessing its next steps. On February 9, 2022, shortly after the Diaz jury verdict, the California Civil Rights Department (”CRD,” formerly “DFEH”) filed a civil complaint against Tesla in Alameda County, California Superior Court, alleging systemic race discrimination, hostile work environment and pay equity claims, among others. CRD’s amended complaint seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief. On September 22, 2022, Tesla filed a counter-claim against CRD, alleging that it violated the Administrative Procedures Act by failing to follow statutory pre-requisites prior to filing suit. The case is now in discovery. Additionally, on June 1, 2022 the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) issued a cause finding against Tesla that closely parallels the CRD’s allegations. Tesla is in the process of setting up a mandatory mediation with the EEOC. On June 16, 2022, two Tesla stockholders filed separate derivative actions in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, purportedly on behalf of Tesla, against certain of Tesla’s current and former directors. Both suits assert claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and violation of the federal securities laws in connection with alleged race and gender discrimination and sexual harassment. Among other things, plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief, unspecified damages payable to Tesla, and attorneys’ fees. On July 22, 2022, the Court consolidated the two cases and on September 6, 2022, plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint. We anticipate that the directors will move to dismiss both actions because neither shareholder made a demand upon Tesla’s board of directors prior to filing suit. Certain Investigations and Other Matters We receive requests for information from regulators and governmental authorities, such as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the National Transportation Safety Board, the SEC, the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and various state, federal, and international agencies. We routinely cooperate with such regulatory and governmental requests, including subpoenas, formal and informal requests and other investigations and inquiries. For example, the SEC had issued subpoenas to Tesla in connection with Elon Musk’s prior statement that he was considering taking Tesla private. The take-private investigation was resolved and closed with a settlement entered into with the SEC in September 2018 and as further clarified in April 2019 in an amendment. Since November 16, 2021, the SEC has periodically issued subpoenas to us seeking information on our governance processes around compliance with the SEC settlement, as amended. Separately, the DOJ previously asked us to voluntarily provide it with information about the above matter related to taking Tesla private and Model 3 production rates. We have not received any further requests from DOJ on these matters since we last provided information in May 2019. There have not been any additional developments in these matters that we deem to be material, and to our knowledge no government agency in any ongoing investigation has concluded that any wrongdoing occurred. As is our normal practice, we have been cooperating and will continue to cooperate with government authorities. We cannot predict the outcome or impact of any ongoing matters. Should the government decide to pursue an enforcement action, there exists the possibility of a material adverse impact on our business, results of operation, prospects, cash flows and financial position. We are also subject to various other legal proceedings and claims that arise from the normal course of business activities. If an unfavorable ruling or development were to occur, there exists the possibility of a material adverse impact on our business, results of operations, prospects, cash flows, financial position and brand. Indemnifications We are contractually obligated to compensate certain fund investors for any losses that they may suffer in certain limited circumstances resulting from reductions in investment tax credits claimed under U.S. federal laws for the installation of solar power facilities and energy storage systems that are charged from a co-sited solar power facility. We believe that any payments to the fund investors in excess of the amounts already recognized by us for this obligation are not probable or material based on the facts known at the filing date. We are eligible to receive certain state and local incentives that are associated with renewable energy generation. The amount of incentives that can be claimed is based on the projected or actual solar energy system size and/or the amount of solar energy produced. We also currently participate in one state’s incentive program that is based on either the fair market value or the tax basis of solar energy systems placed in service. State and local incentives received are allocated between us and fund investors in accordance with the contractual provisions of each fund. We are not contractually obligated to indemnify any fund investor for any losses they may incur due to a shortfall in the amount of state or local incentives actually received.

Commitments and Contingencies

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2022

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Note 12 – Commitments and Contingencies

Operating Lease Arrangement in Buffalo, New York

We have an operating lease through the Research Foundation for the State University of New York (the “SUNY Foundation”) with respect to Gigafactory New York. Under the lease and a related research and development agreement, we are continuing to further develop the facility.

Under this agreement, we are obligated to, among other things, meet employment targets as well as specified minimum numbers of personnel in the State of New York and in Buffalo, New York and spend or incur $5.00 billion in combined capital, operational expenses, costs of goods sold and other costs in the State of New York during the 10-year period beginning April 30, 2018. On an annual basis during the initial lease term, as measured on each anniversary of such date, if we fail to meet these specified investment and job creation requirements, then we would be obligated to pay a $41 million “program payment” to the SUNY Foundation for each year that we fail to meet these requirements. Furthermore, if the arrangement is terminated due to a material breach by us, then additional amounts may become payable by us.

As we temporarily suspended most of our manufacturing operations at Gigafactory New York pursuant to a New York State executive order issued in March 2020 as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, we were granted a deferral of our obligation to be compliant with our applicable targets through December 31, 2021 in an amendment memorialized in August 2021. The amendment also extended our overall agreement to spend or incur $5.00 billion in combined capital, operational expenses, costs of goods sold and other costs in the State of New York through December 31, 2029. On February 1, 2022, we reported to the State of New York that we had met and exceeded our annual requirements for jobs and investment in Buffalo and New York State. As of September 30, 2022, we are currently in excess of such targets relating to investments and personnel in the State of New York and Buffalo and do not currently expect any issues meeting our applicable obligations following this expected deferral or in the years beyond. However, if our expectations as to the costs and timelines of our investment and operations at Buffalo or our production ramp of the Solar Roof prove incorrect, we may incur additional expenses or be required to make substantial payments to the SUNY Foundation.

Operating Lease Arrangement in Shanghai, China

We have an operating lease arrangement for an initial term of 50 years with the local government of Shanghai for land use rights where we are constructing Gigafactory Shanghai. Under the terms of the arrangement, we are required to spend RMB 14.08 billion in capital expenditures by the end of 2023 and to generate RMB 2.23 billion of annual tax revenues starting at the end of 2023. If we are unwilling or unable to meet such target or obtain periodic project approvals, in accordance with the Chinese government’s standard terms for such arrangements, we would be required to revert the site to the local government and receive compensation for the remaining value of the land lease, buildings and fixtures. We expect to meet the capital expenditure and tax revenue requirements based on our current level of spend and sales.

Legal Proceedings

Litigation Relating to the SolarCity Acquisition

Between September 1, 2016 and October 5, 2016, seven lawsuits were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery by purported stockholders of Tesla challenging our acquisition of SolarCity Corporation (“SolarCity”). Following consolidation, the lawsuit names as defendants the members of Tesla’s board of directors as then constituted and alleges, among other things, that board members breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the acquisition. The complaint asserts both derivative claims and direct claims on behalf of a purported class and seeks, among other relief, unspecified monetary damages, attorneys’ fees and costs. On January 22, 2020, all of the director defendants except Elon Musk reached a settlement to resolve the lawsuit against them for an amount to be paid entirely under the applicable insurance policy. The settlement, which does not involve an admission of any wrongdoing by any party, was approved by the Court on August 17, 2020. Tesla received payment of approximately $43 million on September 16, 2020, which has been recognized in our consolidated statements of operations as a reduction to Selling, general and administrative operating expenses for costs previously incurred related to the acquisition of SolarCity. On February 4, 2020, the Court issued a ruling that denied plaintiffs’ previously-filed motion for summary judgment and granted in part and denied in part defendants’ previously-filed motion for summary judgment. The case was set for trial in March 2020 until it was postponed by the Court due to safety precautions concerning COVID-19. The trial was held from July 12 to July 23, 2021 and on August 16, 2021. On October 22, 2021, the Court approved the parties’ joint stipulation that (a) the class is decertified and the action shall continue exclusively as a derivative action under Court of Chancery Rule 23.1 and (b) the direct claims against Elon Musk are dismissed with prejudice. Following post-trial briefing, post-trial argument was held on January 18, 2022.

On April 27, 2022, the Court entered judgment in favor of Mr. Musk on all counts.  On May 26, 2022, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal. The parties have completed briefing and argument will be held before the Supreme Court of Delaware during the January 2023 session.

These plaintiffs and others filed parallel actions in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware on or about April 21, 2017. They include claims for violations of the federal securities laws and breach of fiduciary duties by Tesla’s board of directors. Those actions have been consolidated and stayed pending the above-referenced Chancery Court litigation.

Litigation Relating to 2018 CEO Performance Award

On June 4, 2018, a purported Tesla stockholder filed a putative class and derivative action in the Delaware Court of Chancery against Elon Musk and the members of Tesla’s board of directors as then constituted, alleging corporate waste, unjust enrichment and that such board members breached their fiduciary duties by approving the stock-based compensation plan awarded to Elon Musk in 2018. The complaint seeks, among other things, monetary damages and rescission or reformation of the stock-based compensation plan. On August 31, 2018, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint; plaintiff filed its opposition brief on November 1, 2018; and defendants filed a reply brief on December 13, 2018. The hearing on the motion to dismiss was held on May 9, 2019. On September 20, 2019, the Court granted the motion to dismiss as to the corporate waste claim but denied the motion as to the breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment claims. Defendants’ answer was filed on December 3, 2019.

On January 25, 2021, the Court conditionally certified certain claims and a class of Tesla stockholders as a class action. On September 30, 2021, plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a verified amended derivative complaint. On October 1, 2021, defendants Kimbal Musk and Steve Jurvetson moved for summary judgment as to the claims against them. Following the motion, plaintiff agreed to voluntarily dismiss the claims against Kimbal Musk and Steve Jurvetson. Plaintiff also moved for summary judgment on October 1, 2021. On October 27, 2021, the Court approved the parties’ joint stipulation that, among other things, (a) all claims against Kimbal Musk and Steve Jurvetson in the Complaint are dismissed with prejudice; (b) the class is decertified and the action shall continue exclusively as a derivative action under Court of Chancery Rule 23.1; and (c) the direct claims against the remaining defendants are dismissed with prejudice. On November 18, 2021, the remaining defendants (a) moved for partial summary judgment, (b) opposed plaintiff’s summary judgment motion and (c) opposed the plaintiff’s motion to amend his complaint. In January 2022, the case was assigned to a different judge. On February 24, 2022, the court (i) granted plaintiff’s motion to amend his complaint, and (ii) canceled oral argument on the summary judgment motions, stating that the court is “skeptical that this litigation can be resolved based on the undisputed facts” and the “case is going to trial,” but that the “parties may reassert their arguments made in support of summary judgment in their pre-trial and post-trial briefs.” Trial is currently set for November 14-18, 2022.

Litigation Related to Directors’ Compensation

On June 17, 2020, a purported Tesla stockholder filed a derivative action in the Delaware Court of Chancery, purportedly on behalf of Tesla, against certain of Tesla’s current and former directors regarding compensation awards granted to Tesla’s directors, other than Elon Musk, between 2017 and 2020. The suit asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment and seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, unspecified damages and other relief. Defendants filed their answer on September 17, 2020. On September 20, 2022, the parties filed the Third Amended Stipulation and Proposed Order Governing Case Schedule, with trial from November 27, 2023, to December 1, 2023. The Proposed Order is pending before the Court.

Litigation Relating to Potential Going Private Transaction

Between August 10, 2018 and September 6, 2018, nine purported stockholder class actions were filed against Tesla and Elon Musk in connection with Mr. Musk’s August 7, 2018 Twitter post that he was considering taking Tesla private. All of the suits are now pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Although the complaints vary in certain respects, they each purport to assert claims for violations of federal securities laws related to Mr. Musk’s statement and seek unspecified compensatory damages and other relief on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of Tesla’s securities. Plaintiffs filed their consolidated complaint on January 16, 2019 and added as defendants the members of Tesla’s board of directors. The now-consolidated purported stockholder class action was stayed while the issue of selection of lead counsel was briefed and argued before the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit ruled regarding lead counsel. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on November 22, 2019. The hearing on the motion was held on March 6, 2020. On April 15, 2020, the Court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss. The parties stipulated to certification of a class of stockholders, which the court granted on November 25, 2020. On January 11, 2022, plaintiff filed a motion for partial summary judgment. On April 1, 2022, the Court granted in part plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment. The Company disagrees with the ruling and accordingly, on April 22, 2022, asked the Court for reconsideration or, in the alternative, certification to file an interlocutory appeal. On June 16, 2022, in response to Tesla’s motions, the Court denied certification to appeal and declined to reconsider its opinion but clarified its summary judgment ruling to make clear that it had not ruled that any misstatements it identified met the required materiality element under the securities statute. The issue of materiality and reliance will both be questions for the jury to decide at trial, which is set for January 17, 2023.

Between October 17, 2018 and March 8, 2021, seven derivative lawsuits were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery, purportedly on behalf of Tesla, against Mr. Musk and the members of Tesla’s board of directors, as constituted at relevant times, in relation to statements made and actions connected to a potential going private transaction, with certain of the lawsuits challenging additional Twitter posts by Mr. Musk, among other things. Five of those actions were consolidated, and all seven actions have been stayed pending resolution of the above-referenced consolidated purported stockholder class action. In addition to these cases, two derivative lawsuits were filed on October 25, 2018 and February 11, 2019 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, purportedly on behalf of Tesla, against Mr. Musk and the members of the Tesla board of directors as then constituted. Those cases have also been consolidated and stayed pending resolution of the above-referenced consolidated purported stockholder class action.

On October 21, 2022, a lawsuit was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery by a purported shareholder of Tesla alleging, among other things, that board members breached their fiduciary duties in connection with their oversight of the Company’s 2018 settlement with the SEC, as amended. Among other things, the plaintiff seeks reforms to the Company’s corporate governance and internal procedures, unspecified damages, and attorneys’ fees.

Unless otherwise stated, the individual defendants named in the stockholder proceedings described above and the Company with respect to the stockholder class action proceedings described above believe that the claims in such proceedings have no merit and intend to defend against them vigorously. We are unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any, associated with these claims.

On November 15, 2021, JPMorgan Chase Bank (“JP Morgan”) filed a lawsuit against Tesla in the Southern District of New York alleging breach of a stock warrant agreement that was entered into as part of a convertible notes offering in 2014. In 2018, JP Morgan informed Tesla that it had adjusted the strike price based upon Mr. Musk’s August 7, 2018 Twitter post that he was considering taking Tesla private. Tesla disputed JP Morgan’s adjustment as a violation of the parties’ agreement. In 2021, Tesla delivered shares to JP Morgan per the agreement, which they duly accepted. JP Morgan now alleges that it is owed approximately $162 million as the value of additional shares that it claims should have been delivered as a result of the adjustment to the strike price in 2018. On January 24, 2022, Tesla filed multiple counterclaims as part of its answer to the underlying lawsuit, asserting among other points that JP Morgan should have terminated the stock warrant agreement in 2018 rather than make an adjustment to the strike price that it should have known would lead to a commercially unreasonable result. Tesla believes that the adjustments made by JP Morgan were neither proper nor commercially reasonable, as required under the stock warrant agreements. JP Morgan filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, which Tesla opposed, and that motion is currently pending before the Court.

Litigation and Investigations Relating to Alleged Discrimination and Harassment

On October 4, 2021, in a case captioned Diaz v. Tesla, a jury in the Northern District of California returned a verdict of $136.9 million against Tesla on claims by a former contingent worker that he was subjected to race discrimination while assigned to work at Tesla’s Fremont Factory from 2015-2016. On November 16, 2021, Tesla filed a post-trial motion for relief that included a request for a new trial or reduction of the jury’s damages. The Court held a hearing on Tesla’s motion on January 19, 2022. On April 13, 2022, the Court granted Tesla’s motion in part, reducing the total damages to $15 million and conditionally denied the motion for a new trial subject to the plaintiff’s acceptance of the reduced award. On June 21, 2022, the plaintiff rejected the reduced award and, as a result, on June 27, 2022, the Court ordered a new trial to commence on March 27, 2023. Tesla continues to believe that the facts and law do not justify the damages awarded and is assessing its next steps.

On February 9, 2022, shortly after the Diaz jury verdict, the California Civil Rights Department (”CRD,” formerly “DFEH”) filed a civil complaint against Tesla in Alameda County, California Superior Court, alleging systemic race discrimination, hostile work environment and pay equity claims, among others. CRD’s amended complaint seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief. On September 22, 2022, Tesla filed a counter-claim against CRD, alleging that it violated the Administrative Procedures Act by failing to follow statutory pre-requisites prior to filing suit. The case is now in discovery.

Additionally, on June 1, 2022 the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) issued a cause finding against Tesla that closely parallels the CRD’s allegations. Tesla is in the process of setting up a mandatory mediation with the EEOC.

On June 16, 2022, two Tesla stockholders filed separate derivative actions in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, purportedly on behalf of Tesla, against certain of Tesla’s current and former directors. Both suits assert claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and violation of the federal securities laws in connection with alleged race and gender discrimination and sexual harassment. Among other things, plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief, unspecified damages payable to Tesla, and attorneys’ fees. On July 22, 2022, the Court consolidated the two cases and on September 6, 2022, plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint. We anticipate that the directors will move to dismiss both actions because neither shareholder made a demand upon Tesla’s board of directors prior to filing suit.

Certain Investigations and Other Matters

We receive requests for information from regulators and governmental authorities, such as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the National Transportation Safety Board, the SEC, the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and various state, federal, and international agencies. We routinely cooperate with such regulatory and governmental requests, including subpoenas, formal and informal requests and other investigations and inquiries.

For example, the SEC had issued subpoenas to Tesla in connection with Elon Musk’s prior statement that he was considering taking Tesla private. The take-private investigation was resolved and closed with a settlement entered into with the SEC in September 2018 and as further clarified in April 2019 in an amendment. Since November 16, 2021, the SEC has periodically issued subpoenas to us seeking information on our governance processes around compliance with the SEC settlement, as amended.

Separately, the DOJ previously asked us to voluntarily provide it with information about the above matter related to taking Tesla private and Model 3 production rates. We have not received any further requests from DOJ on these matters since we last provided information in May 2019. There have not been any additional developments in these matters that we deem to be material, and to our knowledge no government agency in any ongoing investigation has concluded that any wrongdoing occurred. As is our normal practice, we have been cooperating and will continue to cooperate with government authorities. We cannot predict the outcome or impact of any ongoing matters. Should the government decide to pursue an enforcement action, there exists the possibility of a material adverse impact on our business, results of operation, prospects, cash flows and financial position.

We are also subject to various other legal proceedings and claims that arise from the normal course of business activities. If an unfavorable ruling or development were to occur, there exists the possibility of a material adverse impact on our business, results of operations, prospects, cash flows, financial position and brand.

Indemnifications

We are contractually obligated to compensate certain fund investors for any losses that they may suffer in certain limited circumstances resulting from reductions in investment tax credits claimed under U.S. federal laws for the installation of solar power facilities and energy storage systems that are charged from a co-sited solar power facility. We believe that any payments to the fund investors in excess of the amounts already recognized by us for this obligation are not probable or material based on the facts known at the filing date.

We are eligible to receive certain state and local incentives that are associated with renewable energy generation. The amount of incentives that can be claimed is based on the projected or actual solar energy system size and/or the amount of solar energy produced. We also currently participate in one state’s incentive program that is based on either the fair market value or the tax basis of solar energy systems placed in service. State and local incentives received are allocated between us and fund investors in accordance with the contractual provisions of each fund. We are not contractually obligated to indemnify any fund investor for any losses they may incur due to a shortfall in the amount of state or local incentives actually received.