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.
Investor's Corner
New drone video shows Tesla’s Optimus Factory reaching a turning point
New drone footage shows Tesla’s dedicated Optimus factory steel frame nearing completion at Giga Texas.
Tesla’s dedicated Optimus factory at Gigafactory Texas is closing in on a finished steel frame, according to drone footage posted Thursday afternoon by longtime site observer Joe Tegtmeyer. In the video, Tegtmeyer said structural steel assembly is now about five column grids away from reaching the building’s north perimeter beam, putting the primary skeleton in its final stretch roughly six months after Tesla broke ground on the North Campus site in late March.
The Giga Texas Optimus Factory latest update … construction keeps moving fast!
Steel assembly is now only about 5 column grids from the north perimeter beam. Concrete is going in on the three upper floors, rebar is still being laid for more pours, and footing / grade-beam work… pic.twitter.com/qvFPvwnYzW
— Joe Tegtmeyer 🚀 🤠🛸😎 (@JoeTegtmeyer) September 17, 2026
Tegtmeyer’s footage shows concrete already going in on three upper floors while crews continue laying rebar and pouring grade beam footings at ground level. That kind of parallel work, steel rising at one end of the site while concrete sets at the other, is a scheduling approach Tesla used at the original Giga Texas building and appears to be repeating here to save time before the plant’s targeted 2027 production start.
Teslarati has tracked the building’s progress since Tesla confirmed construction was officially underway in May, when the first steel structure went up on what was then bare, reclaimed land. The facility is part of a more than 5.2 million square foot expansion of Giga Texas’s North Campus that Tesla has said will eventually run nearly the length of the existing vehicle factory, over 4,000 feet, while sitting somewhat narrower. Musk has pegged the long term output target at 10 million Optimus units a year once the line is running at full capacity, a volume that would dwarf the one million unit pilot line Tesla is standing up separately at its Fremont, California factory.
Tesla Giga Texas to feature massive Optimus V4 production line
The Texas facility sits alongside another major buildout on the same campus. Terafab, the joint Tesla and SpaceX chip fabrication plant that will eventually supply the silicon running Optimus units in the field. Housing robot assembly and chip production on the same grounds is a deliberate supply chain decision, cutting down on the shipping and lead time that would otherwise sit between the two.
Tesla has not given an updated timeline beyond its previously stated goal of bringing high volume Optimus production online at the site in the summer of 2027. Fremont’s smaller pilot line began mass producing the current Gen 3 robot in January, with that plant expected to build tens of thousands of units this year primarily to generate the real world data Tesla needs to refine the robot’s software before Giga Texas ramps up. Six months of visible construction progress, tracked almost entirely through Tegtmeyer’s recurring drone flights, gives the clearest outside look yet at how seriously Tesla is treating that 2027 deadline.
Investor's Corner
Tesla and SpaceX take “Terafab” Trademark fight to Federal Court
Tesla and SpaceX sue a small Illinois firm after cease and desist letters over Terafab.
Tesla and SpaceX are asking a federal judge to rule that their planned Terafab chip factory does not infringe a small Illinois company’s trademark, a request that arrives only after months of quiet negotiation broke down this summer.
The dispute traces to May 18, when Tesla filed three U.S. trademark applications for “Terafab” and “Tesla Terafab,” covering semiconductor chips and related chip making services. TERA-print LLC, a nanotechnology company that has held a federal trademark for “Tera-Fab” since 2021, responded five days later with a cease and desist letter. According to the lawsuit, first reported by Reuters, TERA-print argued that Tesla and SpaceX’s use of “Terafab” would confuse consumers familiar with its own trademark, which covers a desktop photolithography printer sold to researchers for sensor and bioengineering work.
What stands out in the filing is the timing of TERA-print’s own paperwork. One day before sending that cease and desist letter, on May 22, TERA-print applied to expand its existing registration to cover semiconductor materials, silicon chips, nanoelectronic devices and AI design services, categories it had not previously claimed. Tesla and SpaceX call that filing opportunistic in their complaint, noting it arrived two months after Tesla’s public Terafab announcement and just days after Tesla’s own trademark applications went in.
Elon Musk launches TERAFAB: The $25B Tesla-SpaceXAI chip factory that will rewire the AI industry
By June 10, TERA-print was threatening to sue for federal trademark infringement, false designation of origin and unfair competition, the complaint states. Rather than wait to be sued, Tesla, SpaceX and SpaceXAI met with TERA-print six separate times between June and August trying to resolve the dispute directly. Those talks collapsed, and the companies filed for declaratory judgment this week in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, asking a judge to find that “Terafab” does not infringe TERA-print’s mark before TERA-print can file a claim of its own.
TERA-print isn’t backing down. The company told PCMag it discussed a settlement with Tesla as recently as September 2 and feels misled by what it called Tesla’s professed interest in settling. Its CTO, Andrey Ivankin, said TERA-print holds a Defense Department contract to fabricate semiconductors and partially owns Mattiq Inc., an AI company built on TERA-print’s products, and that the company will vigorously defend its rights.
Tesla and SpaceX argue the overlap is superficial. Terafab is planned as a $16.8 billion complex spanning roughly 100 million square feet at the Grimes County site SpaceX confirmed last month, built to produce chips for Optimus robots, Tesla’s AI computing needs and SpaceX’s orbital data center ambitions, a scale and purpose the companies say no reasonable consumer would confuse with a tabletop lab printer. TERA-print’s product line has stayed focused on lithography tools for biological and sensor research since it registered its mark in 2021.
The trademark fight is the second legal dispute tied to the Terafab project in the past week, following a separate SpaceX suit aimed at keeping company records about the facility out of public view, as KBTX reported. Whether construction proceeds under the Terafab name now depends on a federal judge in Austin.
News
NHTSA just escalated its Tesla Cybercab investigation in a big way
NHTSA escalated its Cybercab audit into a sworn Special Order with a September 30 deadline.
Federal regulators have moved from asking Tesla questions about its Cybercab to demanding sworn answers. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issued a Special Order that requires a Tesla officer to sign an affidavit attesting to the completeness of the company’s responses, with a deadline of September 30.
The order builds on Audit Query AQ26002, which NHTSA opened on September 3, the same day Tesla began commercial Cybercab service in Austin. Teslarati covered that initial inquiry when it surfaced, noting the agency wanted to understand how Tesla certified a vehicle with no permanently attached steering wheel, pedals, or mirrors as compliant with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. A Special Order is a different tool and converts a fact finding review into a legally enforceable demand, the same mechanism NHTSA used against Tesla in 2023 during its Autopilot investigation.
Several of the 21 requests target a specific gap in Cybercab’s design. One asks whether Tesla used temporarily attached human controls at any point to help certify the vehicle, and if so, which standards depended on that equipment being present. Another quotes an existing rule directly: “The service brakes shall be activated by means of a foot control.” Cybercab has no foot pedal. NHTSA wants a detailed explanation of how the vehicle satisfies that requirement, and how it complies without the kind of exemption granted to Zoox in July under Part 555, the regulatory pathway built for steering wheel free vehicles.
The order does not claim Cybercab is unsafe or that Tesla broke a rule. It requires Tesla to explain, under oath, the reasoning behind decisions the company already made when it self-certified the vehicle. That distinction matters, but so does the exposure. Motor1’s reporting, summarized here, put potential civil penalty exposure as high as $139 million if NHTSA later finds the certification was flawed, on top of whatever criminal risk comes with a false sworn statement.
Tesla has not said publicly how it plans to respond. Cybercab is still carrying passengers in Austin through the Robotaxi app while the September 30 deadline approaches, and the company has continued expanding the vehicle’s footprint even as the regulatory question remains open. The Special Order does not pause any of that and just sets a date by which Tesla has to put its certification logic on the record, with a company officer’s name attached to it.
New drone video shows Tesla’s Optimus Factory reaching a turning point
Tesla and SpaceX take “Terafab” Trademark fight to Federal Court
