News
(Op-Ed) Tesla China has been very successful legally–but is something nefarious really afoot?
A recent report from the Associated Press has highlighted the fact that Tesla China has been very successful legally. Over the years, Tesla China has seen a remarkable record in winning legal cases against critics, from media outlets and social media influencers to customers.
But while the report carried a tone that hinted that something nefarious was afoot, Tesla China’s legal successes may simply be explained by a simple reason—it chooses to hold people accountable.
The AP’s piece:
- A look at the Associated Press‘ piece on Tesla China’s aggressive legal strategy opens with the story of Zhang Yazhou, who held a protest at the 2021 Shanghai Auto Show alleging that her Model 3 experienced a brake failure.
- Here’s how the report framed the matter:
- “Tesla has embraced an aggressive legal strategy in China to stifle its critics — suing its own customers.
- “That’s left some Tesla owners desperate. Zhang Yazhou protested publicly that her Model 3’s brakes had failed and caused an accident in 2021 that sent her parents to the hospital. Tesla said that wasn’t true and sued her for defamation. A Chinese court ordered Zhang to pay the $1.1-trillion company more than $23,000 in damages and publicly apologize for her criticism.
- “”I refuse to accept it,” said Zhang, who appealed the verdict. “As a consumer, even if I said something wrong, I have the right to comment and criticize. I spoke about my feelings as a user of the car. It has nothing to do with damaging their reputation.””
- The AP report also described Tesla China’s legal victories as follows:
- “Over the last four years, Tesla has sued at least six car owners in China who had sudden vehicle malfunctions, quality complaints or accidents they claimed were caused by mechanical failures.
- “The company has also sued at least six bloggers and two Chinese media outlets that wrote critically about the company, according to a review of public court documents and Chinese media reports by The Associated Press.
- “Tesla won all eleven cases for which AP could determine the verdicts. Two judgments are on appeal. One case was settled out of court.
- “Tesla has not only won the defamation cases it brought against unhappy car owners and critical journalists, it has also prevailed in lawsuits customers have filed against it.”
Context matters:
- While it is quite popular these days in several corners of the internet to frame Elon Musk and Tesla as evil entities that must be eliminated, it is important to look at the context behind Tesla China’s legal successes.
- Tesla China’s success in the country’s court system may not be due to a nefarious reasons at all. Instead, it could simply be due to one particular thing that the company is very good at—in-vehicle data.
- Take the case of Ms. Zhang, for example. When she alleged that her Model 3 experienced brake failure, Tesla China simply supplied the data from her vehicle to prove that the car’s brakes, in fact, did not malfunction.
- The same thing was true for social media influencers who allegedly showed Tesla’s vehicles experiencing brake failure.
- Back in 2021, during the height of the brake controversy in China, a Tesla owner decided to demonstrate how his Model X’s brakes were allegedly failing. The owner later admitted that the video was for entertainment purposes only.
- A famous blogger who alleged that Tesla’s automatic emergency braking system was subpar also posted a public apology to Tesla China after the company’s legal department pursued him.
- In that particular case, Tesla China was hardly throwing its weight around, since netizens in the country were already calling out the blogger for pressing on the vehicle’s accelerator during his automatic emergency braking test.
- Overall, Tesla China’s long string of legal victories seems to be due to the company’s willingness to hold critics accountable when needed, as well as the objective data that is provided by its vehicles.
The whipping boys of media:
- Elon Musk has a high tolerance for pain, and Tesla does too, at times to the detriment of the company’s shareholders.
- This has caused media outlets, social media influencers, and general netizens to casually throw out wild accusations against the CEO and the electric vehicle maker.
- This has been especially notable recently amidst Elon Musk’s work with DOGE.
- But while this is the status quo in the United States, Tesla China’s management team requires a more assertive legal strategy—one that would allow the company to thrive in the world’s most competitive and challenging electric vehicle market.
Don’t hesitate to contact us with news tips. Just send a message to simon@teslarati.com to give us a heads up.
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
