News
Details behind Model X owner’s $5M+ class action lawsuit against Tesla
Following our report that a Model X owner has filed a class action law suit against Tesla, claiming a widespread defect in the vehicle’s onboard software causes sudden unattended acceleration (SUA), new details behind the suit have been obtained by Teslarati that shows a legal team aggressively targeting the core component to the Silicon Valley-based electric car maker’s fleet of vehicles.
The class action filed in federal district court claims Ji Chang Son – Korean star residing in Orange County, Calif. – crashed through his garage and into the living room of his home after his Tesla Model X accelerated suddenly and without warning on September 10, 2016, approximately one month after Mr. Son took delivery of the electric SUV. The suit claims that “Tesla has failed to properly disclose, explain, fix, or program safeguards to correct the underlying problem of unintended acceleration”, adding that “over sixteen thousand Model X owners with vehicles that could potentially accelerate out of control.
Son’s attorneys gave the court a full account of the development of the Model X, focusing on the company’s claim that the Model X is “the safest, fastest and most capable sport utility vehicle in history.” On the contrary, according to Son’s attorneys. They allege the Model X has a safety defect that permits the car to accelerate at full speed directly into solid objects, such as the exterior wall of Son’s home. In particular, they point out that 8 written complaints have already been filed with the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration from other Model X owners who report similar occurrences while driving their cars.
The lawsuit reads,
“Irrespective of whether the SUA events in the Model X are caused by mechanical issues with the accelerator pedal, an unknown failure in the electronic motor control system, a failure in other aspects of the electrical, mechanical, or computer systems, or some instances of pedal misapplication, the Model X is defective and unsafe. Tesla’s lack of response to this phenomenon is even more confounding when the vehicle is already equipped with the hardware necessary for the vehicle’s computer to be able to intercede to prevent unintended acceleration into fixed objects such as walls, fences, and buildings.
Despite repeated instances of Model X drivers reporting uncommanded full power acceleration while parking, Tesla has failed to develop and implement computer algorithms that would eliminate the danger of full power acceleration into fixed objects.This failure to provide a programming fix is especially confounding for a vehicle that knows when it is located at the driver’s home and is being parked in the garage, yet carries out an instruction, regardless of whether through an error by the vehicle control systems or by driver pedal misapplication, to accelerate at full power into the garage wall.
Further, not only has Tesla failed to fix the problems, it has chosen instead to follow in the footsteps of other automobile manufacturers and simply blame the driver.”
One problem, according to Son’s attorneys, is the software that controls the Automatic Emergency Braking system. Tesla has programmed that feature to disengage in order to allow drivers to make emergency maneuvers, “in situations where you are taking action to avoid a potential collision. For example:
- You turn the steering wheel sharply.
- You press the accelerator pedal.
- You press and release the brake pedal.
- A vehicle, motorcycle, bicycle, or pedestrian, is no longer detected ahead.”
In other words, say the attorneys, a Model X will drive straight into a solid wall if that is what the system thinks the driver wants it to do. “Apparently, this includes situations where the computer believes, rightly or wrongly, that the driver is commanding full power acceleration directly into fixed objects immediately in front of the vehicle.”
Class action lawsuits are complex and highly specialized legal actions. Federal law requires that the damages alleged for the entire class exceed $5 million. The plaintiff’s attorney have done so by claiming that Tesla is aware of at least two other instances in which drivers allege sudden unintended acceleration occurred while driving their Model X at low speeds. They then extrapolate those numbers to suggest that the rate of SUA incidents attributable to the Model X is 64 per 100,000 vehicles — substantially higher than for any other vehicle in history.
Page 12 of JI CHANG SON vs. TESLA MOTORS class action complaint
They point out that the incidence rate of SUA incidents for Toyota vehicles — which grabbed national headlines in 2010 — was far lower. They then go on to remind the court that Toyota paid several hundred million dollars to SUA victims as well as a $1.2 billion federal fine. Notice that the chart included in the pleadings shows an exaggerated and disproportionate projected SUA incidence rate for the Model X highlighted in bright red.
Tesla says its data retrieved from the vehicle’s blackbox shows the accelerator in Son’s Model X was fully depressed when the accident occurred. The question for the court will be whether the driver pressed the wrong pedal or whether the vehicle accelerated on its own. It is unclear whether a software failure would register the pedal as fully depressed even if it was not physically operated by the driver.
Plaintiffs always have the burden of proving their allegations. Attorneys for injured parties often rely on a legal doctrine known as res ipsa loquitur, which is Latin for “the thing speaks for itself.” Loosely translated, it means “we don’t know what is wrong with your product that you designed and built, but you know or should know.” Res ipsa loquitur shifts the burden of proof onto the defendant, which makes it much easier for a plaintiff to prevail in court.
One advantage the plaintiff gains from filing suit is the ability to discover what information Tesla has that is not yet public. Does Tesla know something it isn’t telling its customers? We may find out as this litigation goes forward.
We’ve provided a copy of the entire class action filing below.
[pdf-embedder url=”http://www.teslarati.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Son-vs-Telsa-class-action-8-16-cv-2282.pdf”]
Tesla CEO Elon Musk revealed today on the social media platform X that legacy automakers, such as Ford, General Motors, and Stellantis, do not want to license the company’s Full Self-Driving suite, at least not without a long list of their own terms.
“I’ve tried to warn them and even offered to license Tesla FSD, but they don’t want it! Crazy,” Musk said on X. “When legacy auto does occasionally reach out, they tepidly discuss implementing FSD for a tiny program in 5 years with unworkable requirements for Tesla, so pointless.”
I’ve tried to warn them and even offered to license Tesla FSD, but they don’t want it! Crazy …
When legacy auto does occasionally reach out, they tepidly discuss implementing FSD for a tiny program in 5 years with unworkable requirements for Tesla, so pointless. 🤷♂️
🦕 🦕
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) November 24, 2025
Musk made the remark in response to a note we wrote about earlier today from Melius Research, in which analyst Rob Wertheimer said, “Our point is not that Tesla is at risk, it’s that everybody else is,” in terms of autonomy and self-driving development.
Wertheimer believes there are hundreds of billions of dollars in value headed toward Tesla’s way because of its prowess with FSD.
A few years ago, Musk first remarked that Tesla was in early talks with one legacy automaker regarding licensing Full Self-Driving for its vehicles. Tesla never confirmed which company it was, but given Musk’s ongoing talks with Ford CEO Jim Farley at the time, it seemed the Detroit-based automaker was the likely suspect.
Tesla’s Elon Musk reiterates FSD licensing offer for other automakers
Ford has been perhaps the most aggressive legacy automaker in terms of its EV efforts, but it recently scaled back its electric offensive due to profitability issues and weak demand. It simply was not making enough vehicles, nor selling the volume needed to turn a profit.
Musk truly believes that many of the companies that turn their backs on FSD now will suffer in the future, especially considering the increased chance it could be a parallel to what has happened with EV efforts for many of these companies.
Unfortunately, they got started too late and are now playing catch-up with Tesla, XPeng, BYD, and the other dominating forces in EVs across the globe.
Tesla is backtracking on a strange adjustment it made to its in-car Navigation feature after numerous complaints from owners convinced the company to make a change.
Tesla’s in-car Navigation is catered to its vehicles, as it routes Supercharging stops and preps your vehicle for charging with preconditioning. It is also very intuitive, and features other things like weather radar and a detailed map outlining points of interest.
However, a recent change to the Navigation by Tesla did not go unnoticed, and owners were really upset about it.
For trips that required multiple Supercharger stops, Tesla decided to implement a naming change, which did not show the city or state of each charging stop. Instead, it just showed the business where the Supercharger was located, giving many owners an unwelcome surprise.
However, Tesla’s Director of Supercharging, Max de Zegher, admitted the update was a “big mistake on our end,” and made a change that rolled out within 24 hours:
The naming change should have happened at once, instead of in 2 sequential steps. That was a big miss on our end. We do listen to the community and we do course-correct fast. The accelerated fix rolled out last night. The Tesla App is updated and most in-car touchscreens should…
— Max (@MdeZegher) November 20, 2025
The lack of a name for the city where a Supercharging stop would be made caused some confusion for owners in the short term. Some drivers argued that it was more difficult to make stops at some familiar locations that were special to them. Others were not too keen on not knowing where they were going to be along their trip.
Tesla was quick to scramble to resolve this issue, and it did a great job of rolling it out in an expedited manner, as de Zegher said that most in-car touch screens would notice the fix within one day of the change being rolled out.
Additionally, there will be even more improvements in December, as Tesla plans to show the common name/amenity below the site name as well, which will give people a better idea of what to expect when they arrive at a Supercharger.
News
Dutch regulator RDW confirms Tesla FSD February 2026 target
The regulator emphasized that safety, not public pressure, will decide whether FSD receives authorization for use in Europe.
The Dutch vehicle authority RDW responded to Tesla’s recent updates about its efforts to bring Full Self-Driving (Supervised) in Europe, confirming that February 2026 remains the target month for Tesla to demonstrate regulatory compliance.
While acknowledging the tentative schedule with Tesla, the regulator emphasized that safety, not public pressure, will decide whether FSD receives authorization for use in Europe.
RDW confirms 2026 target, warns Feb 2026 timeline is not guaranteed
In its response, which was posted on its official website, the RDW clarified that it does not disclose details about ongoing manufacturer applications due to competitive sensitivity. However, the agency confirmed that both parties have agreed on a February 2026 window during which Tesla is expected to show that FSD (Supervised) can meet required safety and compliance standards. Whether Tesla can satisfy those conditions within the timeline “remains to be seen,” RDW added.
RDW also directly addressed Tesla’s social media request encouraging drivers to contact the regulator to express support. While thanking those who already reached out, RDW asked the public to stop contacting them, noting these messages burden customer-service resources and have no influence on the approval process.
“In the message on X, Tesla calls on Tesla drivers to thank the RDW and to express their enthusiasm about this planning to us by contacting us. We thank everyone who has already done so, and would like to ask everyone not to contact us about this. It takes up unnecessary time for our customer service. Moreover, this will have no influence on whether or not the planning is met,” the RDW wrote.
The RDW shares insights on EU approval requirements
The RDW further outlined how new technology enters the European market when no existing legislation directly covers it. Under EU Regulation 2018/858, a manufacturer may seek an exemption for unregulated features such as advanced driver assistance systems. The process requires a Member State, in this case the Netherlands, to submit a formal request to the European Commission on the manufacturer’s behalf.
Approval then moves to a committee vote. A majority in favor would grant EU-wide authorization, allowing the technology across all Member States. If the vote fails, the exemption is valid only within the Netherlands, and individual countries must decide whether to accept it independently.
Before any exemption request can be filed, Tesla must complete a comprehensive type-approval process with the RDW, including controlled on-road testing. Provided that FSD Supervised passes these regulatory evaluations, the exemption could be submitted for broader EU consideration.
Tesla CEO Elon Musk sends rivals dire warning about Full Self-Driving
Tesla backtracks on strange Nav feature after numerous complaints
