Tesla CEO Elon Musk Wants to End SEC Settlement Requiring Preapproval for Some of His Tweets

It looks like electric vehicle giant Tesla’s CEO Elon Musk has grown tired of getting tweets approved by the SEC.

The chief executive is seeking to end a settlement with the Securities and Exchange Commission that required his tweets be vetted before publishing.

According to a document filed Tuesday in a federal district court in New York, Musk’s lawyer claimed complying with its rules “has become impossible under the SEC’s skewed conception of its authority.”

Musk’s lawyer asked the court to terminate or modify the settlement, which was revised in 2019, claiming complying with its rules “has become impossible under the SEC’s skewed conception of its authority.”

“The more the SEC monitors Mr. Musk’s Twitter activity, and forces others to do the same, the more Mr. Musk’s freedom of expression is infringed,” the document alleges.

It all began with Musk’s tweet about “funding secured” when he said he was considering taking Tesla private. At the time the SEC had accused Musk of fraud for allegedly making “false and misleading” statements and failing to notify regulators of material events.

The original settlement included no admission or denial of wrongdoing by Musk, but was also not an indication of innocence.

Musk’s legal team is also seeking to quash a 2021 subpoena the SEC sought about whether he obtained Tesla’s approval to tweet a poll he said he’d use to determine whether to sell 10% of his stake in the electric-auto maker.

In the filing, the lawyers called the subpoena “but one in a winding parade of investigations” into Musk and his companies “without factual basis.”

They allege the SEC attempted to “tarnish” Musk and Tesla’s records with the allegedly “unfounded investigations.” That pattern shows the SEC issued the subpoena in bad faith, Musk’s lawyer alleges.

Musk felt “forced” to sign the initial 2018 agreement, according to the filing, because “the SEC’s action stood to jeopardize the company’s financing” and “protracted litigation” would not be in shareholders’ interest.

Disclaimer: We have no position in any of the companies mentioned and have not been compensated for this article.