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”]
Cybertruck
Tesla Cybertruck gets long-awaited safety feature
Tesla has announced the rollout of its innovative anti-dooring protection feature to the Cybertruck via the 2026.8 software update.
Tesla is rolling out a new and long-awaited feature to the Cybertruck all-electric pickup, and it is a safety addition geared toward pedestrian and cyclist safety, as well as accidents with other vehicles.
Tesla has announced the rollout of its innovative anti-dooring protection feature to the Cybertruck via the 2026.8 software update.
This safety enhancement uses the vehicle’s existing cameras to detect approaching cyclists, pedestrians, or vehicles in the blind spot while parked. Upon attempting to open a door, if a hazard is detected, the system activates: the blind spot indicator light flashes, an audible chime sounds, and the door will not open on the initial button press.
Drivers must wait briefly and press the button again to override, providing crucial seconds to avoid an accident.
Anti-dooring protection now rolling out to @Cybertruck
This feature comes standard on every new Model 3, Model Y & Cybertruck – using cameras to delay door opening if a cyclist, pedestrian or other vehicle is detected approaching in your blind spot
— Tesla North America (@tesla_na) March 17, 2026
The feature, also known as Blind Spot Warning While Parked, comes standard on every new Model 3 and Model Y, and is now extending to the Cybertruck. Leveraging Tesla’s vision-based system without requiring new hardware, it represents a cost-effective software solution that builds on community suggestions dating back to 2018.
This technology addresses the persistent danger of “dooring,” where a driver opens a car door into the path of a passing cyclist or pedestrian.
Tesla implemented this little-known feature to make its cars even safer
Dooring incidents are alarmingly common in urban environments.
According to Chicago data, in 2011 alone, there were 344 reported dooring crashes, accounting for approximately 20 percent of all bicycle crashes in the city, nearly one incident per day.
While numbers have fluctuated (dropping to 11 percent in 2014 before rising again), dooring consistently represents 10-20 percent of bike-related crashes in major cities.
A national analysis of emergency department data estimates over 17,000 dooring-related injuries treated in the U.S. over a decade, with many involving fractures, contusions, and head trauma, particularly affecting upper extremities.
By automatically intervening, Tesla’s system not only protects vulnerable road users but also safeguards its owners from potential liability and enhances overall road safety.
As cities promote cycling for sustainable transport, features like this demonstrate how advanced driver assistance and camera systems can evolve beyond highway driving to everyday urban scenarios.
Enthusiastic responses on social media highlight appreciation for the proactive safety measure, with some calling for broader rollout to older models where hardware permits. Tesla continues to push the boundaries of vehicle safety through over-the-air updates, making its fleet smarter and safer over time.
Elon Musk
Tesla Roadster is ‘sorcery and magic’ and might be worth the wait, Uber founder says
Perhaps the wait will be worth it, especially according to Uber founder Travis Kalanick, who recently teased the Roadster’s potential capabilities based on what he has heard from internal Tesla sources.
Tesla is planning to unveil the Roadster in late April after years of waiting. But the wait might be worth it, according to Travis Kalanick, the founder of Uber, who recently shed some light on his expectations for the all-electric supercar.
We all know the Roadster is supposed to have some serious capability. CEO Elon Musk has said on numerous occasions that the Roadster will be unlike anything else ever produced. It might go from 0-60 MPH in about a second, it might hover, it might have SpaceX cold gas thrusters.
However, the constant delays in the Roadster program and its unveiling event continue to send Tesla fans into confusion because they’re just not sure when, or if, they’ll ever see the finished product.
Perhaps the wait will be worth it, especially according to Uber founder Travis Kalanick, who recently teased the Roadster’s potential capabilities based on what he has heard from internal Tesla sources.
Kalanick said on X:
When I’ve run into people who are in the know, I inquire, they tell me nothing, but their eyebrows raise and their eyes widen in a way that can only mean something of sorcery and magic is coming…
— travis kalanick (@travisk) March 17, 2026
Musk has said this vehicle is not going to be geared for safety, and that, “If safety is your number one goal, do not buy the Roadster.”
There has been so much hype regarding the Roadster that it is hard to believe the company could not come through on some kind of crazy features for the vehicle.
However, the latest delay that Tesla put on the unveiling event is definitely eye-opening, especially considering it is the latest in a series of pushbacks the company has put on the vehicle for the past several years.
Tesla has made several jumps in the Roadster project over the past few months, as it has ramped up hiring for the vehicle and also applied for a patent for a new seat design.
The car has been a back-burner project for Tesla, as it has been focusing primarily on autonomy and the rollout of Robotaxi and Cybercab. Additionally, its other vehicle projects, like the Model 3 and Model Y refreshes, took precedence.
Tesla still plans to unveil the Roadster next month, so we can hope the company can stick to this timeframe.
Cybertruck
Elon Musk clarifies viral Tesla Cybertruck accident with driver logs
Musk has come out to say that the driver logs have already shown that the driver “disengaged Autopilot four seconds before crashing,” in a post on X.
Tesla CEO Elon Musk has clarified some details regarding the viral Tesla Cybertruck accident with company driver logs, which show various metrics at the time of an incident.
The logs have been used in the past to pull responsibility off of Tesla when the automaker’s Full Self-Driving (Supervised) or Autopilot platforms are blamed for a collision or accident. It appears this will be no different.
On Tuesday, a video of a Cybertruck crashing into an overpass barrier in August 2025 was shared by Fox Business in a story that reported a woman was suing the automaker for $1 million in a liability and negligence case.
In the suit, Justine Saint Amour said that, “Something terrifying happened, without warning, the vehicle attempted to drive straight off an overpass.” Her attorney, Bob Hilliard, said Amour “tried to take control, but crashed into the barrier and was seriously injured (mostly her shoulder, neck, and back).”
The Tesla Model Y is leading China’s electric SUV segment by a wide margin
Tesla vehicle crashes are widely popular to report by mainstream media outlets because of the sensationalism of the event. Oftentimes, these outlets will include Tesla in the headline, especially because it will pique the interest of the masses, as most who read the story are waiting to see the claim that Autopilot or Full Self-Driving was the culprit of the accident.
However, Tesla has access to the logs of every vehicle in its fleet, which will show the various metrics, like whether either FSD or Autopilot was active, if the accelerator was pressed, the speed, and other important factors.
Musk has come out to say that the driver logs have already shown that the driver “disengaged Autopilot four seconds before crashing,” in a post on X.
Logs show driver disengaged Autopilot four seconds before crashing
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) March 18, 2026
If the logs do show this, which Tesla will likely have to prove in court, the real question would be why did the Amour disengage the suite?
Tesla’s Full Self-Driving suite is still not fully autonomous, meaning the driver cannot pull attention away from the road and must be ready to take over the vehicle at all times.
It will be interesting to see how this particular case pans out, especially considering the clip that was released by the law firm starts at about four seconds before the collision. Tesla logs have dispelled media reports in the past that have accused the company’s suite of being responsible for an accident, so there will be some major attention on what is proven in this particular case.
Tesla Cybertruck gets long-awaited safety feature
Tesla Roadster is ‘sorcery and magic’ and might be worth the wait, Uber founder says
