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
SpaceX just cleared a key FCC hurdle in its fight with Verizon and AT&T
The FCC accepted SpaceX’s bid for Grain’s 800 MHz spectrum, opening review for Starlink Mobile.
The Federal Communications Commission has formally opened its review of SpaceX’s plan to buy a nationwide block of 800 MHz spectrum from Grain Management, moving Starlink Mobile one step closer to operating as a full U.S. wireless carrier.
In a public notice issued Tuesday, the FCC’s Wireless Telecommunications Bureau said it accepted for filing the applications to transfer control of two Grain license companies, Prism License Co. 1 and Prism License Co. 2, to Starlink Spectrum Holdings, a wholly owned SpaceX subsidiary. The deal covers 546 paired licenses across 3,224 counties, reaching roughly 100% of the U.S. population in all 50 states, Washington, D.C., Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. The proceeding sits under WT Docket No. 26-313.
Acceptance is not approval. It means the applications cleared an initial review and the public comment window is now open. Comments and petitions to deny are due December 1, and oppositions are due December 8. The bureau also said the conditions attached to Grain’s July purchase of the licenses from T-Mobile, which require rapid buildout for terrestrial and direct to device service, would carry over to SpaceX if the transfer is approved.
SpaceX announced the agreement on October 8, saying the new airwaves would let Starlink Mobile’s signal reach phones inside buildings, something its 2 GHz spectrum from EchoStar cannot do as well. The portfolio includes up to 14 MHz of paired spectrum in the 817 to 824 MHz and 862 to 869 MHz bands, which most existing phones already support. Elon Musk called it “the last critical piece of the spectrum puzzle needed for SpaceX to provide complete phone coverage in America.”
According to the filing, SpaceX would hold up to 89 MHz of total spectrum in any given market after the deal closes, including up to 14 MHz below 1 GHz. That is far under the 385 MHz threshold the FCC uses to flag a transaction for closer competitive scrutiny, and well short of the roughly 300 MHz each of AT&T, Verizon and T-Mobile holds.
Tuesday’s notice does not decide how SpaceX can use the spectrum from orbit. A separate application SpaceX filed on October 27 seeking authority to provide supplemental coverage from space on the same frequencies, along with related waiver requests, is still pending before the commission.
The ground network is already taking shape. Last week, SpaceX picked Qualcomm to supply radios, baseband units and software for a nationwide 5G build, with deployment across tens of thousands of U.S. cell sites starting in 2027. The FCC also voted on October 29 to advance a proposal opening another 482 MHz to direct to device service, though AT&T, Verizon and T-Mobile hacritive pushed to strip nearly 300 MHz from it. SpaceX President Gwynne Shotwell has said service on SpaceX’s own airwaves is targeted for early 2028.
A Tesla upfitter has offered to take over Cybertruck lines from the company in a last-ditch effort to save the all-electric pickup from being completely canceled in the middle of 2027.
Unplugged Performance, the Hawthorne, California-based Tesla aftermarket specialist, has publicly offered to take over Cybertruck production from Tesla, funding the effort “through a consortium of investors.”
An open offer to Tesla: We fully support putting Cybercab first, and we’d be glad to take the Cybertruck line off your hands.
We’d fund it with a consortium of investors and run it at no cost to Tesla’s floor space, headcount, or focus. All of that goes to Cybercab. Cybercab gets first call on battery cells too. We’ll wait our turn.
Tesla gains incremental profit: a license fee, plus FSD and Robotaxi network revenues on every vehicle built.
We’d build the Cybertruck, a three-row CyberSUV, and an unmanned CyberCargo hauler. More autonomous miles, across every surface of this planet and beyond.
Worth a conversation?— UP (@UnpluggedTesla) November 10, 2026
The proposal comes as Tesla prioritizes its Cybercab Robotaxi program and prepares to wind down Cybertruck assembly at Gigafactory Texas around mid-2027.
Founded in 2013 by Ben Schaffer and located adjacent to Tesla’s Design Studio and SpaceX, Unplugged Performance has become a leading provider of premium upgrades for Tesla vehicles, including extensive Cybertruck packages under its UP INVINCIBLE line.
Through its UP.FIT division, the company has also developed purpose-built police and fleet versions of the Cybertruck, including deliveries to agencies such as the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department.
In an X post on Tuesday, Unplugged said:
“An open offer to Tesla: We fully support putting Cybercab first, and we’d be glad to take the Cybertruck line off your hands. We’d fund it with a consortium of investors and run it at no cost to Tesla’s floor space, headcount, or focus. All of that goes to Cybercab. Cybercab gets first call on battery cells too. We’ll wait our turn. Tesla gains incremental profit: a license fee, plus FSD and Robotaxi network revenues on every vehicle built. We’d build the Cybertruck, a three-row CyberSUV, and an unmanned CyberCargo hauler. More autonomous miles, across every surface of this planet and beyond. Worth a conversation?”
The arrangement would free Tesla resources and manufacturing capacity for Cybercab while allowing continued production of the stainless-steel pickup and expanded variants. Unplugged Performance indicated it would wait for battery cells after Cybercab needs are met and would generate ongoing revenue for Tesla through licensing and software/network services on the vehicles it produces.
Following strong initial interest, Unplugged Performance posted a follow-up inviting potential investors and strategic partners to email cyber@unpluggedperformance.com. The company clarified that the outreach is solely to gauge interest and does not constitute an offer to sell securities or acceptance of funds at this stage.
The proposal arrives shortly after Elon Musk indicated that Cybertruck production in Texas would be phased out by roughly the middle of 2027 to expand Cybercab output.
Whether Tesla engages with the offer remains to be seen, but the public overture highlights both the aftermarket specialist’s deep experience with the Cybertruck platform and the growing focus on autonomy within Tesla’s manufacturing plans.
Elon Musk said the Tesla Cybercab will perform “a majority of all passenger miles” where it is allowed to operate and that point is “obvious to anyone with eyes and a brain.”
Musk used the point to double down on the company’s decision to ax the cult-favorite Cybertruck, as its production space will be removed and transitioned into additional Cybercab lines. The move has catalyzed a polarizing conversation on whether its right or wrong.
Whatever side you are on — it’s happening.
Dodge ended the Viper.
Audi retired the R8.
Mitsubishi said goodbye to the Lancer Evo.
Ford bid farewell to the Bronco (at one point).
Chevrolet sunset the Camaro.Tesla is ending the Cybertruck. I’m pissed. I’m upset.
Fans of those five automakers mentioned did the same thing. It happens. It sucks. I don’t like it.
But I still love Tesla. I love my Model Y. I hoped to be in a Cybertruck in a little under two years.
I won’t be. But I still won’t put my family in anything else. Too safe. Too advanced. Too much better than everything else.
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) November 10, 2026
Regardless, Musk seems to be getting to the point that he is done talking about the choice. At some point, you have to think that this was truly a difficult decision for him and the company as well, and this is not something he took lightly. In fact, he’s probably a little bit disappointed with it, too.
But the point remains that the Cybertruck is gone. Musk’s focus is purely on developing an autonomous platform that the world will utilize for transportation, and he’s telling you that anyone “with eyes and a brain” can see it:
@PalmerLuckey @carlhancock Cybercab will do a majority of all passenger miles in any jurisdiction where it is not prohibited by law.
Obvious to anyone with eyes and a brain.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) November 10, 2026
Tesla is betting that all of its passengers in the future will be okay with not owning their own personal cars and will be fine with ride-hailing for the rest of their lives. Every dinner, every errand, every trip to the airport and transportation thereafter, will all be operated by ride-sharing, and in Tesla’s perfect world, it will happen in a Cybercab.
As of now, Cybercab is only active in Austin, but it has been spotted all over the country with a driver behind the wheel in those prototypes. In Austin, the car has no steering wheel or pedals for people to control the vehicle.
The Cybertruck dilemma is one that has truly come across the entire Tesla community and while it seems to be a great idea to keep it because people love it, the business side of things is steering Musk and Tesla in another direction.
SpaceX just cleared a key FCC hurdle in its fight with Verizon and AT&T
Tesla upfitter offers to keep Cybertruck alive
