埃隆·馬斯克的檔案顯示,，他從2007年至今已經(jīng)發(fā)布了8,339條推文——畢竟，他經(jīng)營(yíng)了那么多家公司,。這位特斯拉（Tesla）的首席執(zhí)行官可能不是發(fā)推文最多的人,，不過(guò)考慮到他有2,760萬(wàn)粉絲，影響力巨大,，這位男人在推特（Twitter）絕對(duì)獨(dú)樹(shù)一幟,。而他在7月底對(duì)太陽(yáng)能屋頂瓦產(chǎn)量的評(píng)論可能會(huì)讓他和公司再一次陷入監(jiān)管困境。

馬斯克之前就曾經(jīng)在推特上惹是生非,，他不慎公開(kāi)過(guò)自己的手機(jī)號(hào)碼,，還把參與泰國(guó)足球隊(duì)救援工作的一位潛水員稱作“傻瓜”,。

隨后，他又聲稱要將公司私有化卻并未實(shí)施,，這使他陷入與美國(guó)證券交易委員會(huì)（SEC）的爭(zhēng)端,。最終雙方達(dá)成和解，馬斯克和特斯拉各被罰款2,000萬(wàn)美元,，馬斯克也被迫放棄特斯拉董事長(zhǎng)的職務(wù)長(zhǎng)達(dá)三年,。

美國(guó)證券交易委員會(huì)的和解協(xié)議旨在阻止馬斯克通過(guò)社交媒體的評(píng)論影響公司的股價(jià)。馬斯克答應(yīng)的條件之一就是在沒(méi)有獲得特斯拉聘用的“資深證券律師的事先許可”時(shí),，不得提及“尚未由公司事先核準(zhǔn)的書(shū)面信息（“官方公司指導(dǎo)”）發(fā)布,，或與已經(jīng)發(fā)布的官方公司指導(dǎo)有所出入的產(chǎn)量、銷(xiāo)售量或出貨量（無(wú)論是實(shí)際數(shù)據(jù),、預(yù)測(cè)數(shù)據(jù)還是計(jì)劃數(shù)據(jù)）,?！?/p>

7月底,，他發(fā)布了關(guān)于公司“達(dá)到應(yīng)用規(guī)模的能量?jī)?chǔ)存技術(shù)”，也就是其電池業(yè)務(wù)相關(guān)的一篇新聞稿的鏈接,。作者瑞安·麥克卡弗雷回復(fù)時(shí)問(wèn)道：“太陽(yáng)能屋頂瓦的進(jìn)展如何了,？你們?cè)谘邪l(fā)新款產(chǎn)品（第三代？）,，沒(méi)錯(cuò)吧,？”

馬斯克不到一個(gè)小時(shí)就給予了回復(fù)：“在迅速擴(kuò)大生產(chǎn)線。希望在今年年底前每周能生產(chǎn)大約1,000個(gè)太陽(yáng)能屋頂,?！?/p>

Tesla CEO Elon Musk may not be the most prolific tweeter, with 8,339 completed messages since 2007, according to his profile—he is running multiple companies, after all. But when it comes to his 27.6 million followers and his impact, the man is in a class by himself. And a tweet in the end of July about production of solar roof tiles may have landed him and the company back in regulatory hot water.

Musk has had tweet wars with others, once accidentally publicized his cell phone number, and called a diver involved in the rescue of a Thai soccer team a “pedo.”

And then there was the unrealized claim of taking the company private, which set off an involved dispute with the SEC that resulted in a consent decree, $20 million-dollar fines for both Musk and Tesla, and Musk stepping down as Tesla chairman for three years.

The SEC decree was intended to keep Musk from affecting the company’s stock price through comments on social media. Among other things, he agreed not to mention “production numbers or sales or delivery numbers (whether actual, forecast, or projected) that have not been previously published via pre-approved written communications issued by the Company (“Official Company Guidance”) or deviate from previously published Official Company Guidance” without the “pre-approval of an experienced securities lawyer” employed by Tesla.

In the end of July, he linked to a press release about the company’s “utility-scale energy storage”—in other words, an aspect of its battery business. Journalist Ryan McCaffrey replied with the question, “How’s solar roof tile progress going? You were working on a new version (V3?) of that, right?.”

Within an hour, Musk responded, “Spooling up production line rapidly. Hoping to manufacture ~1000 solar roofs/week by end of this year.”

《財(cái)富》雜志回顧了特斯拉2019年第一季度和第二季度的季報(bào)，以及2018年的年報(bào),，其中并未提及太陽(yáng)能屋頂生產(chǎn)線的產(chǎn)量,。

《財(cái)富》雜志隨后與特斯拉的公關(guān)部門(mén)進(jìn)行了聯(lián)系，詢問(wèn)推文是否得到了律師同意,，不過(guò)目前尚未得到回復(fù),。

特斯拉面臨的難題在于，太陽(yáng)能業(yè)務(wù)在財(cái)報(bào)中被列為了公司的組成部分之一,。

法律公司Dorsey Whitney的合伙人托馬斯·戈?duì)柭硎荆骸叭绻@個(gè)數(shù)據(jù)涉及公司的經(jīng)營(yíng)品種之一,，他透露了經(jīng)營(yíng)品種的數(shù)據(jù)，那牽扯的就是特斯拉,。如果他說(shuō)的是另一件事情——例如（特斯拉在2016年收購(gòu)的）Solar City的業(yè)務(wù)——我們?cè)诓①?gòu)Solar City上做得相當(dāng)不錯(cuò)——那就不一樣了,。”

戈?duì)柭a(bǔ)充道：“如果雙方重返法庭對(duì)峙,，這可不是個(gè)好論點(diǎn),，法官不會(huì)高興的,。我可不愿意為這個(gè)論點(diǎn)辯護(hù)?！保ㄘ?cái)富中文網(wǎng)）

譯者：嚴(yán)匡正

A Fortune review of the 10-Q financial filings for the first and second quarters of 2019 and of the 10-K for 2018 showed no production numbers for the Solar Roof product line.

Fortune contacted Tesla’s PR department to ask whether the tweet was cleared with a lawyer, but has not yet received an answer.

The challenge for Tesla is that the solar energy business is listed in financial filings as a division of the company.

“If that’s broken out as one of the business lines and he’s giving out numbers on the business line, that's Tesla,” said Thomas Gorman, a partner at law firm Dorsey Whitney. “If he was talking about something separate, like the Solar City business [that Tesla acquired in 2016]— we’re doing pretty good with the Solar City acquisition — that’s different.”

“This is not a great argument and if they go back to court, the judge will not be happy,” Gorman added. “I would not like to defend that argument.”