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.
Elon Musk flew under the radar with his recent purchase of a $1 billion energy company, according to Federal Trade Commission (FTC) documents.
Transaction number 202612350 listed Tesla and SpaceX frontman Elon Musk as the acquiring party and CF APR Super Holdings LLC as the seller, with New APR Energy, LLC as the acquired entity. The deal, which closed without public announcement, came to light on May 14.
BREAKING: Elon Musk acquires Jacksonville power company APR Energy in a deal valued at more than $1,000,000,000.00.
— Polymarket Money (@PolymarketMoney) July 15, 2026
Analysts inferred the deal’s scale from minority stakeholder disclosures, including one report of a 5 percent interest sold for approximately $50.4 million. Fortress Investment Group had purchased APR’s assets in late 2024, rebranded the operation as New APR Energy, and subsequently transferred ownership to Musk.
APR Energy specializes in rapidly deployable power infrastructure. The company maintains one of the world’s largest fleets of mobile gas and diesel turbines, with more than 1.1 gigawatts of generation capacity. Its modular units, which are often trailer-mounted, enable turnkey installations ranging from 20 MW to over 500 MW.
APR provides full engineering, procurement, construction, operation, and maintenance services for behind-the-meter power plants, serving everything from data centers, utilities, and industrial clients.
The firm has expanded aggressively to meet surging demand, recently adding turbines and deploying over 100 MW for a major AI hyperscaler. Its solutions bridge critical gaps where grid interconnections face delays of two to five years, according to Yahoo.
The acquisition means something more for Musk. As he continues to expand projects in artificial intelligence, especially xAI, his AI venture, there is a greater need to supply energy-intensive supercomputing clusters, including the Colossus project, with what they need: reliable and high-capacity power.
Ownership of APR provides immediate access to flexible generation assets that can be deployed adjacent to data centers, reducing dependence on a strained infrastructure. It also complements Tesla’s energy storage business, so Musk will be able to pull from his own entities to address the rapid scaling demands of AI training and compute.
Tesla had a petition protesting a recall to fix a potential issue with 2017-2023 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles’ headlights was denied, as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) disagreed with the company’s opinion of things.
The recall covers approximately 19,917 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles built from 2017 to 2023. Tesla initially submitted a noncompliance report for the headlights on these vehicles on March 15, 2024. Tesla then petitioned for an exemption from the fix, which violated FMVSS No. 108 (40 CFR 571.108), arguing that the “noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
🚨 Tesla was denied a petition by the NHTSA to avoid a recall of 19,900 2017-2023 Model 3 and Model Y vehicles.
The NHTSA found that the vehicles’ headlights may exceed maximum lighting levels. Tesla argued it was inconsequential and did not require a recall. pic.twitter.com/m8Jmm1teLL
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 16, 2026
The NHTSA disagreed, stating that Tesla’s conclusion that the headlights do not increase any risk was not an opinion it shared. The agency said it disagreed with Tesla’s assumption that glare is not increased to surrounding traffic. This issue could be highlighted even more in certain weather conditions.
Tesla will be required to remedy the issue, the NHTSA ruled:
“In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that Tesla has not met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 108 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Tesla’s petition is hereby denied, and Tesla is consequently obligated to provide notification of and free remedy for that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.”
The issue here appears to be the angle of the headlights and the brightness they emit during operation. The NHTSA report states that:
“Tesla’s headlamp supplier, Marelli Automotive Lighting, tested 25 right-hand and 25 left-hand lamps, and for this sample, found the maximum photometric intensity measured in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone was between 136.2 cd and 230.1 cd for the right-hand lamps and between 117.5 cd and 160.3 cd for the left-hand lamps. According to Tesla, these tests revealed that the photometric intensity of the right-hand and left-hand headlamp lower beam on the subject vehicles may measure as much as 230.1 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone, exceeding the maximum photometric intensity by 105.1 cd. Additionally, Tesla states that a left-hand lamp tested by a Transport Canada recognized laboratory measured a maximum of 171.27 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone. Despite these measurements exceeding the allowed photometric maximum of 125 cd, Tesla believes that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.”
Tesla also argued at some points that the headlights had not been deemed responsible for any complaints, accidents, or injuries related to the noncompliance.
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
Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future
Tesla has to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says
