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
Waymo rider data hints that Tesla’s Cybercab strategy might be the smartest, after all
These observations all but validate Tesla’s controversial two-seat Cybercab strategy, which has caught a lot of criticism since it was unveiled last year.
Toyota Connected Europe designer Karim Dia Toubajie has highlighted a particular trend that became evident in Waymo’s Q3 2025 occupancy stats. As it turned out, 90% of the trips taken by the driverless taxis carried two or fewer passengers.
These observations all but validate Tesla’s controversial two-seat Cybercab strategy, which has caught a lot of criticism since it was unveiled last year.
Toyota designer observes a trend
Karim Dia Toubajie, Lead Product Designer (Sustainable Mobility) at Toyota Connected Europe, analyzed Waymo’s latest California Public Utilities Commission filings and posted the results on LinkedIn this week.
“90% of robotaxi trips have 2 or less passengers, so why are we using 5-seater vehicles?” Toubajie asked. He continued: “90% of trips have 2 or less people, 75% of trips have 1 or less people.” He accompanied his comments with a graphic showing Waymo’s occupancy rates, which showed 71% of trips having one passenger, 15% of trips having two passengers, 6% of trips having three passengers, 5% of trips having zero passengers, and only 3% of trips having four passengers.
The data excludes operational trips like depot runs or charging, though Toubajie pointed out that most of the time, Waymo’s massive self-driving taxis are really just transporting 1 or 2 people, at times even no passengers at all. “This means that most of the time, the vehicle being used significantly outweighs the needs of the trip,” the Toyota designer wrote in his post.
-->Cybercab suddenly looks perfectly sized
Toubajie gave a nod to Tesla’s approach. “The Tesla Cybercab announced in 2024, is a 2-seater robotaxi with a 50kWh battery but I still believe this is on the larger side of what’s required for most trips,” he wrote.
With Waymo’s own numbers now proving 90% of demand fits two seats or fewer, the wheel-less, lidar-free Cybercab now looks like the smartest play in the room. The Cybercab is designed to be easy to produce, with CEO Elon Musk commenting that its product line would resemble a consumer electronics factory more than an automotive plant. This means that the Cybercab could saturate the roads quickly once it is deployed.
While the Cybercab will likely take the lion’s share of Tesla’s ride-hailing passengers, the Model 3 sedan and Model Y crossover would be perfect for the remaining 9% of riders who require larger vehicles. This should be easy to implement for Tesla, as the Model Y and Model 3 are both mass-market vehicles.
Elon Musk
Elon Musk and James Cameron find middle ground in space and AI despite political differences
Musk responded with some positive words for the director on X.
Avatar director James Cameron has stated that he can still agree with Elon Musk on space exploration and AI safety despite their stark political differences.
In an interview with Puck’s The Town podcast, the liberal director praised Musk’s SpaceX achievements and said higher priorities must unite them, such as space travel and artificial intelligence. Musk responded with some positive words for the director on X.
A longtime mutual respect
Cameron and Musk have bonded over technology for years. As far back as 2011, Cameron told NBC News that “Elon is making very strong strides. I think he’s the likeliest person to step into the shoes of the shuttle program and actually provide human access to low Earth orbit. So… go, Elon.” Cameron was right, as SpaceX would go on to become the dominant force in spaceflight over the years.
Even after Musk’s embrace of conservative politics and his roles as senior advisor and former DOGE head, Cameron refused to cancel his relationship with the CEO. “I can separate a person and their politics from the things that they want to accomplish if they’re aligned with what I think are good goals,” Cameron said. Musk appreciated the director’s comments, stating that “Jim understands physics, which is rare in Hollywood.”
Shared AI warnings
Both men have stated that artificial intelligence could be an existential threat to humanity, though Musk has noted that Tesla’s products such as Optimus could usher in an era of sustainable abundance. Musk recently predicted that money and jobs could become irrelevant with advancing AI, while Cameron warned of a deeper crisis, as noted in a Fox News report.
-->“Because the overall risk of AI in general… is that we lose purpose as people. We lose jobs. We lose a sense of, ‘Well, what are we here for?’” Cameron said. “We are these flawed biological machines, and a computer can be theoretically more precise, more correct, faster, all of those things. And that’s going to be a threshold existential issue.”
He concluded: “I just think it’s important for us as a human civilization to prioritize. We’ve got to make this Earth our spaceship. That’s really what we need to be thinking.”
News
Blue Origin announces Super-Heavy New Glenn 9×4 to Rival SpaceX Starship
The announcement followed the company’s successful NG-2 launch on November 13.
Blue Origin has revealed plans to develop New Glenn 9×4, a “super heavy” rocket designed to deliver 70 metric tons to low-Earth orbit and directly compete with SpaceX’s Starship.
The announcement followed the company’s successful NG-2 launch on November 13, which deployed NASA’s ESCAPADE (Escape and Plasma Acceleration Dynamics Explorers) Mars mission and landed the first stage.
Upgraded engines and reusability
As noted in a Universe Today report, Blue Origin will roll out upgraded BE-4 engines producing 640,000 lbf each, up from 550,000 lbf, starting with NG-3. This should boost the New Glenn rocket’s total first-stage thrust to 4.5 million pounds. Upper-stage BE-3U engines are expected to improve from 320,000 lbf to 400,000 lbf over the next few flights as well.
“These enhancements will immediately benefit customers already manifested on New Glenn to fly to destinations including low-Earth orbit, the Moon, and beyond. Additional vehicle upgrades include a reusable fairing to support increased flight rates, an updated lower-cost tank design, and a higher-performing and reusable thermal protection system to improve turnaround time,” Blue Origin noted.
New Glenn “Super Heavy” 9×4
The super-heavy New Glenn 9×4, with nine BE-4s on the booster, four BE-3Us on the upper stage, will feature an 8.7-meter payload fairing. Blue Origin expects New Glenn 9×4 to be capable of transporting 70 metric tons to LEO, 14 tons to GSO, and 20 tons to trans-lunar injection, as noted by the company in a blog post. This is very impressive, as New Glenn 9×4’s capacity exceeds Falcon Heavy, SpaceX’s largest rocket available to consumers today. Falcon Heavy is capable of carrying up to 64 metric tons to low Earth orbit in a fully expendable configuration.
-->That being said, SpaceX’s Starship’s capacity is extremely impressive. As per SpaceX, Starship is designed to be capable of carrying up to 100-150 metric tonnes to orbit in its fully reusable configuration. At its expendable configuration, Starship’s capacity enters unheard-of territory, with SpaceX stating that the vehicle could transport 250 metric tonnes of cargo.
Waymo rider data hints that Tesla’s Cybercab strategy might be the smartest, after all
Elon Musk and James Cameron find middle ground in space and AI despite political differences
