There were a number of notable events that transpired in the electric vehicle sector in the past few days. Tesla rolled out a minor $1,000 limited-time discount for the Model Y crossover until the end of February. And this Sunday, BMW, Volkswagen, and KIA aired their respective advertisements for the BMW i5, VW ID.Buzz, and the KIA EV9 at Super Bowl LVIII.
The Super Bowl is the United States’ biggest sporting event, reaching nearly 100 million people every year since Super Bowl 44 in 2010, as per ratings agency Nielsen. It is then no surprise that ad spots for the premier sporting event are sold at a premium, with Automotive News noting that a 30-second advertisement for this year’s Super Bowl costs about $7 million on average.
Now, $7 million is definitely not a small amount, but it does help a company reach 100 million people. That’s invaluable, and likely well worth it for automakers looking to highlight their electric vehicle offerings. This was evident in BMW’s star-studded ad with actor Christopher Walken, Volkswagen’s nostalgic advertisement for the ID.Buzz, and KIA’s heartwarming commercial for the EV9. And as per Wall Street veteran and Tesla bull Gary Black, Tesla could have easily benefitted from a Super Bowl ad this year.
At $7M for a 30 second Super Bowl ad, $TSLA would have to sell 875 incremental cars (@$8k gross profit per car) to justify the cost of the ad. And the follow up interest from TSLA paying for a Super Bowl ad would be huge. Instead $TSLA cuts price by $1,000 per Model Y in the US… https://t.co/ZrqxUpRCcB— Gary Black (@garyblack00) February 12, 2024
As explained by Black in a post on X, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter, a $7 million Super Bowl ad for Tesla would result in massive follow-up interest in the electric vehicle maker. Black also highlighted that at $7 million, Tesla would only have to sell 875 incremental cars at $8,000 gross profit per unit to justify the cost of a 30-second Super Bowl advertisement.
In comparison, Tesla’s $1,000 discount for the Model Y, which is generally unknown to conventional car buyers outside X and the EV community, will cost Tesla about $40 million, Black estimated. What’s worse is that avid Tesla critic Dan O’Dowd, who is on a crusade to ban Full Self-Driving on public roads, is paying for two Super Bowl ads. Thus, not only will Super Bowl viewers not see an ad supporting Tesla during the premier sporting event. They will instead see two ads encouraging them to boycott the company’s products.
Do you think @Tesla spending $7 million on a 30 second Super Bowl ad would be a good investment for the company?
Explain your reasoning below.— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) February 11, 2024
What is interesting is that Tesla has a ton of advertisements that could have worked for the Super Bowl as well. Tesla’s Cybertruck commercials alone would be very interesting, such as the company’s 60-second “all-features” ad or the vehicle’s dedicated Basecamp advertisement. One could even argue that some fan-made Tesla commercials that have been created by enthusiasts over the years are good enough for such an event.
It was thus unsurprising that numerous EV fans and TSLA investors supported Black’s suggestion. After all, a good number of car buyers are still very unfamiliar with Tesla’s vehicles, such as the fact that they start below $40,000, that they are the safest cars on the road, or that they are the most American-made, among others. This was quite evident in a poll that was posted on X which asked users if Tesla would benefit from a Super Bowl ad. While those who support and those who do not support the idea are pretty much equal, one cannot deny the fact that the voices calling for Tesla to advertise are getting notably louder.
Check out BMW, Volkswagen, and KIA’s EV ads for Super Bowl LVIII below.
Don’t hesitate to contact us with news tips. Just send a message to simon@teslarati.com to give us a heads up.
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
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 to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
