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”]
News
Tesla aims to combat common Full Self-Driving problem with new patent
Tesla writes in the patent that its autonomous and semi-autonomous vehicles are heavily reliant on camera systems to navigate and interact with their environment.
Tesla is aiming to combat a common Full Self-Driving problem with a new patent.
One issue with Tesla’s vision-based approach is that sunlight glare can become a troublesome element of everyday travel. Full Self-Driving is certainly an amazing technology, but there are still things Tesla is aiming to figure out with its development.
Unfortunately, it is extremely difficult to get around this issue, and even humans need ways to combat it when they’re driving, as we commonly use sunglasses or sun visors to give us better visibility.
Cameras obviously do not have these ways to fight sunglare, but a new patent Tesla recently had published aims to fight this through a “glare shield.”
Tesla writes in the patent that its autonomous and semi-autonomous vehicles are heavily reliant on camera systems to navigate and interact with their environment.
The ability to see surroundings is crucial for accurate performance, and glare is one element of interference that has yet to be confronted.
Tesla described the patent, which will utilize “a textured surface composed of an array of micro-cones, or cone-shaped formations, which serve to scatter incident light in various directions, thereby reducing glare and improving camera vision.”
The patent was first spotted by Not a Tesla App.
The design of the micro-cones is the first element of the puzzle to fight the excess glare. The patent says they are “optimized in size, angle, and orientation to minimize Total Hemispherical Reflectance (THR) and reflection penalty, enhancing the camera’s ability to accurately interpret visual data.”
Additionally, there is an electromechanical system for dynamic orientation adjustment, which will allow the micro-cones to move based on the angle of external light sources.
This is not the only thing Tesla is mulling to resolve issues with sunlight glare, as it has also worked on two other ways to combat the problem. One thing the company has discussed is a direct photon count.
CEO Elon Musk said during the Q2 Earnings Call:
“We use an approach which is direct photon count. When you see a processed image, so the image that goes from the sort of photon counter — the silicon photon counter — that then goes through a digital signal processor or image signal processor, that’s normally what happens. And then the image that you see looks all washed out, because if you point the camera at the sun, the post-processing of the photon counting washes things out.”
Future Hardware iterations, like Hardware 5 and Hardware 6, could also integrate better solutions for the sunglare issue, such as neutral density filters or heated lenses, aiming to solve glare more effectively.
Elon Musk
Delaware Supreme Court reinstates Elon Musk’s 2018 Tesla CEO pay package
The unanimous decision criticized the prior total rescission as “improper and inequitable,” arguing that it left Musk uncompensated for six years of transformative leadership at Tesla.
The Delaware Supreme Court has overturned a lower court ruling, reinstating Elon Musk’s 2018 compensation package originally valued at $56 billion but now worth approximately $139 billion due to Tesla’s soaring stock price.
The unanimous decision criticized the prior total rescission as “improper and inequitable,” arguing that it left Musk uncompensated for six years of transformative leadership at Tesla. Musk quickly celebrated the outcome on X, stating that he felt “vindicated.” He also shared his gratitude to TSLA shareholders.
Delaware Supreme Court makes a decision
In a 49-page ruling Friday, the Delaware Supreme Court reversed Chancellor Kathaleen McCormick’s 2024 decision that voided the 2018 package over alleged board conflicts and inadequate shareholder disclosures. The high court acknowledged varying views on liability but agreed rescission was excessive, stating it “leaves Musk uncompensated for his time and efforts over a period of six years.”
The 2018 plan granted Musk options on about 304 million shares upon hitting aggressive milestones, all of which were achieved ahead of time. Shareholders overwhelmingly approved it initially in 2018 and ratified it once again in 2024 after the Delaware lower court struck it down. The case against Musk’s 2018 pay package was filed by plaintiff Richard Tornetta, who held just nine shares when the compensation plan was approved.
A hard-fought victory
As noted in a Reuters report, Tesla’s win avoids a potential $26 billion earnings hit from replacing the award at current prices. Tesla, now Texas-incorporated, had hedged with interim plans, including a November 2025 shareholder-approved package potentially worth $878 billion tied to Robotaxi and Optimus goals and other extremely aggressive operational milestones.
The saga surrounding Elon Musk’s 2018 pay package ultimately damaged Delaware’s corporate appeal, prompting a number of high-profile firms, such as Dropbox, Roblox, Trade Desk, and Coinbase, to follow Tesla’s exodus out of the state. What added more fuel to the issue was the fact that Tornetta’s legal team, following the lower court’s 2024 decision, demanded a fee request of more than $5.1 billion worth of TSLA stock, which was equal to an hourly rate of over $200,000.
Delaware Supreme Court Elon Musk 2018 Pay Package by Simon Alvarez
News
Tesla Cybercab tests are going on overdrive with production-ready units
Tesla is ramping its real-world tests of the Cybercab, with multiple sightings of the vehicle being reported across social media this week.
Tesla is ramping its real-world tests of the Cybercab, with multiple sightings of the autonomous two-seater being reported across social media this week. Based on videos of the vehicle that have been shared online, it appears that Cybercab tests are underway across multiple states.
Recent Cybercab sightings
Reports of Cybercab tests have ramped this week, with a vehicle that looked like a production-ready prototype being spotted at Apple’s Visitor Center in California. The vehicle in this sighting was interesting as it was equipped with a steering wheel. The vehicle also featured some changes to the design of its brake lights.
The Cybercab was also filmed testing at the Fremont factory’s test track, which also seemed to involve a vehicle that looked production-ready. This also seemed to be the case for a Cybercab that was spotted in Austin, Texas, which happened to be undergoing real-world tests. Overall, these sightings suggest that Cybercab testing is fully underway, and the vehicle is really moving towards production.
Production design all but finalized?
Recently, a near-production-ready Cybercab was showcased at Tesla’s Santana Row showroom in San Jose. The vehicle was equipped with frameless windows, dual windshield wipers, powered butterfly door struts, an extended front splitter, an updated lightbar, new wheel covers, and a license plate bracket. Interior updates include redesigned dash/door panels, refined seats with center cupholders, updated carpet, and what appeared to be improved legroom.
There seems to be a pretty good chance that the Cybercab’s design has been all but finalized, at least considering Elon Musk’s comments at the 2025 Annual Shareholder Meeting. During the event, Musk confirmed that the vehicle will enter production around April 2026, and its production targets will be quite ambitious.
Tesla aims to combat common Full Self-Driving problem with new patent
Delaware Supreme Court reinstates Elon Musk’s 2018 Tesla CEO pay package
