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.
Tesla’s long-standing saga regarding its door handles and a manual release has entered its latest chapter, and as a result, a big change is coming.
On Friday, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) denied Tesla’s petition that was seeking a defect investigation into roughly 180,000 Model 3 vehicles for an issue involving the emergency mechanical door release.
🚨 The NHTSA denied a petition from Tesla that would have thrown out concerns regarding its door handles.
NHTSA said Tesla’s petition did not present evidence of a safety-related defect warranting an investigation. The agency said a rulemaking process would be a better strategy. pic.twitter.com/j6PzUBM1mT
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 24, 2026
NHTSA said that Tesla’s petition did not present evidence of a safety-related defect in the door handles or their emergency releases. Instead, the agency determined that it would rather solve the issue of the lack of labeling or location of emergency mechanical door releases and the federal safety rules that govern them.
Essentially, the NHTSA wants to create and enforce rules that would require automakers to make emergency door latch releases more clearly labeled in a car. Despite a Tesla having manual door releases on all four passenger doors, many people do not know they exist or how they work.
Tesla addresses door handle complaints with simple engineering fix
In recent times, Tesla has faced some criticism involving its door handles, specifically because some occupants have reported that they are unable to exit their vehicles after losing power. The door handles on a Tesla are electronically operated, but in the event that the 12V battery dies, there is a manual release that can be used.
The NHTSA only identified a single complaint involving the mechanical door releases: a 2022 Model 3 owner said the release was concealed and unlabeled after the vehicle lost power after a front-end collision. It has also already started to create a separate rulemaking process to make emergency door-egress systems more obvious.
It should be noted that all Teslas have mechanical emergency door releases, but they are placed in various locations as the vehicles have aged and been redesigned from year to year. Refer to the safety manual for your vehicle if you have any confusion about where the emergency releases are and how they work.
News
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 faces wrath of the Texas skies
SpaceX pushed Starship Flight 13 to Friday, blaming weather instead of the previous engine issues.
SpaceX called off Thursday’s launch attempt of Starship Flight 13, pushing the mission to Friday because of weather tied to Tropical Storm Bertha. The company confirmed the delay on X, noting “Now targeting Friday, July 24 for Starship’s thirteenth flight test, due to weather. A key objective for the flight test is to get clear imagery from the ground of Starship’s heatshield as it flies at a higher dynamic pressure during ascent, which won’t be possible with today’s weather conditions.”
This is the second delay for Flight 13 in two weeks. SpaceX first tried to launch the mission on July 16, but the countdown ended in an automated abort at T-0 when four of Super Heavy Booster 20’s 33 Raptor engines failed to ignite. Musk said at the time that two Raptors would need to be removed and replaced, as Teslarati reported. The company spent the following week destacking Ship 40 and Booster 20, swapping engines, and running leak checks before restacking the vehicle on Pad 2 Wednesday night, according to Spaceflight Now’s live coverage.
Unlike the engine problem, Thursday’s delay has nothing to do with the hardware. SpaceX wants clean footage of Starship’s heat shield captured from the ground as the vehicle flies through max dynamic pressure, something the storm’s cloud cover over South Texas would not allow. The company said visibility should improve for Friday’s attempt, with the same 90 minute window opening at 5:45 p.m. CT.
Flight 13 will be the second outing for the V3 versions of Starship and Super Heavy, following their debut on Flight 12 in May. The mission carries 20 production Starlink V3 satellites, the first time SpaceX has flown operational satellites rather than mass simulators on Starship. Six of those satellites are fitted with cameras to inspect the heat shield from a different angle during ascent, giving engineers a second data source beyond the ground imagery the weather is currently blocking.
Booster 20 will attempt a boostback burn and a splashdown landing burn in the Gulf of America, while Ship 40 follows a suborbital trajectory toward a landing in the Indian Ocean. The flight plan largely mirrors Flight 12, though the booster will run a more aggressive ascent burn after max Q this time, and the ship’s heat shield includes load sensing tiles meant to measure stress at the higher dynamic pressure SpaceX is targeting.
If Friday’s attempt succeeds, Flight 13 could be the last suborbital test in the program. SpaceX is already looking to push for an orbital flight on Flight 14.
Tesla stock (NASDAQ: TSLA) endured one of its sharpest single-day declines in years on July 23, tumbling approximately 14.5 percent and closing near $320 after opening the session around $374. The drop erased more than $140 billion in market value amid heavy trading volume and left the shares at multi-week lows.
The sell-off followed the company’s second-quarter 2026 results, released the previous evening. Tesla reported record revenue of $28.2 billion, up 26 percent year over year, driven by a Q2-record 480,126 vehicle deliveries. Energy storage deployments also rose strongly.
Tesla (TSLA) Q2 2026 earnings results: miss on EPS, beat on revenue
Yet profitability disappointed sharply. Operating income fell 57 percent to $398 million, compressing the operating margin to just 1.4 percent. Non-GAAP earnings per share came in at $0.33, well below the roughly $0.53 analysts had expected. Free cash flow turned negative by $1.1 billion as capital expenditures surged 142 percent to $5.8 billion, largely tied to accelerated spending on artificial intelligence, robotics, and autonomous systems.
The losses on capex were expected, as Tesla said it would be spending heavily in 2026.
Investors also reacted to lingering uncertainty surrounding key product timelines. During the Earnings Call, management reiterated ambitions for Robotaxi deployment and the Optimus humanoid robot, but offered limited new concrete milestones, renewing questions about execution pace that have long accompanied Tesla’s ambitious roadmap.
The magnitude of the decline places it among Tesla’s more severe one-day percentage losses since its 2010 initial public offering. Historically, the two largest single-day drops (split-adjusted) remain September 8, 2020, when shares fell 21.1 percent amid broader market volatility and valuation concerns, and January 13, 2012, with a 19.3 percent plunge during the company’s early growth struggles.
Other notable declines include an 18.6 percent drop on March 16, 2020, at the onset of pandemic-related market turmoil. Thursday’s move ranks roughly ninth on the all-time list but stands out as the steepest in more than a year.
Despite the short-term pain, Tesla’s long-term trajectory has repeatedly recovered from such volatility. The latest results underscore both the strength of its core automotive and energy businesses and the near-term costs of heavy investment in next-generation technologies.
Tesla door handle saga gets its latest chapter and a big change is coming
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 faces wrath of the Texas skies
