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”]
Elon Musk
Tesla Giga Berlin growth could stall if not “free from external influences”: Elon Musk
The comments were delivered in a pre-recorded video discussion.
Tesla CEO Elon Musk has reportedly warned that future expansion of Gigafactory Berlin could be jeopardized if the site does not remain “free from external influences.”
Musk’s comments were delivered in a pre-recorded video discussion with employees and came at a sensitive moment for the facility, where union representation has been a recurring issue.
According to reports from Handelsblatt and Der Spiegel, citing participants at the event, Musk suggested that if Giga Berlin is no longer “free from external influences,” further expansion would become unlikely. He did not, however, hint that the plant would shut down.
While Musk did not name IG Metall directly, his remarks were widely interpreted as referencing the union, which is currently the largest faction on the works council but does not hold a majority, as noted in an electrive report.
The video conversation was conducted between Musk in Austin and Grünheide plant manager André Thierig, then played back to the workforce in Germany. Works council elections are scheduled for early March, heightening the tension between management and organized labor.
The CEO has previously voiced concerns that stronger union influence could limit Tesla’s operational flexibility and long-term strategy in Germany.
Despite the warning on expansion, Musk praised the Giga Berlin site during the same address, describing it as one of the most advanced factories worldwide and highlighting its cleanliness and team culture.
The discussion also reportedly touched on battery cell production. According to attendees cited in German media, Musk indicated that Tesla has begun ramping cell production at the site. That would mark a notable shift from earlier expectations that large-scale cell manufacturing in Brandenburg would not begin until 2027.
Elon Musk
Tesla Full Self-Driving’s newest behavior is the perfect answer to aggressive cars
According to a recent video, it now appears the suite will automatically pull over if there is a tailgater on your bumper, the most ideal solution for when a driver is riding your bumper.
Tesla Full Self-Driving appears to have a new behavior that is the perfect answer to aggressive drivers.
According to a recent video, it now appears the suite will automatically pull over if there is a tailgater on your bumper, the most ideal solution for when a driver is riding your bumper.
With FSD’s constantly-changing Speed Profiles, it seems as if this solution could help eliminate the need to tinker with driving modes from the person in the driver’s seat. This tends to be one of my biggest complaints from FSD at times.
A video posted on X shows a Tesla on Full Self-Driving pulling over to the shoulder on windy, wet roads after another car seemed to be following it quite aggressively. The car looks to have automatically sensed that the vehicle behind it was in a bit of a hurry, so FSD determined that pulling over and letting it by was the best idea:
Tesla appears to be implementing some sort of feature that will now pull over if someone is tailgating you to let the car by
Really cool feature, definitely get a lot of this from those who think they drive race cars
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) February 26, 2026
We can see from the clip that there was no human intervention to pull over to the side, as the driver’s hands are stationary and never interfere with the turn signal stalk.
This can be used to override some of the decisions FSD makes, and is a great way to get things back on track if the semi-autonomous functionality tries to do something that is either unneeded or not included in the routing on the in-car Nav.
FSD tends to move over for faster traffic on the interstate when there are multiple lanes. On two-lane highways, it will pass slower cars using the left lane. When faster traffic is behind a Tesla on FSD, the vehicle will move back over to the right lane, the correct behavior in a scenario like this.
Perhaps one of my biggest complaints at times with Full Self-Driving, especially from version to version, is how much tinkering Tesla does with Speed Profiles. One minute, they’re suitable for driving on local roads, the next, they’re either too fast or too slow.
When they are too slow, most of us just shift up into a faster setting, but at times, even that’s not enough, see below:
What has happened to Mad Max?
At one point it was going 32 in a 35. Traffic ahead had pulled away considerably https://t.co/bjKvaMVTNX pic.twitter.com/aaZSWmLu5v
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) January 24, 2026
There are times when it feels like it would be suitable for the car to just pull over and let the vehicle that is traveling behind pass. This, at least up until this point, it appears, was something that required human intervention.
Now, it looks like Tesla is trying to get FSD to a point where it just knows that it should probably get out of the way.
Elon Musk
Tesla Megapack powers $1.1B AI data center project in Brazil
By integrating Tesla’s Megapack systems, the facility will function not only as a major power consumer but also as a grid-supporting asset.
Tesla’s Megapack battery systems will be deployed as part of a 400MW AI data center campus in Uberlândia, Brazil. The initiative is described as one of Latin America’s largest AI infrastructure projects.
The project is being led by RT-One, which confirmed that the facility will integrate Tesla Megapack battery energy storage systems (BESS) as part of a broader industrial alliance that includes Hitachi Energy, Siemens, ABB, HIMOINSA, and Schneider Electric. The project is backed by more than R$6 billion (approximately $1.1 billion) in private capital.
According to RT-One, the data center is designed to operate on 100% renewable energy while also reinforcing regional grid stability.
“Brazil generates abundant energy, particularly from renewable sources such as solar and wind. However, high renewable penetration can create grid stability challenges,” RT-One President Fernando Palamone noted in a post on LinkedIn. “Managing this imbalance is one of the country’s growing infrastructure priorities.”
By integrating Tesla’s Megapack systems, the facility will function not only as a major power consumer but also as a grid-supporting asset.
“The facility will be capable of absorbing excess electricity when supply is high and providing stabilization services when the grid requires additional support. This approach enhances resilience, improves reliability, and contributes to a more efficient use of renewable generation,” Palamone added.
The model mirrors approaches used in energy-intensive regions such as California and Texas, where large battery systems help manage fluctuations tied to renewable energy generation.
The RT-One President recently visited Tesla’s Megafactory in Lathrop, California, where Megapacks are produced, as part of establishing the partnership. He thanked the Tesla team, including Marcel Dall Pai, Nicholas Reale, and Sean Jones, for supporting the collaboration in his LinkedIn post.
Tesla Giga Berlin growth could stall if not “free from external influences”: Elon Musk
Tesla Full Self-Driving’s newest behavior is the perfect answer to aggressive cars
