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 Robotaxi app update now tells riders if Cybercab is the better choice
Tesla’s Robotaxi app now shows ETAs, wait times and availability for Cybercab and Model Y.
Tesla has rolled out a new vehicle selection screen in its Robotaxi app, and it puts the numbers riders care about most in front of them before they book.
Version 26.11.0 of the app shows the estimated arrival time, the expected wait and current availability for each vehicle option on a single screen, according to a video shared by @gheeunit on X on November 7. Riders deciding between a Cybercab and a Model Y Robotaxi can now compare those figures side by side instead of picking a car first and learning how long it will take afterward.
Tesla first gave riders that choice on September 3, the day paid Cybercab rides began in Austin. The original version of the screen listed the Cybercab, which seats two, next to the Model Y, which seats four. A later build, 26.8.2, added a seating capacity indicator so groups knew which car would fit them. What it did not show was whether choosing the Cybercab meant standing on the curb a few extra minutes.
Newest version of @robotaxi app has a new vehicle selector UI for choosing between Cybercab and Model Y and shows you the fare for both simultaneously! https://t.co/7qoDQ0vACX — mantequilla 🧈 (@gheeunit) November 7, 2026
That question matters more now than it did two months ago. Tesla had 45 Cybercabs on the Texas DMV roster when rides started. By late October the state listed 573, alongside 631 Model Ys, and community trackers logged a record 1,576 Cybercab sightings across Austin on Halloween alone. With two large fleets sharing one service area, the closest car and the quickest pickup are not always the same vehicle.
Inline availability also changes what happens when demand spikes. If no Cybercab is free nearby, the rider sees that on the selection screen rather than after trying to book one.
For now the comparison is mostly an Austin feature. Riders in Dallas, Houston, Fort Worth and the Florida markets are still matched with Model Y vehicles, though Tesla said on its third quarter earnings call that Cybercab rides would launch in Dallas this month.
The update follows a steady run of smaller changes to the rider experience. Late last month Tesla brought a quiet mode that blacks out the cabin screen to Model Y Robotaxis after first testing it in the Cybercab, and it has stretched Austin service to run from 6 a.m. to 2 a.m.
The Cybercab side of that selection screen is about to get much busier. Elon Musk said this week that Tesla will wind down Cybertruck production at Gigafactory Texas around the middle of 2027 to make room for more Cybercab output, and Tesla has said it is aiming to get Cybercabs to customers by the end of this year.
Tesla has not published official release notes for version 26.11.0.
Tesla is ending Cybertruck production sometime in mid-2027, according to CEO Elon Musk.
Musk made the announcement on X last night, which came as a shock to many. He said that the Cybertruck will end production “to make room for increased Cybercab production” at Gigafactory Texas.
It is a huge blow to the fans of Tesla who have come to love the Cybertruck and identify with it as a symbol of their fandom. It has been the best-selling electric pickup, but it has had an underwhelming sales performance in terms of what was expected. This is mostly due to Tesla not meeting the prices it planned to offer the Cybertruck, as its unveiling and actual release were four years apart.
Tesla will be winding down production of the Cybertruck at Gigafactory Texas around the middle of next year to make room for increased Cybercab production
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) November 6, 2026
Overall, the responses were mixed. Some fans understood the move toward Cybercab production, especially as Tesla is truly pushing the autonomous future through its Robotaxi platform. However, others did not understand it.
“Damn, how many Cybercabs do you guys need?” one response read. Another said it was “Sad but understandable.”Even analyst Gary Black had responded to the news, stating he hoped Tesla planned to replace it with a traditional pickup design.
It doesn’t seem like that will be the case.
Tesla is so hell-bent on delivering autonomy and eventually providing a driverless service that owning a car seems like an arbitrary idea, according to their thesis. Instead, Cybercabs will be available to pick you up and drop you off on demand, safely, without any human help.
As a result, Tesla has thinned its lineup considerably, and one can only ask where the vehicle lineup goes from here. Eventually, it seems like Cybercab could be the only vehicle that Tesla will sell.
Elon Musk
SpaceX’s next Starship flight set to make history on Friday the 13th
SpaceX is targeting Friday, November 13 for Starship Flight 15 and its first ship catch.
SpaceX is targeting Friday, November 13 for Starship Flight 15, the mission the company plans to use for its first attempt at catching the ship itself with the launch tower.
SpaceX Vice President of Launch Kiko Dontchev shared the date on stage at the UP.Summit on Thursday, according to Ars Technica’s Eric Berger, who was in attendance. It is the first launch target to come directly from a SpaceX executive. Until now, the public schedule had relied on FAA air traffic planning slides, which listed Flight 15 for no earlier than November 8 and later November 12. SpaceX has not posted an official mission page yet, and no launch time has been shared.
The date lands inside the window Elon Musk sketched out last month. Speaking at Giga Texas on October 10, Musk said the flight would “probably launch a little bit before Thanksgiving,” as Teslarati reported. On SpaceX’s third quarter earnings call ten days later, he confirmed that Flight 15 would try to catch both the Super Heavy booster and the ship, and put the odds of a successful ship catch at “more likely than not.” SpaceX also aired an animation of the maneuver during that webcast, showing the ship swinging vertical over Starbase before dropping into the tower’s chopsticks.
The hardware is ready. Booster 22 fired all 33 of its Raptor engines for a full duration static fire at Pad 2 on October 25. Ship 42 followed with a single engine burn simulating a deorbit maneuver on October 26 and a 60 second firing of all six engines the next day, according to NASASpaceflight. Ship 42 had already rehearsed the catch in September, when the Pad 2 arms lifted it into position and crews connected the quick disconnect arm while the vehicle hung from the tower.
The remaining hurdle is regulatory. The FAA’s Starship page does not yet list a Flight 15 license. SpaceX President Gwynne Shotwell said in October that, after “significant constructive engagement with the FAA,” she expects the license to cover a return to the launch site and a tower catch for both stages. Bringing the ship home means a reentry path that heads toward land, rather than ending over open ocean as every Starship flight so far has.
SpaceX has caught Super Heavy three times, on Flights 5, 7 and 8, but the ship comes back from orbital velocity and has never been caught. Flight 14 on September 28 was the first Starship to reach orbit, deploying 26 Starlink V3 satellites before splashing down despite an early engine shutdown that Musk blamed on engine computer software.
Musk has called a successful ship catch “the first time that there’s been full recovery of an orbital class rocket,” and he has already named the step after it: a Flight 16 where both the booster and the ship fly again. NASASpaceflight reports that Ship 43, the next vehicle in line, is set for static fire testing in December.
Tesla Robotaxi app update now tells riders if Cybercab is the better choice
Tesla is ending Cybertruck production
