Did the Complicated Math Required of the Jury in Elon Musk’s “Funding Secured” Trial Play a Role in the “Clean Chit” Verdict?

Well, apparently, all you need to get a "clean chit" verdict from a given jury in the US is to overload jury members with complicated math. At least, that is what appears to have happened in Elon Musk's "funding secured" trial.

For those who might be unaware, Elon Musk was on trial for inflicting losses on Tesla's shareholders via a haphazard tweet back in 2018. As Tesla contended with production-related kinks and increased pressure from short-sellers, Elon Musk tweeted on the 07th of August 2018 that he was taking Tesla private at $420 per share and that the requisite funding had been secured. Ten days later, Elon Musk admitted that the buyout was not happening. Later on, Musk and Tesla reached a $40 million settlement with the SEC without admitting any wrongdoing.

The "funding secured" trial was being spearheaded by some of the aggrieved shareholders of Tesla who suffered material losses in this fracas. Bear in mind that the presiding judge had already declared that the jurors could consider the two tweets in question – both penned by Musk – to be false.

During his in-person testimony as part of the trial's proceedings, Elon Musk tried to defend his conduct by claiming that the funding for the initiative to take Tesla private was indeed in place at the time of his tweet, with the Saudi PIF forming just one part of the proverbial cog. According to Musk, he could have taken Tesla private by selling his stake in SpaceX. In a deposition back in 2022, Musk disclosed that there was a "standing interest" from Google/Alphabet in acquiring Tesla. Combined with his SpaceX stake, Musk felt that he did have a viable path to take Tesla private even without the support of the Saudis, whose conduct he described as one involving "ass-covering" and "backpedaling."

https://twitter.com/chancery_daily/status/1621643506522497027

This brings us to the crux of the matter. On Friday, the jurors in the trial deliberated for two hours and then announced that Elon Musk and Tesla were not liable for damages.

This verdict, predictably, caused confusion, especially as the presiding judge had all but declared Elon Musk's tweets in question to be misleading.

One plausible explanation for this unexpected outcome can be gleaned by examining the task placed before the jurors. As is evident from the tweet above, jurors were required to "determine the amount of artificial inflation per share of Tesla stock proved by Plaintiff on each date during the trial period…."

This is a complicated task even for trained professionals, let alone an average group of people who are unlikely to have specialized knowledge.

What's more, the jurors were also required to "determine the "but for" implied volatility percentages proved by Plaintiff for each option contract maturity date during the Class Period…."

https://twitter.com/chancery_daily/status/1621650373302689792

No wonder then that the jurors delivered this verdict. Meanwhile, this development bodes well for Elon Musk, who could have faced damages worth billions of dollars in case of an adverse verdict.

About the author: Writing is my one incontrovertible passion. Over the past six years, he has authored over 2,200 distinct articles on financial and tech-related topics, spanning nearly 1 million words. And he has been a member of Wcctech mobile team since 2025. As an alumnus of the University of Toronto, Rotman Commerce Program, I bring nuance, in-depth knowledge, and a unique perspective to every topic that I cover. When I'm not writing, I'm traveling the world, exploring hidden confectionaries and restaurants as an aspiring food connoisseur.

Follow Wccftech on Google to get more of our news coverage in your feeds.