Tesla sues its alleged saboteur for $167M | Hacker News Reader

Tesla sues its alleged saboteur for $167M

engadget.com

I don't think it's an unrealistic number. The guy hacked the system and downloaded information, distributing that which caused the stock price to dip. Tesla has a definitive loss. What that exact number is could be up to debate, but just because the defendant is a person instead of a company does not diminish the level of damage done to Tesla.

> distributing that which caused the stock price to dip. Tesla has a definitive loss.

How did a stock price dip cause a loss to Tesla?

For starters, it affects how easily they could raise cash by borrowing money, during a time when they desperately needed capitol.

The problem with that legal theory is that Musk insisted at that time that Tesla did NOT plan to raise capital: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/02/tesla-ceo-elon-musk-continue...

Perhaps that was decided because it was costly?

Saying you do not plan to do something, does not mean that you won't change your mind if circumstances change in the future

so for starters it's some unquantifiable handwavey opportunity cost

Stock price caused Tesla be valued less. Bonds, stock options, add more collateral to cover loans, sold to cover loans....?

But apparently Tesla was valued less because of these actions at that time.

Tesla also have some convertible bonds out there that can be converted to stock if the stock price is above a certain number, but otherwise I think Tesla has to pay it back in cash.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/08/elon-musks-tesla-stock-boost...

Is saboteur really the right word for that though? Maybe it's just the association I've made but that to me denotes something much more active and directly damaging than just leaking damaging information.

That's literally the accusation, that he doctored information he then gave to jurnalist to harm the company

Not what I meant, I mean actually damaging something not just reputation or stock price. Even just deleting some critical file that had to be restored from a backup but just releasing information about the company doesn't fit my mental model of sabotage.

the loss of...being exposed for deceiving its shareholders

the level of damage done shall not be diminished, folks

FYI, his whistle blower case has fallen apart and he is now having to represent himself on that since his lawyers have abandoned him on that

> Tripp was represented by Meissner Associates in the whistleblower matter earlier, but is now representing himself, attorney Stuart Meissner told CNBC.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/12/11/tesla-seeks-167-million-in-d...

I've wondered for a bit as to why they chose such an unrealistic number. Maybe because they knew this would bait the media into reporting on it again, now that his "whistleblower" case has effectively fallen apart?

I'm inclined to agree with you. There's literally no new information in this article except that new number.

Partially, but also just to indicate what they perceive to be the real damage from his actions, so that in the future people can evaluate if their personal vendettas are worth the harm they cause. (Of course I see the irony given recent history at the company, but future deterrence is a large motivator for many lawsuits).

Isn't the use of a lawsuit to deter speaking out illegal (SLAPP)?

Anti-SLAPP laws generally allow for quick dismissal of lawsuits that fit the criteria. They don't lay out any criminal penalties for doing so. Also, not every state has an anti-SLAPP statute.

As Stormy Daniels recently discovered the non criminal penalties can be significant.

This is a federal case, and there's no federal anti-SLAPP law.

Even in states which have anti-SLAPP laws, they target frivolous lawsuits to deter speaking out. If you really do have a case, but part of your motivation for bringing it is to deter future misconduct, that's perfectly kosher.

Anti-SLAPP law in California is not limited to frivolous lawsuits...

The whole point of the Anti-SLAPP statutes is to discourage companies from using lawsuits to "deter future misconduct." It provides, at a minimum, that the company pay all the defendant's legal costs and the complete dismissal of the company's case with prejudice (which usually means all of the related claims filed in the same lawsuit, though on rare occasions the company may be allowed to split off those claims into a separate case).

As long as the plaintiff can establish "there is a probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the claim", the anti-SLAPP statue doesn't apply. It doesn't matter at that point why they filed the lawsuit.

Right, the plaintiff needs to show prima facie evidence of all elements of their claims in order to defeat an Anti-SLAPP motion.

Unless Tesla has been concealing some facts in its court filings, they don't have prima facie evidence of all elements of their claims. Anti-SLAPP motions can precede the discovery phase, i.e., before Tesla can acquire that evidence. Moreover, unlike TV, such evidence must be presented in court filings. Ambush disclosures aren't a thing in real life.

No. SLAPP statutes protect against frivolous lawsuits. If someone is sued over sharing an opinion, SLAPP might provide a quick way to demonstrate that the opinion is protected speech and that the suit is unwinnable. Generally, SLAPP aims to easily dismiss suits without merit.

This is not a frivolous lawsuit and is not without merit.

Could you elaborate a bit on the whistleblower stuff falling apart?

His lawyers have abandoned him and he is now defending himself on the supposed whistleblower case.

That’s going to be a interesting story given the last time they talked, they were accusing the police and Tesla of planning to “swatt” Tripp by reporting a anonymous report that Tripp was planning violence.

You are responding to a Tesla shill account. I can't find any information corroborating what this person is claiming about Tripps attorneys.

> Tripp was represented by Meissner Associates in the whistleblower matter earlier, but is now representing himself, attorney Stuart Meissner told CNBC.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/12/11/tesla-seeks-167-million-in-d...

This link contradicts what you are saying https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https:/...

> Tripp was represented by Meissner Associates in the whistleblower matter earlier, but is now representing himself, attorney Stuart Meissner told CNBC.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/12/11/tesla-seeks-167-million-in-d...

> I've wondered for a bit as to why they chose such an unrealistic number.

If I wanted to win N dollars in a lawsuit I would start by asking for some multiple of N. I would probably get what I wanted if the defense convinces the judge or jury to reduce the damages or tries to negotiate a settlement.

Especially in the case of negotiating a settlement, if you start by asking for exactly what you want you'll get less than that.

Surprised he didn’t ask for $420M.

This is academic, I seriously doubt he has $167 Million. Tesla just wants to ruin him for obvious reasons (deterrence, payback, send a message)

It's not unrealistic that his conducts did $167M worth of damages.

Obviously Tesla won't be able to recover that much from him, but that happens after the judgement.

Musk/Tripp email exchanges:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2018/06/21...

I think Tesla is suing Mills for several reasons. One is to discourage activity it thinks is sabotage and slander. Secondly it wants to do discovery to discover if he was working for someone who wanted to undermine Tesla, like a stock shorter or a fossil fuel or automotive company, who it would then sue next. And I am guessing it is also a preparation for another suit against the sleazy media company that published his claims, again to see if one of the above enemies was behind it.

As for the $167 million claim, the idea is not to get the money from Mills, which Tesla is perfectly aware is impossible. Rather it is to set the value for a later lawsuit, and also to let people know it is serious about defending itself.

What did he whistleblow on exactly? That car manufacturing is dirty? That parts of the vehicle get dinged & scratched and are still used? What is the revelation here?

Did he actually whistleblow?

Whistleblowers leak either to general public or regulators. From the article it sounds like the data went to some private 3rd party. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Tripp filed a whistleblower lawsuit with the SEC as part of his publicity campaign. It's mentioned in the linked article about the tweets.[0]

[0]https://www.engadget.com/2018/08/15/martin-tripp-tesla-tweet...

"The former employee, who used to work as a process engineer at Tesla's Gigafactory, filed a complaint of his own with the Securities and Exchange Commission in June. He accused Tesla of making 'material omissions and misstatements' to investors as well as of putting cars with safety issues on the road."

He did whistle-blow according to the article. According to another article he denies dumping data. https://www.engadget.com/2018/08/15/martin-tripp-tesla-tweet...

His own lawyers have abandoned him on these claims and he is now having to represent himself in the whistle blower case

I can't find any information on online to corroborate what you are saying. Can you share a link?

This article from yesterday indicates that he has attorney representation https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https:/...

> Tripp was represented by Meissner Associates in the whistleblower matter earlier, but is now representing himself, attorney Stuart Meissner told CNBC.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/12/11/tesla-seeks-167-million-in-d...

His lawyers most likely stopped working for him after some financial incentives by Elon Musk. Musk is known to pull off such things.

It says nothing about his legal status, and if you believe the whistleblower he will be alright.

One of the specific claims was that a robot intended for packaging lithium cells into battery modules misbehaved and punctured the battery module casings, damaging some of the cells. He alleges that Tesla then simply fixed the robot, and sent dangerously damaged battery modules to be integrated not vehicles. He published a list of Model 3 VINs which he alleges have the dangerous matters modules installed.

There are other claims about unsafe storage of hazardous waste, but that battery module claim is the one that sticks in my memory.

> Tripp was represented by Meissner Associates in the whistleblower matter earlier, but is now representing himself, attorney Stuart Meissner told CNBC.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/12/11/tesla-seeks-167-million-in-d...

Who would be best to track such incidents within the company? IT department or SecOps?

The security group should respond and manage the incident while working with their IT counterparts to fix the systems that were exposed.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com