Tesla Autopilot continues to be taboo to many people, and it is understandable. In a world where people have absolute control over everything in their life, it is tough to assume many people would be comfortable with their car driving itself. But the issue is, many people, countries, and entities are not willing to give the self-driving characteristic a chance.
Despite Autopilot’s impressive performance figures, Germany announced this week that Tesla could not use the word “Autopilot” in any advertising, because it still requires the driver to remain attentive during its use. But the problem is, Autopilot, in any sense of the word, doesn’t state the vehicle in question can operate entirely on its own. Tesla’s description of the function also requires the driver to keep their hands on the wheel at all times in case of an emergency.
But the issue really comes down to the taboo subject of self-driving vehicles. To my surprise, many people outside the Tesla community are still uninformed and misguided on Autopilot’s capabilities. Every time one of my friends or family members see a Tesla, they automatically think it’s driving itself, and the operator is sitting in the passenger seat playing on their phone.
We all know that Autopilot doesn’t work that way. And even though Tesla is head and shoulders above the competition in terms of self-driving capabilities, they still can’t drive themselves, but the company has never indicated that their vehicles are fully autonomous.
The Tesla community knows that.
However, there are groups of people and even entire countries that still seem to believe that Tesla’s Autopilot claims are unrealistic and “misleading.” In reality, the company’s cars do exactly what the electric automaker claims they do.
This is not the first time a country has thrown Autopilot away because Israel altogether outlawed any use of the capability in the past. However, after revisiting the case, Israel government officials got a more concrete understanding of how Autopilot works, and they allowed the use of the feature by vehicles that were capable of using it.
A big thanks to our long-time supporters and new subscribers! Thank you.
In my opinion, everyone who is skeptical of Autopilot, especially those who are government officials, should be required to undergo a crash course of the feature and take a ride in a Tesla vehicle while it is using the characteristic.
However, there is something even more surprising to me personally about all of the taboo there is surrounding Autopilot. More of it is from Tesla skeptics and TSLAQ, but you rarely hear about Autopilot navigating through tricky road layouts on mainstream media outlets. It is more about Tesla vehicles that were using Autopilot, ending up in accidents.
Teslarati has covered a series of examples of Autopilot navigating plenty of interesting terrains and situations with relative ease. We cover accidents, too, but we clarify how they occurred. For example, this past week, a Model S collided with a State Trooper and an Ambulance. However, the driver was under suspicion for DUI, although it has not yet been confirmed.
Autopilot is a way for drivers to take the stress out of driving. I know, personally, that I don’t like driving very much. I was in two car accidents in high school, I was not the driver in either instance. Along with seeing accidents on I-95 near Baltimore and other winding backroads near my house, drivers scare me, and I rarely trust anyone operating a car that I’m in.
I would feel safer if Autopilot was operating every car on the road. Not only would the cars get better every single day because of Tesla’s Neural Net, but people wouldn’t be so unpredictable with their driving behavior, and I genuinely believe we all would be much better off.
In the past, technological advancements have been second-guessed. At one time, NASA launched a spaceship to the Moon, and it used less technology than an iPhone. Things advance and opinions change on something. People are going to eventually warm up to the idea of a car driving itself, and there is a chance that even the most vocal skeptics of the self-driving car movement will ultimately utilize the capability to get them from Point A to Point B.
Please consider Subscribing and joining me next week as I go ‘Beyond the News’
Investor's Corner
Tesla and SpaceX take “Terafab” Trademark fight to Federal Court
Tesla and SpaceX sue a small Illinois firm after cease and desist letters over Terafab.
Tesla and SpaceX are asking a federal judge to rule that their planned Terafab chip factory does not infringe a small Illinois company’s trademark, a request that arrives only after months of quiet negotiation broke down this summer.
The dispute traces to May 18, when Tesla filed three U.S. trademark applications for “Terafab” and “Tesla Terafab,” covering semiconductor chips and related chip making services. TERA-print LLC, a nanotechnology company that has held a federal trademark for “Tera-Fab” since 2021, responded five days later with a cease and desist letter. According to the lawsuit, first reported by Reuters, TERA-print argued that Tesla and SpaceX’s use of “Terafab” would confuse consumers familiar with its own trademark, which covers a desktop photolithography printer sold to researchers for sensor and bioengineering work.
What stands out in the filing is the timing of TERA-print’s own paperwork. One day before sending that cease and desist letter, on May 22, TERA-print applied to expand its existing registration to cover semiconductor materials, silicon chips, nanoelectronic devices and AI design services, categories it had not previously claimed. Tesla and SpaceX call that filing opportunistic in their complaint, noting it arrived two months after Tesla’s public Terafab announcement and just days after Tesla’s own trademark applications went in.
Elon Musk launches TERAFAB: The $25B Tesla-SpaceXAI chip factory that will rewire the AI industry
By June 10, TERA-print was threatening to sue for federal trademark infringement, false designation of origin and unfair competition, the complaint states. Rather than wait to be sued, Tesla, SpaceX and SpaceXAI met with TERA-print six separate times between June and August trying to resolve the dispute directly. Those talks collapsed, and the companies filed for declaratory judgment this week in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, asking a judge to find that “Terafab” does not infringe TERA-print’s mark before TERA-print can file a claim of its own.
TERA-print isn’t backing down. The company told PCMag it discussed a settlement with Tesla as recently as September 2 and feels misled by what it called Tesla’s professed interest in settling. Its CTO, Andrey Ivankin, said TERA-print holds a Defense Department contract to fabricate semiconductors and partially owns Mattiq Inc., an AI company built on TERA-print’s products, and that the company will vigorously defend its rights.
Tesla and SpaceX argue the overlap is superficial. Terafab is planned as a $16.8 billion complex spanning roughly 100 million square feet at the Grimes County site SpaceX confirmed last month, built to produce chips for Optimus robots, Tesla’s AI computing needs and SpaceX’s orbital data center ambitions, a scale and purpose the companies say no reasonable consumer would confuse with a tabletop lab printer. TERA-print’s product line has stayed focused on lithography tools for biological and sensor research since it registered its mark in 2021.
The trademark fight is the second legal dispute tied to the Terafab project in the past week, following a separate SpaceX suit aimed at keeping company records about the facility out of public view, as KBTX reported. Whether construction proceeds under the Terafab name now depends on a federal judge in Austin.
News
NHTSA just escalated its Tesla Cybercab investigation in a big way
NHTSA escalated its Cybercab audit into a sworn Special Order with a September 30 deadline.
Federal regulators have moved from asking Tesla questions about its Cybercab to demanding sworn answers. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issued a Special Order that requires a Tesla officer to sign an affidavit attesting to the completeness of the company’s responses, with a deadline of September 30.
The order builds on Audit Query AQ26002, which NHTSA opened on September 3, the same day Tesla began commercial Cybercab service in Austin. Teslarati covered that initial inquiry when it surfaced, noting the agency wanted to understand how Tesla certified a vehicle with no permanently attached steering wheel, pedals, or mirrors as compliant with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. A Special Order is a different tool and converts a fact finding review into a legally enforceable demand, the same mechanism NHTSA used against Tesla in 2023 during its Autopilot investigation.
Several of the 21 requests target a specific gap in Cybercab’s design. One asks whether Tesla used temporarily attached human controls at any point to help certify the vehicle, and if so, which standards depended on that equipment being present. Another quotes an existing rule directly: “The service brakes shall be activated by means of a foot control.” Cybercab has no foot pedal. NHTSA wants a detailed explanation of how the vehicle satisfies that requirement, and how it complies without the kind of exemption granted to Zoox in July under Part 555, the regulatory pathway built for steering wheel free vehicles.
The order does not claim Cybercab is unsafe or that Tesla broke a rule. It requires Tesla to explain, under oath, the reasoning behind decisions the company already made when it self-certified the vehicle. That distinction matters, but so does the exposure. Motor1’s reporting, summarized here, put potential civil penalty exposure as high as $139 million if NHTSA later finds the certification was flawed, on top of whatever criminal risk comes with a false sworn statement.
Tesla has not said publicly how it plans to respond. Cybercab is still carrying passengers in Austin through the Robotaxi app while the September 30 deadline approaches, and the company has continued expanding the vehicle’s footprint even as the regulatory question remains open. The Special Order does not pause any of that and just sets a date by which Tesla has to put its certification logic on the record, with a company officer’s name attached to it.
In a new interview on Wednesday, Tesla uber bull Ron Baron said that anyone looking to buy the company’s stock should do so as soon as they can.
Baron, founder and CEO of Baron Capital and one of Tesla’s most persistent institutional bulls, used a CNBC Squawk Box appearance on Wednesday to deliver a familiar message with fresh urgency: In his opinion, Tesla stock is a buy:
“The time to buy the stock is now. FSD is catching on, and it’s going to be bigger and bigger. 55% of new buyers are buying it (Teslas) with FSD. It’s going to be everywhere. It’s safer.”
The Baron Capital frontman’s case is built around Full Self-Driving. Tesla reported 1.48 million active FSD subscriptions in the second quarter, up 56 percent year over year, and company officials have said roughly 55 percent of new North American deliveries left with a subscription enabled.
Baron framed that attach rate as proof the product is moving from enthusiast extra to default expectation, and as a reason software, not just vehicle volume, should drive the next phase of value.
His conviction on Tesla shares is not theoretical, as Baron Capital made its first Tesla investment in 2014, after years of meetings that began around the 2010 IPO roadshow. The firm later built a large SpaceX position starting in 2017.
Ron Baron today in new interview on Tesla:
“The time to buy the stock is now. FSD is catching on, and it’s going to be bigger and bigger. 55% of new buyers are buying it (Teslas) with FSD. It’s going to be everywhere. It’s safer.” pic.twitter.com/Rv5PB0bVZ2
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) September 16, 2026
Baron said those Musk-led bets have generated about $30 billion of the $71 billion in profits Baron Capital has produced for clients. He put the firm’s current exposure at roughly $25 billion in SpaceX and $5 billion in Tesla. Personally, he described SpaceX as his largest holding, at about $5 billion, with about $1.5 billion in Tesla and additional Tesla exposure through the firm’s funds.
That concentration is also a statement of loyalty. Asked about talk of a SpaceX-Tesla combination, Baron said he had already walked Elon Musk through arguments for and against a deal, then declined to repeat them on air. His public position was simpler: “Whatever you decide is better is what I’m going to support,” he said to Musk.
Baron also said that he picked up the farewell edition of the Model S after Tesla decided to sunset the vehicle earlier this year, calling it his favorite car he’s ever driven.
Tesla and SpaceX take “Terafab” Trademark fight to Federal Court
NHTSA just escalated its Tesla Cybercab investigation in a big way
