Dodge, Chrysler, and Jeep’s multinational parent company Stellantis has filed several lawsuits against the United Automotive Workers (UAW) union, after the organization has been threatening to strike against the automaker over claims that contract promises have not been upheld.
Stellantis filed an initial lawsuit against the UAW and Local 230 on Thursday in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, claiming that a strike would be illegal and would violate the parties’ contract. Then, on Friday, Stellantis filed eight additional lawsuits against the union and local chapters over recent strike threats, along with claiming that it rejected requests over the weekend to re-boot a defunct jobs’ bank program for employees affected by the closing of a Belvidere, Illinois factory.
The automaker filed the suits against the UAW and 23 separate local chapters, including one against seven local chapters filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan—though the UAW has denied attempting to re-boot the jobs bank program.
“The company rejected the UAW’s latest proposal because it would revert to prebankruptcy terms and conditions that would jeopardize the company’s future,” Stellantis said in a statement on Monday (via Automotive News). “The company understands that this situation is extremely unsettling for its Belvidere employees, which is why it agreed during 2023 negotiations to place these employees on temporary layoffs, which provide 74 percent of pay and full healthcare benefits.”
The jobs bank benefits were adopted by the “Big Three” automakers in the 1980s, effectively allowing workers to remain on active payroll despite not being allowed to work. According to Stellantis, over 2,000 employees in the jobs bank remained at a “staggering cost.”
The suits come after the UAW has been threatening to strike against Stellantis for the last few weeks, and after it filed a federal charge of unfair labor practices against the automaker last month.
The union has been threatening strikes Stellantis over claims that it has failed to uphold an agreement from last year’s contract to re-open the Belvidere Assembly Plant after it was closed indefinitely in February 2023. Following the closure, around 1,300 employees were left without work.
RELATED: Stellantis starts search for CEO successor amidst inventory woes
UAW Stellantis Director Kevin Gotinsky denied claims that the union was re-booting the job bank program in a follow-up statement on Monday, instead pointing to the company’s need to keep to promises to re-open the retired Illinois plant to avoid the strikes.
“If Stellantis lives up to its commitments and reopens Belvidere Assembly and builds the Belvidere parts Megahub, our members will be back to work soon and the cost to the company will be minimal,” Gotinsky said. “These employees can and are willing to perform work today. That is all they want, to have a future and be able to provide for their families as agreed to in our contract.”
UAW President Shawn Fain also issued a statement in response to the news:
Stellantis, formerly FCA, formerly Cerberus, formerly Daimler, formerly Chrysler, is following in a long line of failing corporate executives blaming autoworkers for their own mismanagement.
It is gross mismanagement by top executives that is killing this company. It is laughable that Stellantis claims our proposal to reopen Belvidere is ‘outrageous.’ In just the last 9 weeks, Stellantis has pissed away $1 billion in stock buybacks for a total of $3 billion in stock buybacks this year. Our proposal would cost a fraction of that and would go directly to the autoworkers who have built this company.
Everyone knows the so-called ‘jobs bank’ didn’t cause the 2008 bankruptcies, and autoworkers aren’t responsible for CEO Carlos Tavares’ mismanagement today. We are asking that Stellantis keep their contractual commitments and do right by Belvidere autoworkers and autoworkers across the country. If they can’t do that, then the only answer is for autoworkers to join with dealers, suppliers, and shareholders in demanding that Carlos be shitcanned.
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.
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
