News
Tesla blocked (again) in Connecticut after judge rules in-state activities illegal
Connecticut state court judge Joseph M. Shortall disagreed with Tesla’s “educational venue” defense of a vehicle display gallery in Greenwich, concluding in a December 6, 2018 ruling that its business activities are illegal under state law. The gallery, opened in October 2016, was ordered in May 2017 to “cease all functions” by Connecticut’s Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), claiming it was operating its 340 Greenwich Ave. location like a dealership, an activity requiring a license for which Tesla is not eligible. Tesla subsequently filed a lawsuit primarily arguing the definition of sales-oriented terms; however, the Superior Court of the New Britain Judicial District affirmed the DMV’s ruling, beginning a period wherein Tesla may file an appeal.
Connecticut state law forbids direct vehicle sales by vehicle manufacturers in favor of a “franchise system”, a set of laws meant to protect independent car dealerships from predatory practices of larger car manufacturing companies. Elon Musk, Tesla’s CEO, has made it a company policy not to sell their electric vehicles to independent dealerships primarily because he believes franchises face a “fundamental conflict of interest” when selling both gas and electric vehicles. Also, Tesla would miss an important opportunity to educate potential buyers about its products in a traditional dealership setting.
“Existing franchise dealers have a fundamental conflict of interest between selling gasoline cars, which constitute the vast majority of their business, and selling the new technology of electric cars. It is impossible for them to explain the advantages of going electric without simultaneously undermining their traditional business. This would leave the electric car without a fair opportunity to make its case to an unfamiliar public.” – Elon Musk, October 22, 2012
It was the “educational” angle that the company took while operating their Greenwich location, claiming that prospective buyers were merely being given information about their unique technology along with a test drive opportunity. Any sales which followed were conducted online and delivery was out-of-state. The DMV, and later the Superior Court judge, disagreed, citing related activities conducted by the Greenwich team that were more sales-specific, such as commissions and bonuses tied to sales resulting from discussions at the gallery and the ability of Tesla to reclaim vehicles if they weren’t picked up by the customer within one week of delivery.
In the Superior Court’s ruling, decided by Judge Trial Referee Joseph M. Shortall, the term “selling” was also agreed to be all-inclusive of advertising and merchandising activities, a definition promoted by the Connecticut Automotive Retailers Trade Association (CARA). The association has been on the front-line of debates involving franchise systems, arguing that they ensure fair competition while demanding that Tesla comply with existing laws and license to independent dealerships as has been the tradition for decades. CARA was the party responsible for initiating the complaint about Tesla’s activities in the state, prompting the DMV’s investigation and order.
With regard to the recent ruling, a Tesla spokesperson tells Teslarati, “Tesla disagrees with the judge’s decision, and we stand by our mission to educate the public and raise awareness about the benefits of EVs because getting more EVs on the road is the right thing to do for the environment and for the battle against climate change.” Although the issue driving CARA’s objection surrounds the issue of “sales”, Tesla does not sell any vehicles at their Greenwich location.
Since Tesla does not license their vehicle sales to independent dealers, the company position is that its business should not be subject to the same laws as manufacturers with licensed franchises. As seen by this latest court ruling, Tesla’s position isn’t exactly a shared one. To date, the company has not been successful in convincing Connecticut’s legislature to revise the direct-sales laws and with organizations like CARA lobbying against such changes, the battle certainly seems uphill.
Connecticut state legislation to amend the direct-sales ban has been proposed twice before, both times stalling from lack of votes. Despite the potential for increased sales tax revenue and jobs from a distribution facility that would come from a Tesla presence in the state, CARA and the state legislators that are friendly to its positions are on the winning side of the matter, even if its tactics to paint a negative picture of the company are questionable. According to Tesla’s former vice president of business development, Diarmuid O’Connell, in a letter to state legislators, CARA previously sent secret shoppers into the Greenwich gallery to sway Tesla employees into illegally selling a vehicle from the storefront. The attempt, of course, failed.
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
