News
EXCLUSIVE: Neuralink dragged into humane testing lawsuit – Timeline of Events
Neuralink has been dragged into a lawsuit by the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine against the University of California at Davis. The lawsuit, which is amended from its initial filing date of May 2021, seeks to have UC Davis release images and video of inhumanely-treated test subjects, including monkeys, who died after participating in some trials of Neuralink-sponsored research for the development of neural interface implant devices. We have put together an exclusive timeline of events based on interviews and an examination of over 700 pages of documents that UC Davis was required to turn over to the PCRM.
The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) is a nonprofit organization with more than 17,000 doctor members. It filed a formal complaint with the United States Department of Agriculture today, claiming UC Davis and Neuralink staff violated the federal Animal Welfare Act related to experiments performed on 23 monkeys. Neuralink paid more than $1.4 million to UC Davis to carry out the experiments.
The PCRM said in a press release that Neuralink and the University “failed to provide dying monkeys with adequate veterinary care, used an unapproved substance known as “Bioglue” that killed monkeys by destroying portions of their brains, and failed to provide for the psychological well-being of monkeys assigned to the experiment.”
In an exclusive interview with Teslarati earlier today, Jeremy Beckham, MPA, MPH, PCRM’s Research Advocacy Coordinator, said that the lawsuit really intends to open up “basic facts about what Neuralink testing did to the animals.” Beckham said monkeys had their brains mutilated in the experiments. Veterinary records, which were shared with Teslarati by the PCRM, show that UC Davis and Neuralink staff performed invasive and deadly experiments on monkeys to assess the effectiveness of the Neuralink device. The letter sent from the PCRM to the USDA earlier today gives several graphic descriptions of how the test animals were treated.
RELATED:
Neuralink details humane animal treatment during Link v0.9 testing
One animal, known as “Animal 6,” was a 6-year-old macaque monkey who was killed on January 16, 2019. The letter states that, on October 10, 2018, implanted electrodes “were placed using an investigational robot,” then, “attached to skull using titanium implant screws.” The location of the screws began to become infected, according to the letter. By January 14th, “Animal 6” had started to pick at the infected area. Staff euthanized the monkey two days later.
Timeline of Events
PCRM has been working to clarify the situation since September 2020, but a more descriptive timeline of events would clarify how Neuralink, UC Davis, and the PCRM have all combined into this issue.
- May 2017 – The University of California at Davis and Neuralink sign and agree to Non-Disclosure Agreements regarding testing.
- September 2017 – UC Davis and Neuralink officially begin their collaboration to carry out primate experiments at UC Davis facilities. The goal is to develop a brain-machine interface.
- July 2018 – “Animal 4,” an 11-year-old macaque monkey is killed in the Neuralink/UC Davis experiments, according to the complaint. The monkey was “on anti-depressants and had chronic diarrhea and poor appetite.” Additionally, the monkey was observed as “lethargic” and “depressed,” and hunched and passed bloody diarrhea. The monkey eventually died in a deadly procedure on July 20th.
- Also in July 2018 – “Animal 12,” approximately 7-years-old, undergoes a craniotomy and electrode insertion procedure. Records show the animal had “severe clinical adverse effects following the implantation, had poor stool quality, was not eating, and had an eye infection.” Records abruptly ended on July 30th.
- September 2018 – “Animal 21,” a 7-year-old female macaque undergoes an “electrode insertion survivability” procedure using “investigational robotics.” The animal was observed with adverse side effects the following day, including vomiting, gasping, retching, and had little interaction with their environment and observers. The animal was euthanized and had signs of “Bioglue,” an unapproved adhesive, covering the brain.
- December 2018 – “Animal 15,” a 7-year-old female macaque undergoes a craniotomy and recording device implantation. Following the surgery, the area became infected and bloody. The animal was euthanized on March 21, 2019. The performed necropsy shows “remnant electrode threads.”
- January 2019 – “Animal 6,” a 6-year-old macaque monkey is killed as a part of the “experimental design.” Electrodes were secured by screws drilled into the monkey’s skull, and lab staff were forced to “frequently clean” the eroding skin near the monkey’s implant site.
- March 2019 – “Animal 11” is killed at approximately 11-years-old during a terminal procedure. The monkey had an implant placed on the head or brain on December 3rd, 2018, and began experiencing symptoms like a weakened appetite and missing fingers and toes, possibly caused by self-mutilation.
- January 2020 – “Animal 5,” another macaque monkey is killed “inadvertently” by an anticonvulsant. He showed signs of significant weight loss and alopecia.
- July 2020 – Neuralink’s Elon Musk announces that the company will hold an event on August 28th, 2020, to display the progress of the V0.9 device. “Will show neurons firing in real-time on August 28th. The matrix in the matrix,” Musk said in a Tweet.
- Also in July 2020 – Neuralink receives a ‘breakthrough device’ designation from the FDA in July, and the company is working with the agency to make the technology as safe as possible.
- August 2020 – Neuralink unveils the v0.9 device, displaying healthy and functioning pigs. Musk delivers a presentation on the new device, showing the simplified product Neuralink has developed. “It’s like a FitBit in your skull with tiny wires,” Musk half-joked. “I could have it right now and you wouldn’t even know. Maybe I do!” The device is said to be installed without general anesthesia. There will be no bleeding, and no noticeable damage after the device is implanted.
- September 2020 – The PCRM files a California Public Records request, wishing for information regarding UC Davis trials of the Neuralink device. The request is eventually denied in accordance with California State Code 6255(a), which says that the Agency “shall justify withholding any record by demonstrating that the record in question is exempt under express provisions of this chapter or that on the facts of the particular case the public interest served by not disclosing the record clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of the record.”
- October 2020 – “Animal 10,” an 8-year-old macaque monkey, is shipped to Neuralink’s facility in Fremont. The monkey has significant hair loss, had lesions from “unspecified traumas,” and was exhibiting self-mutilating behavior.
- November 2020 – Neuralink severs ties with UC Davis on November 11. Neuralink then moves seven of the remaining monkeys to its facility in Fremont, California. Beckham said that records show 15 of the 23 monkeys used in the research died or were euthanized at UC Davis. The final monkey’s situation is unclear, but it is possible the animal was reassigned to a different project at UC Davis, Beckham said.
- April 2021 – Neuralink releases a YouTube video of “Pager the Monkey” allegedly playing video games with a wireless neural interface. The video features a nine-year-old Macaque named Pager playing “MindPong” while utilizing a Neuralink device.
- May 2021 – PCRM sues the University of California Davis under the California Public Records Act (CPRA) for not releasing records in September 2020. Before the suit reaches a judicial decision, Counsel for the University of California agrees to release 700 pages of information.
- October 2021 – University of California’s General Counsel turns over files including animal testing records and veterinarian reports to PCRM. More than 700 pages of records are turned over.
- February 2022 – PCRM files a separate complaint with the U.S. Department of Agriculture that alleges the information the organization has already received reveals evidence of violations of Federal Animal Welfare laws.
Moving Forward
Beckham maintains that the main point of the newest filing is to have UC Davis turn over photographs and videos that reveal the inhumane treatment of the animals due to the experiments. There are monkeys convulsing, vomiting, and dying in these labs,” Beckham said. “People want to step in line for the first human trials, and they should see this before they commit to that,” he told Teslarati. Neuralink was set for human trials this year, Musk said last year.
Beckham said that these complaints can take a while to work through the legal system. “In my years of being involved with humane testing litigation, I know that these things can take some time. Maybe up to a year,” he said. “It also depends how much they want to fight back.”
Neuralink did not immediately respond to our requests for comment.
Beckham’s full letter to the USDA is available below.
2022-02-10 PCRM USDA Complaint Re UC Davis and Neuralink (No Exhibits) by Joey Klender on Scribd
I’d love to hear from you! If you have any comments, concerns, or questions, please email me at joey@teslarati.com. You can also reach me on Twitter @KlenderJoey, or if you have news tips, you can email us at tips@teslarati.com.
Elon Musk said today on X that Teslas will start to learn your individual preferences. This is something that he seemed to hint toward earlier this month when he said parking was by far the biggest reason drivers intervene with Full Self-Driving.
Musk made the comment in response to notable Tesla influencer Whole Mars, who said that his vehicle will sometimes disobey the settings he has enabled for his car. He responded to the post, stating that “The car will start to remember your specific interventions and match each person’s individual preferences.”
The car will start to remember your specific interventions and match each person’s individual preferences
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 18, 2026
This is something that could be perhaps one of the biggest ways Tesla could minimize or even work closer toward eliminating interventions altogether. While FSD does a lot of things really well, many people intervene a vast majority of the time not due to major or critical safety errors.
Instead, many take over because the car is doing something that they do not like as a preference; it might park in a parking spot that is not preferred by the driver, it might linger too long in the left lane on the highway (a personal favorite), or it could even take a route that the driver does not like.
These all lead to interventions, but they are not triggered by a major safety issue. Instead, it’s just preference.
READ OUR REVIEW OF TESLA’S LATEST FSD VERSION:
Tesla Full Self-Driving v14.3.5 Early Impressions: new features and early performance
If Teslas could start to learn the personal preferences of the person who owns them, interventions will truly begin to be less frequent. Some of this is already pretty evident, in my opinion. Teslas use a neural network to learn behaviors and accumulate data to improve performance.
For months now, we’ve tracked FSD’s performance at “Except Right Turn” stop signs, something that is very common in Pennsylvania, but many of our readers located in other parts of the U.S. have never heard of. FSD handles one Except Right Turn stop sign very well, one that I travel past frequently. Others that I do not navigate through as often do not have as confident a performance. It seems like the cars might already be doing this to an extent.
🚨 Tesla Full Self-Driving v14.3 proceeds through an Except Right Turn Stop Sign pic.twitter.com/YemRSlens7
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) April 8, 2026
That example is also for something that is a street sign and not necessarily a driver preference; however, I still feel it is worth mentioning because it only handles that commonly passed Except Right Turn stop sign with true confidence. Others it still seems to struggle with.
This could be one of Tesla’s big moves toward full autonomy, and it could be a pathway to truly unsupervised driving. Every day, millions of cars on the road travel at a human driver’s personal preferences with no incident. Why can’t autonomous vehicles still cater to a passenger’s preferences while being autonomous? Tesla seems to have the idea that it would be possible.
Florida Governor Ron DeSantis has sharply criticized legacy media outlets for what he describes as selective and biased reporting on vehicle accidents involving Tesla. In a recent X post, DeSantis questioned why headlines routinely spotlight the Tesla brand in crash stories, even when human error is the clear cause, while similar incidents with other automakers often receive generic treatment.
A prime example is the June 19, 2026, fatal crash in Katy, Texas. A Tesla Model 3 driven by Michael Butler struck a brick home at high speed, killing 76-year-old Martha Avila inside. Initial reports and headlines prominently featured “Tesla crash” and referenced the driver’s claim that an automated driving-assistance system was engaged.
Many outlets quickly speculated that Full Self-Driving or Autopilot were the cause of the crash, immediately blaming the suites for the accident shortly after it happened.
However, Tesla responded shortly after the accident with vehicle data that showed Butler manually overrode the system by pressing the accelerator to 100 percent, reaching 73 MPH in a residential area, more than double the speed limit. The accelerator remained floored after impact.
Tesla finally clarifies fatal Texas crash, confirms driver manually overrode acceleration
The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) later confirmed these findings, and Butler now faces manslaughter charges. His phone searches also included queries like “Tesla FSD too timid,” suggesting he may have intervened aggressively. Despite this, many headlines continued to center Tesla’s technology rather than the driver’s actions.
DeSantis highlighted a Washington Post headline, which was labeled, “Newly released photo shows wreckage of Tesla crash that killed grandmother.”
Do legacy media outlets typically use headlines involving the make of a car in a crash or is that only for Tesla?
It would be one thing if the self-driving malfunctioned but the crash was purely human-induced.
Seems like these outlets want to associate Tesla with crashes as… pic.twitter.com/EmfyeYiuv6
— Ron DeSantis (@RonDeSantis) July 17, 2026
The subheadline noted the driver overrode assistance and floored the accelerator, yet the brand name dominated the framing. He asked whether legacy outlets typically name the make of a car in routine crashes or reserve that treatment for Tesla to push a narrative.
This pattern appears widespread. Crashes involving Ford, Chevrolet, or Toyota vehicles frequently appear as “pickup truck slams into home” or “fatal car crash kills pedestrian” without brand specifics, especially absent new technology angles.
High-profile Ford F-150 or Chevy Silverado incidents tied to large sales volumes often escape brand-callout scrutiny. In contrast, Tesla stories consistently lead with the manufacturer, amplifying perceptions of risk despite data showing strong overall safety performance:
🚨 Why do Tesla Owners get so defensive over the narrative of crashes involving Teslas? https://t.co/aX7ogtjTCR pic.twitter.com/KO4QWaLOKl
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 24, 2026
Tesla’s own 2025 Impact Report indicates vehicles using FSD logged 0.19 major incidents per million miles, roughly eight times fewer than the U.S. average. Models like the Model Y also rank among the safest in IIHS and NHTSA testing for occupant protection. Critics argue disproportionate coverage ignores these statistics and driver behavior factors, such as younger or more aggressive Tesla owners in some studies.
DeSantis frames this as part of a broader political agenda against innovative American companies like Tesla. By consistently naming Tesla while downplaying others, media outlets risk eroding public trust and shaping perceptions detached from the evidence of human error in most cases.
As autonomous technology evolves across the industry, consistent and factual reporting will be essential to separate real safety concerns from narrative-driven coverage.
Tesla entered two new markets this week by advancing its presence in Latvia (Europe) and officially launching operations in Uruguay (South America), marking a rapid dual-continent expansion.
These moves underscore the company’s strategy to tap into emerging EV markets with supportive policies, renewable energy grids, and growing demand for sustainable transport.
Latvia: Strengthening the Baltic Footprint
In Latvia, Tesla has built on its earlier registration of Tesla Latvia SIA in late 2025 with recent steps toward full operations, including job postings for a service center and representation in Riga. This aligns with broader Baltic expansion following Lithuania’s model of pop-up stores and service centers.
Coming to Latvia https://t.co/XNkQQJ2O6a pic.twitter.com/yS9kpcNky1
— Tesla Europe, Middle East & Africa (@teslaeurope) July 17, 2026
EV penetration in Latvia stands at around 7 percent for BEVs in new passenger car registrations. 2025 data showed 1,602 BEVs out of about 22,500 total, or 7.1 percent, with combined plug-ins nearing 19 percent. Growth has been steady but below the European average, supported by government subsidies and infrastructure development. Tesla models like the Model 3 lead local EV registrations.
Vehicles for the Latvian market will likely be sourced from Gigafactory Berlin or Gigafactory Shanghai. Charging infrastructure is robust for the region as well, with over 400- 2,000 public points, with Tesla Superchargers in Riga, Jūrmala, and along Via Baltica routes offering up to 250 kW.
Uruguay: Third South American Country
Tesla teased its Uruguay arrival with “Estamos llegando,” or, “We are arriving,” on social media, followed by an official presentation scheduled for mid-July.
Hola Uruguay 🇺🇾
Nuestros Model 3 y Model Y están cada vez mas cerca! pic.twitter.com/FR41fsA7um
— Tesla Latinoamérica (@Tesla_LatAm) June 30, 2026
The company established Tesla Uruguay SAS, homologated Model 3 and Model Y (three versions each), and appointed local leadership. This makes Uruguay Tesla’s third official South American market after Chile and Colombia.
Uruguay boasts one of Latin America’s highest EV penetrations, with battery-electric vehicles exceeding 20 percent market share recently, driven by tax incentives, high fuel prices, and a nearly 95-100 percent renewable electricity grid. Hundreds of Teslas already operate via grey imports, but official sales bring warranties, service, and support.
Vehicles will be imported from Gigafactory Shanghai, enabling competitive pricing for Model 3 and Model Y. Charging plans include Supercharger development alongside existing infrastructure, leveraging the country’s green energy advantage for affordable operation.
Tesla Superchargers follow Model 3 and Model Y to South American country
Tesla’s Dual Continent Expansion
Tesla’s simultaneous push into Latvia and Uruguay demonstrates efficient scaling: prioritizing service and infrastructure first, then direct sales in high-potential niches. In Europe, it fills Baltic gaps; in Latin America, it counters Chinese dominance while leveraging renewables.
This dual move signals Tesla’s ambition to accelerate global EV adoption amid varying regional paces. By addressing local needs, like subsidies in Latvia or incentives and green grids in Uruguay, Tesla not only boosts volumes but advances its mission of sustainable energy.
For investors and consumers, it highlights resilience and opportunity in diverse markets, potentially paving the way for further growth in underserved regions. With strong fundamentals in both, these entries could yield long-term gains as EV transitions mature worldwide.
Tesla Diner is throwing a birthday party with a Franz-signed special treat
Elon Musk says your Tesla will start to learn your individual preferences
