XML 36 R23.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.23.4

Commitments and Contingencies | 12 Months Ended
--- | ---
Dec. 31, 2023
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments and Contingencies | Commitments and Contingencies Operating Lease Arrangement in Buffalo, New York We have an operating lease arrangement through the Research Foundation for 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. In 2021, an amendment was executed to extend 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 December 31, 2023, we have met and expect to meet the requirements under this arrangement based on our current and anticipated level of operations. However, if our expectations as to the costs and timelines of our investment and operations at Buffalo 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 have been 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, which has been achieved in 2023, and to generate RMB 2.23 billion of annual tax revenues starting at the end of 2023. As of December 31, 2023, we have met and expect to meet the tax revenue requirements based on our current level of spend and sales. Legal Proceedings 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. Trial was held November 14-18, 2022. Post-trial briefing and argument are now complete. 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 July 14, 2023, the parties filed a Stipulation and Agreement of Compromise and Settlement, which does not involve an admission of any wrongdoing by any party. If the settlement is approved by the Court, this action will be fully settled and dismissed with prejudice. Pursuant to the terms of the agreement, Tesla provided notice of the proposed settlement to stockholders of record as of July 14, 2023. The Court held a hearing regarding the settlement on October 13, 2023, after which it took the settlement and plaintiff counsels’ fee request under advisement. The settlement is not expected to have an adverse impact on our results of operations, cash flows or financial position. 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. On January 16, 2019, Plaintiffs filed their consolidated complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California and added as defendants the members of Tesla’s board of directors. The consolidated complaint asserts claims for violations of the federal securities laws and seeks unspecified damages and other relief. The parties stipulated to certification of a class of stockholders, which the court granted on November 25, 2020. Trial started on January 17, 2023, and on February 3, 2023, a jury rendered a verdict in favor of the defendants on all counts. After trial, plaintiffs filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law and a motion for new trial, which the Court denied and judgement was entered in favor of defendants on July 11, 2023. On July 14, 2023, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal. 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 appeal in 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 appeal in 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. The parties reached an agreement to stay the case until March 5, 2024. 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 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. A retrial was held starting on March 27, 2023, after which a jury returned a verdict of $3,175,000. As a result, the damages awarded against Tesla were reduced from an initial $136.9 million (October 4, 2021) down to $15 million (April 13, 2022), and then further down to $3.175 million (April 3, 2023). On November 2, 2023, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal, and on November 16, 2023, Tesla filed a notice of cross appeal. On February 9, 2022, shortly after the first 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 cross complaint against CRD, alleging that it violated the Administrative Procedures Act by failing to follow statutory pre-requisites prior to filing suit and that cross complaint was subject to a sustained demurrer, which Tesla later amended and refiled. The case is currently 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. On September 28, 2023, the EEOC filed a civil complaint against Tesla in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California asserting claims for race harassment and retaliation and seeking, among other things, monetary and injunctive relief. On December 18, 2023, Tesla filed a motion to stay the case. Separately, on December 26, 2023, Tesla filed a motion to dismiss the case. 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. On November 7, 2022, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the case and on September 15, 2023, the Court dismissed the action but granted plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint. On November 2, 2023, plaintiff filed an amended complaint purportedly on behalf of Tesla, against Elon Musk. On December 19, 2023, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. Other Litigation Related to Our Products and Services We are also subject to various lawsuits that seek monetary and other injunctive relief. These lawsuits include proposed class actions and other consumer claims that allege, among other things, purported defects and misrepresentations related to our products and services. For example, on September 14, 2022, a proposed class action was filed against Tesla, Inc. and related entities in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging various claims about the Company’s driver assistance technology systems under state and federal law. This case was later consolidated with several other proposed class actions, and a Consolidated Amended Complaint was filed on October 28, 2022, which seeks damages and other relief on behalf of all persons who purchased or leased from Tesla between January 1, 2016 to the present. On October 5, 2022 a proposed class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York asserting similar state and federal law claims against the same defendants. On September 30, 2023, the Court dismissed this action with leave to amend the complaint. On November 20, 2023, the plaintiff moved to amend the complaint, which Tesla opposed. On March 22, 2023, the plaintiffs in the Northern District of California consolidated action filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to order Tesla to (1) cease using the term “Full Self-Driving Capability” (FSD Capability), (2) cease the sale and activation of FSD Capability and deactivate FSD Capability on Tesla vehicles, and (3) provide certain notices to consumers about proposed court-findings about the accuracy of the use of the terms Autopilot and FSD Capability. Tesla opposed the motion. On September 30, 2023, the Court denied the request for a preliminary injunction, compelled four of five plaintiffs to arbitration, and dismissed the claims of the fifth plaintiff with leave to amend the complaint. On October 31, 2023, the remaining plaintiff in the Northern District of California action filed an amended complaint, which Tesla has moved to dismiss. On October 2, 2023, a similar proposed class action was filed in San Diego County Superior Court in California. Tesla subsequently removed the San Diego County case to federal court and on January 8, 2024, the federal court granted Tesla’s motion to transfer the case to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. On February 27, 2023, a proposed class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against Tesla, Inc., Elon Musk and certain current and former Company executives. The complaint alleges that the defendants made material misrepresentations and omissions about the Company’s Autopilot and FSD Capability technologies and seeks money damages and other relief on behalf of persons who purchased Tesla stock between February 19, 2019 and February 17, 2023. An amended complaint was filed on September 5, 2023, naming only Tesla, Inc. and Elon Musk as defendants. On November 6, 2023, Tesla moved to dismiss the amended complaint. On March 14, 2023, a proposed class action was filed against Tesla, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Several similar complaints have also been filed in the same court and these cases have now all been consolidated. These complaints allege that Tesla violates federal antitrust and warranty laws through its repair, service, and maintenance practices and seeks, among other relief, damages for persons who paid Tesla for repairs services or Tesla compatible replacement parts from March 2019 to March 2023. On July 17, 2023, these plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint. On September 27, 2023, the court granted Tesla’s motion to compel arbitration as to three of the plaintiffs, and on November 17, 2023, the court granted Tesla’s motion to dismiss without prejudice. The plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Second Amended Complaint on December 12, 2023, which Tesla has moved to dismiss. Plaintiffs have also appealed the court’s arbitration order. Trial is currently set for July 7, 2025. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in these matters; however, we cannot predict the outcome or impact. We are unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any, associated with these claims, unless noted. Certain Investigations and Other Matters We regularly receive requests for information, including subpoenas, from regulators and governmental authorities such as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the National Transportation Safety Board, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), the Department of Justice (“DOJ”), and various local, state, federal, and international agencies. The ongoing requests for information include topics such as operations, technology (e.g., vehicle functionality, Autopilot and FSD Capability), compliance, finance, data privacy, and other matters related to Tesla’s business, its personnel, and related parties. We routinely cooperate with such formal and informal requests for information, investigations, and other inquiries. To our knowledge no government agency in any ongoing investigation has concluded that any wrongdoing occurred. 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, financial position or brand. We are also subject to various other legal proceedings, risks and claims that arise from the normal course of business activities. For example, during the second quarter of 2023, a foreign news outlet reported that it obtained certain misappropriated data including, purportedly non-public Tesla business and personal information. Tesla has made notifications to potentially affected individuals (current and former employees) and regulatory authorities and we are working with certain law enforcement and other authorities. On August 5, 2023, a putative class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, purportedly on behalf of all U.S. individuals impacted by the data incident, followed by several additional lawsuits, that each assert claims under various state laws and seeks monetary damages and other relief. If an unfavorable ruling or development were to occur in these or other possible legal proceedings, risks and claims, there exists the possibility of a material adverse impact on our business, results of operations, prospects, cash flows, financial position or brand. Letters of Credit As of December 31, 2023, we had $525 million of unused letters of credit outstanding.

X
- References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies. + References Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (a) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org//1943274/2147482648/440-10-50-4 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2009/role/commonPracticeRef -Topic 450 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org//450/tableOfContent Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 954 -SubTopic 440 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (a) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org//1943274/2147480327/954-440-50-1 Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (c) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org//1943274/2147482648/440-10-50-4 Reference 5: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Topic 440 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org//440/tableOfContent + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | dtr-types:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration