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.
News
Tesla Robotaxi appears to be heading to a new U.S. city
Things are expanding for Robotaxi, but the big sign that it is really moving along greatly will be with the expansion to a new city. Tesla has not gone outside of Austin or the Bay Area as of yet, and launching in a new city will be a great indicator of progress.
Tesla Robotaxi appears to be heading to a new U.S. city, and although the company has revealed plans to launch in six new metros this year, it has yet to establish a new location outside of Austin and the Bay Area of California, where it has operated since last Summer.
A lot full of Model Y vehicles was spotted in Henderson, a town just north of Las Vegas, but there seems to be more than just this hint indicating that the Sin City will be the next location to offer potentially driverless rides in a Tesla using its Full Self-Driving suite.
These Model Ys are not your typical vehicles, as they are fitted with hardware that is only on Robotaxis: a rear camera washer is the dead giveaway:
🚨 These rear camera washers are only present on Robotaxi vehicles
Maybe Las Vegas is the next city to get the Robotaxi suite 😀 https://t.co/my3da5L4zc pic.twitter.com/jYFQuX1j2E
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) March 17, 2026
The photos and video of the lot were taken by TheZacher on X, who spotted the Model Y fleet in the Henderson parking lot.
The rear camera washer is the main piece of evidence here that indicates Tesla could be looking to expand Robotaxi to Las Vegas, a major ride-hailing hot spot, as it is one of the biggest tourist attractions in the United States. Ride-sharing is a major industry in Vegas, especially for those who are staying off the Strip.
Tesla has also been extremely transparent that Vegas is on its radar for the Robotaxi fleet, as it revealed last year that it was one of five new U.S. cities that it planned to launch the ride-hailing service in this year.
Tesla confirms Robotaxi is heading to five new cities in the U.S.
The others were Phoenix, Dallas, Houston, and Miami.
Things are expanding for Robotaxi, but the big sign that it is really moving along greatly will be with the expansion to a new city. Tesla has not gone outside of Austin or the Bay Area as of yet, and launching in a new city will be a great indicator of progress.
It will also give Tesla a new benchmark against rival company Waymo, which has operated in Las Vegas for some time.
News
Tesla Roadster gets new unveiling date once again
Musk announced last year that the unveiling, which initially happened back in 2018, would take place on April Fool’s Day. Initial deliveries at the 2018 event were slotted for 2020, but delays in the project, as well as prioritization of other things, continued to push the Roadster back.
The Tesla Roadster is perhaps the most anticipated vehicle in the company’s history, but those who have been waiting anxiously for it will have to push their timelines back once again.
Tesla CEO Elon Musk has revealed that the company is once again pushing back the unveiling event that was originally planned for April 1. It will now take place “probably in late April.”
True.
New Roadster unveil probably in late April. https://t.co/NShZxpK5cI
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) March 17, 2026
Musk announced last year that the unveiling, which initially happened back in 2018, would take place on April Fool’s Day. Initial deliveries at the 2018 event were slotted for 2020, but delays in the project, as well as prioritization of other things, continued to push the Roadster back.
There has been so much hype about the Roadster that people are right to be excited about the prospect of its existence.
Musk’s most recent rumblings about the vehicle came last Fall, when he appeared on the Joe Rogan Experience podcast, where he once again hinted the car would be able to hover for a short period.
He said:
“Whether it’s good or bad, it will be unforgettable. My friend Peter Thiel once reflected that the future was supposed to have flying cars, but we don’t have flying cars. I think if Peter wants a flying car, he should be able to buy one…I think it has a shot at being the most memorable product unveiling ever. [It will be unveiled] hopefully before the end of the year. You know, we need to make sure that it works. This is some crazy technology in this car. Let’s just put it this way: if you took all the James Bond cars and combined them, it’s crazier than that.”
Additionally, he said the vehicle would not be something that would prioritize safety. Musk said that “If safety is your number one goal, do not buy the Roadster.” It’s made for speed and excitement, not for grocery-getting.
Elon Musk just said some crazy stuff about the Tesla Roadster
As the April 1 unveiling event that was originally planned was nearing without any communication to fans, media, or anyone who would potentially be in attendance, it seemed to be pretty obvious that Tesla was not ready to pull the trigger on the event quite yet.
There could be some last-minute things to finalize, or it could be something else. One thing is for certain, though: we are not super surprised that things were moved back.
Tesla has definitely been putting some things in motion for the Roadster. A few months back, Tesla started to ramp up hiring for the Roadster, and earlier in March, it submitted a patent application for a new seat design.
Elon Musk
Tesla named by U.S. Gov. in $4.3B battery deal for American-made cells
What began as an open secret in the energy industry was confirmed by the U.S. Department of the Interior on Monday: Tesla is the buyer behind LG Energy Solution’s blockbuster $4.3 billion battery supply agreement.
What began as an open secret in the energy industry is becoming more real after the U.S. Department of the Interior named Tesla as the stakeholder in the LG Energy Solution’s blockbuster $4.3 billion battery supply agreement.
Tesla and LG Energy Solution are expanding their partnership to build a LFP prismatic battery cell manufacturing facility in Lansing, Michigan, launching production in 2027. The announcement, made as part of the Indo-Pacific Energy Security Summit results, ends months of speculation.
“American-made cells will power Tesla’s Megapack 3 energy storage systems produced in Houston, creating a robust domestic battery supply chain.”, notes a press release on the U.S. Department of the Interior website.
Tesla has long utilized China’s Contemporary Amperex Technology Co. (CATL), the world’s largest LFP battery maker, as one of its primary suppliers. That relationship made financial sense for years, considering that Chinese LFP cells were cheap, abundant, and reliable. But with escalated tariffs on Chinese imports and an increasingly growing Tesla Energy business that’s particularly reliant on LFP cells for products including its Megapack battery storage units designed for utilities and large-scale commercial projects.
The announcement of a deepened partnership between LG Energy Solution and Tesla has strategic logic for both parties. For Tesla, it secures a tariff-compliant, domestically produced battery supply for its fast-growing energy division. LGES, now producing LFP batteries in Michigan, becomes the only major supplier currently scaling U.S. production, outpacing rivals like Samsung SDI and SK On. LG Energy Solution’s Lansing plant, formerly known as Ultium Cells 3, was previously operated as a joint venture with General Motors. LGES acquired GM’s stake in May 2025 and now fully owns the site, with a production capacity of 50 GWh per year. LG Energy said the contract includes options to extend the supply period by up to seven years and boost volumes based on further consultations.
For the broader industry, the ripple effects are significant. This deal signals that domestic battery manufacturing can be financially viable and not just aspirational. Utilities, energy developers, and rival automakers will take note as American-made LFP supply becomes a competitive reality rather than a distant promise.
For consumers, the benefits will take time but are real. A more resilient, U.S.-based supply chain means fewer price shocks from trade disputes, more stable Megapack availability for the grid storage projects that reduce electricity costs, and long-term downward pressure on energy storage prices as domestic production scales.
Deliveries are set to begin in 2027 and run through mid-2030, and as grid storage demand accelerates, reliable, US-made battery supply is no longer a future ambition. It is becoming a core requirement of the country’s energy strategy.
Tesla Robotaxi appears to be heading to a new U.S. city
Tesla Roadster gets new unveiling date once again
