Tesla’s battle with the FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt) campaign in China continues after a Model X owner claims the brakes on his all-electric SUV are faulty. The man was caught admitting that the story is fabricated, telling local media that “I know my car has nothing wrong with it.”
Over the past several months, Tesla has been sparring with owners in China who appear to be a part of an effort to derail the company’s momentum in the country. It all started a couple of months ago at the Shanghai Auto Show when a woman invaded Tesla’s booth at the event by jumping on top of a Model 3 and claiming that her brakes had failed during a drive with her father. The drive ended in an accident, and she blames it on Tesla’s “faulty brakes.”
She was sentenced to serve a few days in jail and has made every attempt to make her case as public as possible. She has gone as far as spraypainting the car as it sat outside of a Tesla showroom in China and has also denied any attempt that Tesla has made to resolve the issue. The automaker published a lengthy statement in May, indicating that it had offered to pay for a third-party company to assess the potential of a brake issue while paying for the study. She denied this and also said that data released by the automaker, which proved that the owner’s father, who was driving the vehicle at the time, traveled at excessive speeds during the journey and also had utilized the brakes successfully many times in the moments leading up to the accident, could have been fabricated or tampered with by Tesla.
The Tesla Model Y is leading China’s electric SUV segment by a wide margin
This hasn’t been the only instance, and those who have decided to turn against the automaker have made it abundantly clear that there will be more attempts in the future to claim that Tesla’s vehicles are faulty and dangerous.
Model X Owner claims faulty brakes, Tesla responds
Now, a Model X owner in China named Mr. Wen is claiming that his vehicle has faulty brakes and is demanding that Tesla provide him with a newly refreshed Model X.
According to a statement on Tesla’s Weibo page, Wen suffered an accident in his vehicle, and Tesla reached out to him to figure out the issue. “At present, the initial remote diagnosis of the cause of the vehicle alarm is the right front wheel speed sensor, and the vehicle used by Mr. Wen at the time of failure…may be due to contamination of the wheel speed sensor or damage to the sensor line,” Tesla said (via @Ray4Tesla). “Mr. Wen’s vehicle has traveled more than 175,000 kilometers, which has exceeded the vehicle warranty.”
Tesla then suggested that the vehicle be towed to a Service Center in China so that it could be examined to determine the reason for failure and fixed properly. However, Wen has continued to drive the car over 800 kilometers, Tesla says, and has gone as far as claiming on the internet “that the vehicle has failed and it was dangerous.”
Tesla says it hopes that Mr. Wen will allow the company to conduct inspections and repair the car so it can be used normally as soon as possible.
Mr. Wen admits to media that “I know my car has nothing wrong with it”
According to Tesla, the blog Teslabot broke a recording of Mr. Wen admitting that the car has no issues. In a series of statements, he said, “I know my car has nothing wrong with it,” and “The coil is aging, or it is worn during the car wash. This is suspected to be the problem, my car will not have any major problems.”
Wen said that he didn’t have money to find media exposure and that “If you don’t make trouble, you can defend your rights normally, our police station will not participate.”
-
- Credit: Tesla Weibo via @Ray4Tesla
-
- Credit: Tesla Weibo via @Ray4Tesla
According to the post on Weibo, the media outlet Henan Guan Lei TV has deleted all of the reports of Tesla vehicle issues in China.
Unfortunately, this is not the first time that those who have claimed that Tesla’s vehicles have issues have admitted that their story was fabricated. It’s actually happened on several occasions, with many of the perpetrators admitting that their issues were made up for media attention.
Tesla has also battled falsified and non-verified reports of lackluster sales figures. Most recently, a claim that indicated Tesla’s registrations in China in May had reduced by 50% was shrugged off by the Secretary General of the Chinese Passenger Car Association.
What do you think? Let us know in the comments below, or be sure to email me at joey@teslarati.com or on Twitter @KlenderJoey.
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
