Tesla is not cutting back on gigacasting; it's just sticking to its current model approach, which is one front gigacast and one rear gigacast.
They've talked about some future vehicle platform using a single gigacast, but I never heard them talk about this as a sure thing, or as replacing the manner their current vehicles are produced. Their "model 2" was always described as using the "unboxed" approach, which to me would be incompatible with the single massive gigacast approach from the beginning.
Csteubs is correct - there was no implication of foul play in the original post. Typically when there's an article about a business dispute like this, you would expect the article to include relevant information about overlapping business interests, so I added that for context.
Lukas Walton owned 21% as of the start of the year, more than 3x Vanguard which owns 6.62%. I don't know about the rest of the Walton family - at one point the entire company was Walton owned - but that's nearly $1.5B owned by the company's "Significant Shareholder". I have no idea about the merits of this case but one should note that it's not uncommon for competing companies to sue each other.
They've talked about some future vehicle platform using a single gigacast, but I never heard them talk about this as a sure thing, or as replacing the manner their current vehicles are produced. Their "model 2" was always described as using the "unboxed" approach, which to me would be incompatible with the single massive gigacast approach from the beginning.