News
Tesla’s camera-based driver monitoring system triggers legal complaint in Illinois
Tesla has implemented a number of safety improvements for its Autopilot and Full Self-Driving suites over the years, and this includes updates to its driver monitoring systems (DMS). Last year, Tesla activated its camera-based driver monitoring system in Model 3 and Model Y vehicles, allowing the company to provide an extra layer of checks to determine if drivers were paying attention to the road while using Autopilot and FSD features. The function was later rolled out to the refreshed Model S and Model X as well.
While a camera-based DMS has evident advantages, a class action complaint has been proposed against Tesla in Illinois, with the Plaintiff claiming that the company’s in-cabin driver monitoring system violates the state’s Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA). The complaint was filed in an Illinois Circuit Court on March 11, 2022.
In the complaint’s introduction, the Plaintiff described how Tesla benefits from the data it collects from its fleet of vehicles. Following is a relevant section from the document.
“In an effort to facilitate its Autopilot features and help market its self-driving capability to boost sales, Defendant collects individuals’ biometrics in the form of their facial geometry so that it can verify and make sure that individuals are paying attention to the road while using its Autopilot advanced driver assistance system (“Autopilot”) and its premium Full Self Driving system (“FSD”).
“This is achieved through Tesla’s in-cabin camera located by the rearview mirror which extracts drivers’ biometric facial geometry that Defendant’s Autopilot uses to track their head positions and eye gazes to detect a driver’s inattentiveness. If the driver is inattentive, then the Autopilot function is disengaged and the driver must take over the steering function.”
Inasmuch as data from the in-cabin camera is being used for driver monitoring, the Plaintiff alleged that Tesla’s practices violate Illinois citizens’ statutorily protected privacy rights. This was discussed in the following section of the complaint.
“Facial geometry is a unique and permanent biometric identifier associated with each individual. The unauthorized handling of such sensitive information exposes consumers to serious and irreversible privacy risks. If for example, a database containing scans of face geometry or other sensitive biometric data is hacked, breached, or otherwise exposed, consumers cannot simply change their biometric identifiers like they could reset a password or cancel a credit card.
“Notwithstanding the clear and unequivocal requirements of the law, Defendant disregards Illinois citizens’ statutorily protected privacy rights and unlawfully collects, stores, and uses individuals’ biometrics without first obtaining those individuals’ informed written consent and without having any publicly available data retention policy that could inform them about the whereabouts of the facial biometric data Defendant gatherer as required by BIPA.”
Interestingly enough, the Plaintiff included an anecdote of Tesla’s camera-based DMS in action. Based on the incident outlined in the complaint, it appears that the Plaintiff was warned by his vehicle to keep his hands on the wheel. This is a critical safety check, especially as Tesla rolls out more advanced features of its Autopilot and FSD suite.
“In or about December 2021, Plaintiff was driving one of Defendant’s Model 3 cars in Illinois with Defendant’s Autopilot feature function engaged. Using its proprietary facial recognition technology, Defendant collected, stored, and analyzed Plaintiff’s facial geometry in order to be able to track his head and eye movements and make sure that he was attentive. Plaintiff experienced Defendant’s biometrically enabled technology first-hand as it continuously informed Plaintiff to put his hands back on the wheel whenever it detected him looking away from the road.”
The class action complaint seeks to collect statutory damages of $5,000 for every time Tesla willfully or recklessly violated Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act. It also seeks to collect statutory damages of $1,000 for each negligent violation of the state’s BIPA. Tesla’s legal team, for its part, is yet to issue a response to the complaint.
Below is the class action complaint against Tesla’s camera-based driver monitoring system (as shared by Bloomberg Law).
Tesla Cabin Camera Lawsuit by Simon Alvarez on Scribd
Don’t hesitate to contact us with news tips. Just send a message to simon@teslarati.com to give us a heads up.
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
Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli responded to rumors of an imminent bankruptcy that was reportedly being mulled after a report stated the automaker was working with the firm AlixPartners to iron out its next steps.
The company felt a massive loss on Wall Street yesterday, as the report essentially pushed the stock down as much as 55 percent on Tuesday.
The report, published initially by Eletric-Vehicles.com, claimed Lucid was essentially in dire straits and was told by AlixPartners, a commonly used restructuring advisor, to either take shares private or file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.
Lucid’s head of Communications, Nick Twork, immediately challenged the report and stated the company “has sufficient liquidity to carry its operations well into next year.”
Now, the company’s CEO is chiming in as well, stating that the report is “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Napoli said:
“Lucid is not considering bankruptcy or a transaction to take the company private. Those reports are false. The Board did not explore either scenario. Period.
As disclosed in our most recent quarterly filing, Lucid has sufficient liquidity to fund its operations well into next year.
We work with outside advisors to improve operational performance and execution. They are not advising Lucid on a take-private transaction or bankruptcy, and any suggestion that they have recommended either course of action to management or the Board is false.
My priority is clear: turn this company around. That is where the leadership team and I are focused.
I look forward to providing a full update during our quarterly earnings call on August 4th.”
🚨 Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli calls rumors of financial issues “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Read his full remarks here: https://t.co/t3Pg1NHvzy pic.twitter.com/LvHUPhO4Qf
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 15, 2026
It seems pretty clear that Lucid is confident things will be okay, and, to be honest, they should not have much to worry about, especially considering the company has been backed by the Saudi Public Investment Fund (PIF) for years. It has solid financial backing, and its sales, while weak, are pretty much right on par with a company of this age.
Lucid also sent a Cease & Desist letter to the publication for their report.
Lucid shares have rebounded nicely and are up nearly 21 percent at the time of publication. As soon as the company dispelled the rumors of bankruptcy yesterday, the stock began to climb back toward more reasonable levels.
Tesla has once again demonstrated strong customer focus by swiftly addressing and fully refunding a bizarre Supercharger pricing glitch that affected drivers in Atlantic Canada.
The issue surfaced earlier this month when the Tesla app began displaying dramatically inflated per-minute charging rates at stations in Prince Edward Island and parts of New Brunswick.
One widely shared screenshot from a Charlottetown, PEI Supercharger showed rates reaching ridiculous levels: $6.00 per minute for the 180-250 kW tier, along with $3.57/min for 100-180 kW and $2.29/min for 60-100 kW.
Correct pricing will be going live at midnight tonight. All fees since July 2nd 2026 will be waived.
— Tesla Charging (@TeslaCharging) July 13, 2026
These figures were several times higher than normal Supercharger pricing in the region.
To put the error in perspective, charging at the highest incorrect rate would have been shockingly expensive.
At 250 kW, a common charging speed at Superchargers, a vehicle pulls roughly 4.17 kWh per minute. Under the glitch, a driver spending just 10 minutes at peak power would face a $60 bill. A typical 20- to 30-minute session to add meaningful range could have cost $120 to $180 or more, before any congestion fees.
Tesla gets another layer of gamification with Free Supercharging on the line
By comparison, standard Canadian Supercharger rates usually fall between $0.25 and $0.60 per kWh, making a similar session cost roughly $15–$40. The erroneous per-minute structure, combined with the inflated numbers, turned what should be a convenient stop into a potential financial shock.
The glitch appears to have started sometime around early July, and quickly drew attention on social media as owners questioned whether Tesla had implemented steep hidden increases. Some drivers even reported seeing $0 charges in their history, indicating broader billing confusion.
Tesla’s official Charging account on X stated that correct pricing would roll out at midnight on July 13, so the fix is already in effect. More importantly, the company announced it would waive all fees for every Supercharger session since July 2. This blanket waiver covers the entire affected period without requiring users to file individual claims, with automated refunds expected soon. The decision affects stations in PEI and nearby areas in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.
It’s a classy move, and rather than issuing partial credits or forcing owners to submit support tickets, Tesla simply absorbed the cost of the system error and made drivers whole. In an industry where hidden fees and bill disputes are common, Tesla’s proactive, no-questions-asked approach reinforces owner trust and highlights the company’s commitment to service excellence.
The incident, while disruptive for a short time, ultimately showcases Tesla’s ability to own mistakes and prioritize customer satisfaction. Atlantic Canada Tesla owners can now charge with confidence again, knowing the company has their back when technology glitches occur.
In an era of complex EV billing, such transparency and generosity are refreshing and set a positive example for the industry.
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
Elon Musk’s Texas ranch to showcase the lifelong work that changed the world
