Elon Musk, the tech mogul behind SpaceX and Tesla finds himself in the crosshairs of a legal battle with acclaimed filmmaker Alex Gibney. The dispute centers around Gibney’s forthcoming documentary, Musk which offers a critical examination of the billionaire’s rise to power and his controversial actions. Musk’s attorney, Alex Spiro, has sent a stern letter to Gibney’s production company, Jigsaw Productions, accusing the filmmaker of defamation.
The documentary, which premiered at the Venice Film Festival on September 3, 2026, and received a five-minute standing ovation, delves into various aspects of Musk’s life and career. It features interviews with his ex-wife Justine Musk, his father Errol Musk, and other former associates and critics. The film also includes a deepfake version of Musk, using AI to recreate his public statements.
Controversial Claims and Legal Threats
The heart of the legal dispute revolves around a series of text messages between Musk and his former partner, Ashley St. Clair. In these messages, sent on October 6, 2024, Musk expressed optimism about Donald Trump’s chances in the November 2024 presidential election. He mentioned plans to ‘unleash the anomaly in the matrix’ and claimed to have ‘over 10 thousand lasers in space right now.’
In the documentary, Gibney asks St. Clair if she believed Musk’s texts referred to Starlink his satellite internet constellation. St. Clair responded, ‘I don’t know where else he has lasers.’ This exchange has sparked accusations from Musk’s legal team that the film insinuates Musk used Starlink to influence the election, a claim they vehemently deny.
Spiro’s letter argues that the film promotes a debunked conspiracy theory that Starlink was somehow connected to vote tabulation. He emphasizes that election officials, cybersecurity researchers, and fact-checkers have publicly refuted this claim since November 2024. ‘Starlink was not connected to vote tabulation,’ Spiro wrote, adding that the satellites communicate by laser inter-satellite link.
The Filmmaker’s Response
Gibney’s representative has not responded to requests for comment, but St. Clair has dismissed Musk’s legal threats as a ‘joke.’ She stated, ‘They are more likely to colonize Mars than win a defamation case against Alex Gibney.’ St. Clair also criticized Spiro’s letter, calling it ‘fairy dust letters with obtuse legalese.’
Spiro’s letter further accuses Gibney of refusing to engage with Musk’s team during the fact-checking process. He argues that the film began with a conclusion rather than an inquiry, suggesting that Gibney deliberately chose not to investigate certain facts. ‘This project did not begin as an inquiry,’ Spiro wrote. ‘It began with a conclusion.’
Jigsaw Productions has defended the film, stating that Gibney’s work is recognized for its in-depth, fact-driven explorations of influential figures. They emphasized the importance of open debate and fact-based examinations of powerful public figures, protected by the First Amendment.
The Documentary’s Impact
The documentary, which runs nearly four hours, covers a wide range of topics, from Musk’s childhood in South Africa to his acquisition of Twitter and his growing wealth and influence. Gibney’s thesis is that Musk is a self-mythologizer who has become the richest man in the world by selling exaggerated promises to the public, investors, and the federal government.
Musk has taken to X (formerly Twitter) to attack the film, calling it a ‘hit piece’ and accusing Gibney of fabricating a false narrative. He has also criticized the film’s length, calling it ‘boring’ and suggesting that Gibney has zero integrity. Despite Musk’s pushback, the film has garnered positive reviews, with some critics praising it as a ‘poleaxing portrait’ of the tech titan.
The legal battle between Musk and Gibney highlights the tensions that arise when powerful figures face critical scrutiny. As the documentary’s release date approaches, the dispute is likely to intensify, drawing further attention to the controversial claims and the legal implications of the film.
