A California judge has forced General Motors’ (GM) self-driving unit Cruise to increase its settlement offer to the maximum amount, after one of the company’s robotaxis pinned and seriously injured a pedestrian in October.
On October 2, a driverless Cruise vehicle dragged and pinned a pedestrian in San Francisco, and the company’s license to operate self-driving cars was immediately revoked by the California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV). The DMV later said that Cruise “misrepresented” and “omitted” crucial details about its response to the accident, and the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) in December ordered the company to appear before a judge this month.
During the hearing, which was held on Tuesday, California Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Robert Mason III suggested that Cruise revise its $75,000 settlement offer to the maximum penalty of $112,500, after calling the company’s proposed amount “low,” and even suggesting the company was seeking a “discount.”
While Judge Mason III said he appreciated Cruise attempting to take “corrective action” in its crash response procedures, he added that the company should “take a hint” following his multiple questions about the offer amount, suggesting directly that Cruise change its settlement offer to the full penalty.
“Point taken, your Honor,” responded Craig Glidden, Cruise President and Chief Administrative Officer. “We immediately revise our offer to the amount requested.”
Waymo could face new legal barriers in its expansion to Los Angeles
The hearing discussed findings from an investigation conducted by the law firm Quinn Emanuel, which Cruise hired, including that internet connectivity hampered the company’s sharing of video footage from the accident with regulators in meetings that followed.
In response to the motion for approval to settle at $75,000, the commission can adopt, adopt with revisions, or reject Cruise’s filing. Following the hearing, the next step is for Judge Mason to write a proposed decision on the case for the commissioner’s consideration, with the general timeframe falling within about 60 days, as a CPUC spokesperson clarified to Teslarati.
Cruise said it was eager to resolve the case and move past the incident, adding that it wanted to continue to “advance the mission of bringing driverless cars that are safer to the public and also greater accessibility to the public to the market.”
However, Mason didn’t make it sound like the commission was eager to set the case aside:
“While the commission does fall on the side of getting its cases resolved, I don’t know that this is one of those protracted pieces of litigation that we’re usually most anxious to put aside and then move forward with the regulatory process,” Mason added.
In the original motion, filed on January 30, Cruise outlines the key requirements it would have to follow as part of the settlement:
1. Cruise will adopt voluntarily several new data reporting enhancements that will provide additional data to the Commission concerning California collisions and AVs operating in California under a deployment permit that enter a minimal risk condition (“MRC”) state and result in conditions described in Attachment A;
2. Cruise will provide the Commission with Cruise’s responses to the permit reinstatement questions from the California Department of Motor Vehicles (“DMV”) at the same time Cruise provides those responses to the DMV;
3. Cruise will make a payment of $75,000 to the State General Fund within ten (10) days of the Commission’s approval of the Settlement Agreement without modification; and
4. Upon the Commission’s approval of the Settlement Agreement, the OSC proceeding will be closed.
“We are committed to working in partnership with the CPUC, other regulators and government agencies to improve transportation safety in support of a shared goal –– providing better, safer and more accessible transportation to the public in our communities,” a Cruise spokesperson wrote in an email to Teslarati. “Over the past several months, we have taken important steps to improve our leadership, processes and culture, and we are committed to resolving matters to the Commission’s satisfaction as we work to restore regulatory and public trust.”
Cruise also noted that the accident, which occurred after the pedestrian had already been hit by a human driver, was partially caused by the driverless ride-hailing vehicle falsely identifying the situation as a side-impact collision rather than a frontal collision, causing the Minimal Risk Condition (MRC) response that forces the vehicle to pull over.
In addition, Cruise said it is currently expecting a new Chief Safety Officer in the “not too distant future,” after two co-founders resigned immediately following the accident, and after the company fired nine executives and laid off nearly a quarter of its staff on the same day in December.
GM recently announced plans to cut spending on Cruise in half this year, though it said it also hoped to “refocus and relaunch” the company’s operations. GM CEO Mary Barra highlighted significant changes at Cruise, which the company began implementing following the Quinn Emanuel investigation.
“At Cruise, we are committed to earning back the trust of regulators and the public through our commitments and our actions,” Barra said following GM’s 2023 earnings call.
You can see the full January 30 filing from Cruise below, including the findings from the Quinn Emanuel investigation, which Cruise made public last month.
What are your thoughts? Let me know at zach@teslarati.com, find me on X at @zacharyvisconti, or send your tips to us at tips@teslarati.com.
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
