Slate Auto’s much-discussed sub-$25K electric truck is one step closer to reality. It’s now available for preorder on the company’s website. However, it could still be a year or two before drivers who preorder a Slate actually get their vehicles.

The base model of the car is priced at $24,950 and there are a number of color and accessory options available. But Car and Driver points out that it’ll end up costing more than $25,000 after factoring in a destination and delivery fee that the company says will be lower than typical. Even so, that fee could still run $1,200 to $1,500.

Even with that fee, however, Slate’s truck would stand apart in a US car market where SUVs rule the land and the average car price rose above $50,000 earlier this year before settling back down, according to Kelley Blue Book. Electric vehicles are typically priced about $5,000 to $7,000 more, making the Slate even more of an anomaly. 

This week, as it opened up preorders for the electric truck, Slate gave more details about its range and capabilities, which have changed since the truck was announced last year. New battery specs have raised the truck’s range from 150 miles per charge to 205. Slate is also banking on the truck’s custom options to draw customers: It’s offering more than 100 wrap colors and different ways to convert the two-seater truck to other builds, even after the vehicle is purchased.

Preordering the Slate truck costs $300 and is nonrefundable. The company says the 180,000 customers who already placed refundable reservations for $50 can put that $50 toward a preorder.  

According to Slate’s website, the first deliveries of the truck will be later this year. But full production of the Slate truck isn’t expected to ramp up completely until sometime in 2027. Slate has raised $1.3 billion and counts Amazon founder Jeff Bezos as one of its investors.

Reviewers have posted new impressions of the Slate

Not everyone is impressed with the concept, or even the pricing of the Slate, with The Wall Street Journal dismissing the company’s updates with the headline, “Will Anyone Buy This Cheap EV Truck With Hand-Crank Windows and No Radio?“

But those who’ve actually seen and ridden in the vehicle are singing its praises. Nick Yekikian at Edmunds wrote that the truck “is cute and has real charm in person” and said it has evolved since the last time he saw it. He wrote, “The build quality is generally more solid, and it looks ready to hit the road.” He also posted a video about his experiences with Slate.

Aaron Gold at MotorTrend wrote, after riding in the Slate, that it’s “pretty much what we were expecting, which is a good thing, as we at MotorTrend have high hopes for this cute, inexpensive electric truck.”

David Tracy at The Autopian called driving the truck “insanely fun.” He wrote, “It’s a simple pickup truck, and it’s reasonably cheap. Is it the cheapest? No. Is it the most practical for families? No. But what the Slate has going for it is this: It is, by far, the most soulful new vehicle an American consumer will be able to buy for $25,000.”

At least one other inexpensive EV is in the pipeline

As far as competition for inexpensive electric vehicles, the closest to Slate’s planned price is likely the Chevrolet Bolt at just under $30,000. But other automakers are working on less expensive electric vehicle models. 

Ford is expected to release a low-cost electric truck in the $30,000 range, due out in 2027. And political changes could open up the possibility of Chinese-built EVs, which have their fans in the US but are not widely available due to tariffs and other factors. As Reuters points out, some Chinese EVs are priced below $12,000; for the average cost of an American car, you could buy three or more of the cheapest EVs in China.

from the seems-bad dept

In theory, there’s a way to build a prediction market that actually provides valuable insight on issues through the wisdom of the crowds. But that’s not at all what we have with the current crop of prediction markets, mainly Kalshi and Polymarket, which seem to have leap-frogged FanDuel and DraftKings as the deservedly hated gambling apps that pretend not to be gambling apps. While we haven’t spent too much time talking about those markets here on Techdirt, we have mentioned some examples of where they are found to be distorting information, rather than revealing deeper insights.

But, really, if your entire marketing pitch is that you’re a tool for revealing truths, it should be existentially embarrassing for it to be revealed that your advertising strategy is to have influencers blatantly fake bets to pretend they had won, when they really would have lost. It’s like the opposite of a truth market. It’s false advertising.

A piece published over the weekend by the Wall Street Journal (whose publisher actually has a deal with Polymarket) is incredibly damning, suggesting pretty clearly that Polymarket and a crew of young influencers it has hired have engaged in outright fraud that both the FTC and the CFTC would go after, if either agency were inclined to act:

In his videos, George Makihara appears to have a lucrative side hustle making bets on Polymarket.

In January, the college student posted a video that showed him winning $100,000 on a wager that President Trump would publicly say the word “McDonald’s” that month.  

Advertisement

The bet was one of 145 that Makihara appeared to place on Polymarket’s website between January and mid-May, based on his videos—bets adding up to almost $410,000. 

But none of those bets were real, according to a Wall Street Journal investigation.

The basics of the scam are pretty straightforward: Polymarket hired one of those “influencer marketing” companies to round up college kids to make social media videos showing them winning bets on Polymarket. Except, it turns out that the bets shown in those videos aren’t real. They’re faked, using a fake version of Polymarket, with the clever domain name Poiymarket (that’s a lower case i rather than an l there). And, of course, none of the influencers disclosed they were being paid by Polymarket, let alone that the bets shown in the videos were made up.

This doesn’t seem to be a one-off case of a rogue influencer either. The WSJ found over 1,100 videos by multiple creators, and determined that in 70% of the videos, no actual bets were placed, even as the videos showed the influencers winning $1.9 million. Within that, one smaller segment of the videos used faked or outdated news coverage to pretend the influencers had won about a million dollars — when, the WSJ worked it out, those same bets would actually have lost $166,000 if anyone had actually placed them.

And according to the reporting, this isn’t just a case of the marketing firm Polymarket hired going too far. The article reports that Polymarket created the fake website and required the influencers send them all their videos for approval before posting:

Creators said they send the finished videos to Polymarket for review. If a video isn’t engaging enough, or if it bears obvious signs of being faked, Polymarket will ask for the videos to be reshot, the creators said.

All of this clearly violates the FTC’s rules on disclosing paid promotion, not to mention being clearly deceptive advertising. That isn’t even mentioning that Polymarket apparently demanded that the ads target Americans, even as Polymarket isn’t supposed to be operating its prediction market in the US (even though tons of people are using it there via VPNs and proxies).

This is where the CFTC should step in. Polymarket has been doing the whole “nudge, nudge, wink, wink” thing about supposedly not targeting the US. But this report makes it clear that they absolutely are targeting the US and that it’s an important market to them. In a normal administration, the CFTC would take note of this and take action:

As of early June, it only paid clippers if at least 60% of their audience was in the U.S., according to instructional materials.

There’s also this excuse given by one of the influencers, who may be about to learn about deceptive advertising laws:

Razeen Khan, a college student in California, worked as a Polymarket creator for several months until March. He compared the videos to fast-food commercials, where food can appear more appealing than it does in real life. 

“We’re depicting what actually happens,” he said. “You’re still going to buy the burger.”

This is quite the choice in what to compare things to, Razeen, because the FTC now has a few decades on the record of going after companies for representing food in ads in a deceptive manner. In 1968, there was the Campbell’s Soup case, in which the FTC dinged the soup company for placing clear marbles in the bottom of bowls so that photos of the soup made it look like there were more noodles and vegetables in the soup than there really were.

The general rule of thumb to avoid having the FTC come down on you is that if any food is shown in an ad, it has to be the actual food. Everything else around it can be faked or made to look better. But the food has to be real. Hell, there was just a case against Burger King (which appears to have settled earlier this year), alleging that the burgers it showed in commercials were bigger than what was actually sold.

So, yeah, Razeen, I’d suggest maybe talking to a lawyer before you claim that you’re just doing the same thing that you think fast food companies do… when those fast food companies know that they can face serious legal penalties for faking things. Like you appear to have done.

Of course, the real question is whether this FTC will do anything about it. On the merits, it’s about as clean a case as the agency is ever going to get — so blatant that looking the other way carries its own cost. But part of the reason Kalshi and Polymarket seem to be everywhere these days is that the Trump administration has gone to bat for both companies in their fights with state regulators — and that Donald Trump Jr. has financial links to both companies. So the agency that should be the natural enemy of a company building fake websites to run faked ads, instead answers to a White House championing that company, while the president’s son personally profits from its success.

Which is its own kind of tell. A prediction market’s entire pitch is that it surfaces the truth — that the wisdom of the crowd, with real money on the line, produces better information than anyone else can. Polymarket just demonstrated what it actually thinks of that promise: when it needed to sell itself, it didn’t trust the real numbers. It hired college kids, built a counterfeit version of its own site, and manufactured the wins. The product that’s supposed to reveal the truth couldn’t market itself without faking it.

This is the rare case clean enough to force the question. If the FTC does nothing with a fraud this obvious, it won’t be because the case is too weak. Instead, it will tell you exactly whose interests the Trump FTC thinks are worth protecting.

Filed Under: cftc, deceptive advertising, false advertising, fraud, ftc, influencers, prediction markets

Companies: polymarket

I took over the role of CNET’s editorial leader earlier this year, and while I’ve participated in Prime Day sales as a TV reviewer and general deals editor here for (literally) decades, this is my first Prime Day as EIC. In case you’re wondering what purchases a person like me is considering this time around, here’s a sampling.

iPad 11-inch A16 ($300): My artistic daughter has been asking for an iPad and if my wife approves, I’ll likely get her this basic version, our top pick for most people. I’d also get her the Apple Pencil (on sale for $60). We’d save both of these for Christmas presents.

Belkin Portable Charger Bank ($38): My family and I always need portable chargers. Half our devices call for Lightning and the other half for USB-C. This does both and I like the built-in cables.

Plaud NotePin S AI Notetaker ($152): In my new role I take more meetings than ever, and I also have plenty of valuable face-to-face conversations in the office and beyond. I currently depend on the Otter app on my phone and Gemini+Google Meet recordings at work to take notes (with appropriate permission, of course). This AI wearable could be my “secret weapon” to consolidate everything in one place.

JBL Go 4 Bluetooth Speaker ($38): I actually bought this one a few days ago when it was $40 – still a great deal, but now even better. It’s no longer one of our best Bluetooth speakers but it’s good enough for my (other) daughter, who wants one for the beach. At this price, I won’t be too annoyed if (when?) it gets destroyed by sand and surf. And yes, I got her the pink one which I know she’ll love. We’re saving this for her birthday.

Anker Solix F2000 portable power station ($749): I own a travel trailer and upgraded to solar with an inverter, but at a recent (shady) campsite, I still had to break out my loud, annoying propane generator. Sure, I could just add more standard 12V LiPo4 batteries, but this portable power station is so much more versatile. It includes a 30A RV outlet, and the wheels make it worth the extra $50 over the Bluetti AC200L. No way my wife approves this one, but it stays on the list anyway because I’m camping tech obsessed.

from the good-deals-on-cool-stuff dept

The Ultimate AWS Data Master Class Bundle has 9 courses to get you up to speed on Amazon Web Services. The courses cover AWS, DevOPs, Kubernetes Mesosphere DC/OS, AWS Redshift, and more. It’s on sale for $40.

Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

Filed Under: daily deal

Data governance is unglamorous work. It is also the reason most AI strategies stall before they scale.

Spending on models, platforms and use cases keeps growing. But the disciplines that make those investments effective – data quality, ownership and governance – often receive far less attention.