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)?

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.

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.

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...

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.

> 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.

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

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

Surprised he didn’t ask for $420M.