General Motors’ (GM’s) driverless ride-hailing company Cruise has been hit with its latest fine, after the company failed to disclose certain details about an accident involving a pedestrian last October.
Cruise has agreed to pay a $500,000 criminal fine over the record it submitted following an accident with a pedestrian last October, as detailed by the Department of Justice (DOJ) in deferred prosecution that was revealed on November 14 (via Automotive News). The decision was made within the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Northern District of California, and it comes as the most recent legal penalty the company has had to pay after regulators said it “omitted” and “misrepresented” details about the accident.
According to NHTSA special agent Cory Legars, who is overseeing the Cruise case, the fine is intended to help hold Cruise and its staff accountable, following a “lack of candor” in response to the 2023 crash in which a robotaxi dragged and pinned a pedestrian.
The DOJ echoed the company’s withholding of certain details following the accident, which caused “multiple traumatic injuries” for the pedestrian, according to emergency responders. Cruise has also been criticized over its response to the accident by other agencies, including the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) and the state’s Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV).
Along with the fine, Cruise must also implement a safety compliance program, submit yearly reports to the U.S. Attorney’s Office, and cooperate with all government agency investigations.
In a written statement, Cruise Chief Administrative Officer Craig Glidden said that company maintained a “firm commitment to transparency with our regulators.”
Cruise leadership pledges more transparency, greater culture of safety in new letter
Cruise’s October 2023 accident and other crash response fines
In the accident, which took place on October 2, 2023, a Cruise robotaxi struck a pedestrian moments after she had been hit by a car with a human driver. The pedestrian ended up in the path of the Cruise vehicle, which hit her, dragged her about 20 feet, and engaged an emergency stop sequence that caused the vehicle to stop on top of her with hazard lights on until authorities arrived.
Following the accident, the DMV and other agencies noted that Cruise avoided sharing certain details, including exactly what the robotaxi did after it ran over the individual. Weeks later, Cruise disclosed a more full version of events, but it was only after the DMV specifically requested more details. The agency also suspended Cruise’s permit to operate self-driving vehicles, effective immediately.
“Cruise’s omission hinders the ability of the department to effectively and timely evaluate the safe operation of Cruise vehicles and puts the safety of the public at risk,” said Bernard Soriano, DMV deputy director, after the accident.
In the following weeks and months, Cruise would go on to see a significant staff and executive shake-up, with its two co-founders resigning alongside several other high-level employees. The company also went on to let go of around a quarter of its staff, before hiring several new executives in attempts to regain public and regulator trust and relaunch the service.
Cruise is currently aiming to reboot driverless ride-hailing sometime this year, though it has faced multiple fines from agencies and regulators in addition to the $500,000 agreement with the DOJ.
In June, following months of commission deliberation, Cruise was ordered by the CPUC to pay the maximum penalty of $112,500 for its crash response, after the company originally lobbied for a fine of just $75,000. In September, the NHTSA ordered Cruise to pay a $1.5 million fee, along with submitting a corrective action plan and additional details on how the company plans to fulfill reporting standards in any future incidents.
What are your thoughts? Let me know at zach@teslarati.com, find me on X at @zacharyvisconti, or send us tips at tips@teslarati.com.
Cruise robotaxi pedestrian accident review concludes with strange findings
Elon Musk flew under the radar with his recent purchase of a $1 billion energy company, according to Federal Trade Commission (FTC) documents.
Transaction number 202612350 listed Tesla and SpaceX frontman Elon Musk as the acquiring party and CF APR Super Holdings LLC as the seller, with New APR Energy, LLC as the acquired entity. The deal, which closed without public announcement, came to light on May 14.
BREAKING: Elon Musk acquires Jacksonville power company APR Energy in a deal valued at more than $1,000,000,000.00.
— Polymarket Money (@PolymarketMoney) July 15, 2026
Analysts inferred the deal’s scale from minority stakeholder disclosures, including one report of a 5 percent interest sold for approximately $50.4 million. Fortress Investment Group had purchased APR’s assets in late 2024, rebranded the operation as New APR Energy, and subsequently transferred ownership to Musk.
APR Energy specializes in rapidly deployable power infrastructure. The company maintains one of the world’s largest fleets of mobile gas and diesel turbines, with more than 1.1 gigawatts of generation capacity. Its modular units, which are often trailer-mounted, enable turnkey installations ranging from 20 MW to over 500 MW.
APR provides full engineering, procurement, construction, operation, and maintenance services for behind-the-meter power plants, serving everything from data centers, utilities, and industrial clients.
The firm has expanded aggressively to meet surging demand, recently adding turbines and deploying over 100 MW for a major AI hyperscaler. Its solutions bridge critical gaps where grid interconnections face delays of two to five years, according to Yahoo.
The acquisition means something more for Musk. As he continues to expand projects in artificial intelligence, especially xAI, his AI venture, there is a greater need to supply energy-intensive supercomputing clusters, including the Colossus project, with what they need: reliable and high-capacity power.
Ownership of APR provides immediate access to flexible generation assets that can be deployed adjacent to data centers, reducing dependence on a strained infrastructure. It also complements Tesla’s energy storage business, so Musk will be able to pull from his own entities to address the rapid scaling demands of AI training and compute.
Tesla had a petition protesting a recall to fix a potential issue with 2017-2023 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles’ headlights was denied, as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) disagreed with the company’s opinion of things.
The recall covers approximately 19,917 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles built from 2017 to 2023. Tesla initially submitted a noncompliance report for the headlights on these vehicles on March 15, 2024. Tesla then petitioned for an exemption from the fix, which violated FMVSS No. 108 (40 CFR 571.108), arguing that the “noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
🚨 Tesla was denied a petition by the NHTSA to avoid a recall of 19,900 2017-2023 Model 3 and Model Y vehicles.
The NHTSA found that the vehicles’ headlights may exceed maximum lighting levels. Tesla argued it was inconsequential and did not require a recall. pic.twitter.com/m8Jmm1teLL
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 16, 2026
The NHTSA disagreed, stating that Tesla’s conclusion that the headlights do not increase any risk was not an opinion it shared. The agency said it disagreed with Tesla’s assumption that glare is not increased to surrounding traffic. This issue could be highlighted even more in certain weather conditions.
Tesla will be required to remedy the issue, the NHTSA ruled:
“In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that Tesla has not met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 108 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Tesla’s petition is hereby denied, and Tesla is consequently obligated to provide notification of and free remedy for that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.”
The issue here appears to be the angle of the headlights and the brightness they emit during operation. The NHTSA report states that:
“Tesla’s headlamp supplier, Marelli Automotive Lighting, tested 25 right-hand and 25 left-hand lamps, and for this sample, found the maximum photometric intensity measured in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone was between 136.2 cd and 230.1 cd for the right-hand lamps and between 117.5 cd and 160.3 cd for the left-hand lamps. According to Tesla, these tests revealed that the photometric intensity of the right-hand and left-hand headlamp lower beam on the subject vehicles may measure as much as 230.1 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone, exceeding the maximum photometric intensity by 105.1 cd. Additionally, Tesla states that a left-hand lamp tested by a Transport Canada recognized laboratory measured a maximum of 171.27 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone. Despite these measurements exceeding the allowed photometric maximum of 125 cd, Tesla believes that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.”
Tesla also argued at some points that the headlights had not been deemed responsible for any complaints, accidents, or injuries related to the noncompliance.
Lifestyle
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
The NTSB confirmed the driver, not Tesla’s FSD, caused the fatal Texas house crash.
The National Transportation Safety Board released preliminary findings Wednesday confirming that a Tesla driver, not the vehicle’s software, caused a fatal crash in Katy, Texas in June. The driver, 44-year-old Michael Butler, had engaged Full Self-Driving Supervised mode on Rose Hollow Lane, a residential street with a 30 mph speed limit, before manually overriding the system by pressing the accelerator pedal all the way to 100%. Data recovered from the 2025 Tesla Model 3 showed the vehicle was traveling over 70 miles per hour when it struck a home and killed 76-year-old Martha Avila, who was inside. Weather was clear, the road was dry, and it was daylight.
Texas man charged in fatal Tesla crash where he blamed Autopilot
Butler told authorities he had passed out at the wheel. But security camera footage obtained by the NTSB told a different story, and showed the car accelerating through an intersection before leaving the road entirely. Police also found that Butler’s phone had Google searches including the terms “Tesla FSD not aggressive enough 2026” and “Tesla FSD too timid,” raising serious questions about how he was using the system before the crash. Butler has since been charged with manslaughter. The victim’s family has filed a lawsuit against both Butler and Tesla, alleging negligence.
The NTSB findings aligned directly with what Tesla VP of AI Software Ashok Elluswamy had already stated publicly on X in the weeks after the crash, writing that “the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100%.” The data confirmed his account.
Yup. In this case, the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100% of the accel pedal in this residential area. They reached a speed of 73 mph during the crash, and had the accelerator pressed even after the crash.
— Ashok Elluswamy (@aelluswamy) June 22, 2026
Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future
Tesla has to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says
