The California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) seems to want Tesla to advertise its Autopilot and Full Self-Driving (FSD) features to consumers.
According to a report by the LA Times. the DMV isn’t too happy about Tesla’s use of the terms, Autopilot and FSD. And the state agency is also upset about Tesla’s description of how Navigating on Autopilot from home works.
According to the article, the California DMV thinks the following paragraph found on Tesla’s website was misleading.
“All you will need to do is get in and tell your car where to go. If you don’t say anything, your car will look at your calendar and take you there as the assumed destination. Your Tesla will figure out the optimal route, navigating urban streets, complex intersections, and freeways.”
Is this really misleading, though?
That particular paragraph is part of Tesla’s description of its Autopilot and FSD features. Having seen FSD in action for myself, I’ve seen it actually do this. I’ve ridden with friends who have FSD Beta and they would speak into the microphone and tell the car where to go. And the car would go there.
The only issue is that this technology is still in Beta and the driver needs to be very aware of their surroundings. This means paying attention to the road. And in some cases, I have seen my friends take over safely.
However, I’ve also witnessed FSD stop for cyclists and pedestrians which many human drivers all too often don’t do.
As someone who doesn’t own a car, I’ve been almost hit quite a few times. If it wasn’t for my paying attention to my surroundings, I’d probably have won a few lawsuits and hospital stays. Perople really don’t pay attention when behind the wheel.
The California DMV’s Solution: Making Tesla advertise or “educate consumers”
They seek to make Tesla add more disclaimers / training for users. Seems like a non-issue. Their main issue seems to be the Full Self-Driving name as Tesla doesn’t actually advertise. https://t.co/hole8WMSx0
— Whole Mars Catalog (@WholeMarsBlog) August 5, 2022
If the DMV gets its way, it could revoke Tesla’s licenses to make and sell EVs in the state. I don’t have to tell you how bad this would be for jobs.
The article noted that these “remedies” would probably be “softer.” A DMV spokesperson told the LA Times that it will ask that Tesla be required to advertise the capabilities of Autopilot and FSD to consumers.
“The DMV will ask that Tesla will be required to advertise to consumers and better educate Tesla drivers about the capabilities of its ‘Autopilot’ and ‘Full Self-Driving’ features, including cautionary warnings regarding the limitations of the features, and for other actions as appropriate given the violations.”
In essence, the DMV is trying to force Tesla to buy advertising for its products and services.
Bloomberg noted that Tesla has 15 days to respond to the DMV if it wants to dispute or defend itself. It should also be noted that Tesla is one of the state’s largest employers with over 45,000 employees.
California isn’t too fond of Tesla at all, it seems
California already lost Tesla headquarters following the drama from 2020. CA Assemblywoman Lorena S. Gonzales made it very clear that Elon Musk and Tesla, a leading job provider, weren’t welcome in the state.
Although Tesla didn’t close down its factories in California, the company relocated its headquarters to Austin following Elon Musk’s personal decision to move to the Texas capital.
Message received
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) May 11, 2020
Personally, I don’t blame him for moving out of a state where government officials are openly hostile toward Elon Musk. I’d leave, too. And the move has proven to be very beneficial for both Tesla and Texas.
Following the relocation, Tesla seems to be doing very well and recently opened Giga Texas in April. Tesla has also been working closely with the Texas Public Utility Commission (PUC) and the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT).
Reducing the stress on the Texas grid would help Texans during the intense heat and winters. And it would encourage the largest oil-producing U.S. state to openly embrace renewables. Tesla being in Texas is a great thing for both as well as the South.
Lifestyle
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
The NTSB confirmed the driver, not Tesla’s FSD, caused the fatal Texas house crash.
The National Transportation Safety Board released preliminary findings Wednesday confirming that a Tesla driver, not the vehicle’s software, caused a fatal crash in Katy, Texas in June. The driver, 44-year-old Michael Butler, had engaged Full Self-Driving Supervised mode on Rose Hollow Lane, a residential street with a 30 mph speed limit, before manually overriding the system by pressing the accelerator pedal all the way to 100%. Data recovered from the 2025 Tesla Model 3 showed the vehicle was traveling over 70 miles per hour when it struck a home and killed 76-year-old Martha Avila, who was inside. Weather was clear, the road was dry, and it was daylight.
Texas man charged in fatal Tesla crash where he blamed Autopilot
Butler told authorities he had passed out at the wheel. But security camera footage obtained by the NTSB told a different story, and showed the car accelerating through an intersection before leaving the road entirely. Police also found that Butler’s phone had Google searches including the terms “Tesla FSD not aggressive enough 2026” and “Tesla FSD too timid,” raising serious questions about how he was using the system before the crash. Butler has since been charged with manslaughter. The victim’s family has filed a lawsuit against both Butler and Tesla, alleging negligence.
The NTSB findings aligned directly with what Tesla VP of AI Software Ashok Elluswamy had already stated publicly on X in the weeks after the crash, writing that “the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100%.” The data confirmed his account.
Yup. In this case, the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100% of the accel pedal in this residential area. They reached a speed of 73 mph during the crash, and had the accelerator pressed even after the crash.
— Ashok Elluswamy (@aelluswamy) June 22, 2026
Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli responded to rumors of an imminent bankruptcy that was reportedly being mulled after a report stated the automaker was working with the firm AlixPartners to iron out its next steps.
The company felt a massive loss on Wall Street yesterday, as the report essentially pushed the stock down as much as 55 percent on Tuesday.
The report, published initially by Eletric-Vehicles.com, claimed Lucid was essentially in dire straits and was told by AlixPartners, a commonly used restructuring advisor, to either take shares private or file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.
Lucid’s head of Communications, Nick Twork, immediately challenged the report and stated the company “has sufficient liquidity to carry its operations well into next year.”
Now, the company’s CEO is chiming in as well, stating that the report is “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Napoli said:
“Lucid is not considering bankruptcy or a transaction to take the company private. Those reports are false. The Board did not explore either scenario. Period.
As disclosed in our most recent quarterly filing, Lucid has sufficient liquidity to fund its operations well into next year.
We work with outside advisors to improve operational performance and execution. They are not advising Lucid on a take-private transaction or bankruptcy, and any suggestion that they have recommended either course of action to management or the Board is false.
My priority is clear: turn this company around. That is where the leadership team and I are focused.
I look forward to providing a full update during our quarterly earnings call on August 4th.”
🚨 Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli calls rumors of financial issues “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Read his full remarks here: https://t.co/t3Pg1NHvzy pic.twitter.com/LvHUPhO4Qf
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 15, 2026
It seems pretty clear that Lucid is confident things will be okay, and, to be honest, they should not have much to worry about, especially considering the company has been backed by the Saudi Public Investment Fund (PIF) for years. It has solid financial backing, and its sales, while weak, are pretty much right on par with a company of this age.
Lucid also sent a Cease & Desist letter to the publication for their report.
Lucid shares have rebounded nicely and are up nearly 21 percent at the time of publication. As soon as the company dispelled the rumors of bankruptcy yesterday, the stock began to climb back toward more reasonable levels.
Tesla has once again demonstrated strong customer focus by swiftly addressing and fully refunding a bizarre Supercharger pricing glitch that affected drivers in Atlantic Canada.
The issue surfaced earlier this month when the Tesla app began displaying dramatically inflated per-minute charging rates at stations in Prince Edward Island and parts of New Brunswick.
One widely shared screenshot from a Charlottetown, PEI Supercharger showed rates reaching ridiculous levels: $6.00 per minute for the 180-250 kW tier, along with $3.57/min for 100-180 kW and $2.29/min for 60-100 kW.
Correct pricing will be going live at midnight tonight. All fees since July 2nd 2026 will be waived.
— Tesla Charging (@TeslaCharging) July 13, 2026
These figures were several times higher than normal Supercharger pricing in the region.
To put the error in perspective, charging at the highest incorrect rate would have been shockingly expensive.
At 250 kW, a common charging speed at Superchargers, a vehicle pulls roughly 4.17 kWh per minute. Under the glitch, a driver spending just 10 minutes at peak power would face a $60 bill. A typical 20- to 30-minute session to add meaningful range could have cost $120 to $180 or more, before any congestion fees.
Tesla gets another layer of gamification with Free Supercharging on the line
By comparison, standard Canadian Supercharger rates usually fall between $0.25 and $0.60 per kWh, making a similar session cost roughly $15–$40. The erroneous per-minute structure, combined with the inflated numbers, turned what should be a convenient stop into a potential financial shock.
The glitch appears to have started sometime around early July, and quickly drew attention on social media as owners questioned whether Tesla had implemented steep hidden increases. Some drivers even reported seeing $0 charges in their history, indicating broader billing confusion.
Tesla’s official Charging account on X stated that correct pricing would roll out at midnight on July 13, so the fix is already in effect. More importantly, the company announced it would waive all fees for every Supercharger session since July 2. This blanket waiver covers the entire affected period without requiring users to file individual claims, with automated refunds expected soon. The decision affects stations in PEI and nearby areas in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.
It’s a classy move, and rather than issuing partial credits or forcing owners to submit support tickets, Tesla simply absorbed the cost of the system error and made drivers whole. In an industry where hidden fees and bill disputes are common, Tesla’s proactive, no-questions-asked approach reinforces owner trust and highlights the company’s commitment to service excellence.
The incident, while disruptive for a short time, ultimately showcases Tesla’s ability to own mistakes and prioritize customer satisfaction. Atlantic Canada Tesla owners can now charge with confidence again, knowing the company has their back when technology glitches occur.
In an era of complex EV billing, such transparency and generosity are refreshing and set a positive example for the industry.
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
Elon Musk’s Texas ranch to showcase the lifelong work that changed the world
