Connect with us

News

Tesla blocked (again) in Connecticut after judge rules in-state activities illegal

Published

on

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.

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

Accidental computer geek, fascinated by most history and the multiplanetary future on its way. Quite keen on the democratization of space. | It's pronounced day-sha, but I answer to almost any variation thereof.

Advertisement
Comments

Investor's Corner

Tesla price targets drop in shock move from three Wall Street firms

Despite Tesla not being an automotive company exclusively, the Wall Street firms and analysts covering its shares are widely dialed in on its performance regarding quarterly deliveries. While it holds some importance, Tesla, from an internal perspective, is more focused on end-to-end AI, Robotaxi, self-driving, and its Optimus robot.

Published

on

Credit: Tesla

Tesla price targets (NASDAQ: TSLA) have received several cuts over the past few days as Wall Street firms are adjusting their forecast for the company’s stock following a miss in quarterly delivery figures for the first quarter.

Despite Tesla not being an automotive company exclusively, the Wall Street firms and analysts covering its shares are widely dialed in on its performance regarding quarterly deliveries. While it holds some importance, Tesla, from an internal perspective, is more focused on end-to-end AI, Robotaxi, self-driving, and its Optimus robot.

In a notable shift underscoring mounting caution on Wall Street, three prominent investment banks slashed their price targets on Tesla Inc. shares over the past two weeks following the electric-vehicle giant’s disappointing first-quarter 2026 delivery numbers. The revisions highlight softening EV sales figures and, according to some, execution challenges.

Tesla’s Q1 delivery figures show Elon Musk was right

Advertisement

Tesla delivered 358,023 vehicles in the January-to-March period, a 14 percent sequential decline and a miss versus consensus forecasts of roughly 365,000 to 370,000 units.

Production hit 408,000 vehicles, yet the delivery shortfall, paired with limited updates on autonomous-driving progress and new-model timelines, rattled investors. Shares fell about 8.7 percent since April 1.

Wall Street analysts are now adjusting their forecasts accordingly, as several firms have made adjustments to price targets.

Goldman Sachs

Goldman Sachs cut its target from $405 to $375 while maintaining a Hold rating. Analyst Mark Delaney pointed to soft EV sales trends and margin pressures.

Advertisement

Truist Financial followed on April 2, lowering its target from $438 to $400 (Hold unchanged), with analyst William Stein citing misses in both auto deliveries and energy-storage deployments, plus a lack of fresh details on AI initiatives and upcoming vehicles.

It is a strange drop if using AI initiatives and upcoming vehicles as a justification is the primary focus here. Tesla has one of the most optimistic outlooks in terms of AI, and CEO Elon Musk recently hinted that the company is developing something for the U.S. market that will be good for families.

Baird

Baird’s Ben Kallo made a very modest trim, reducing its target from $548 to $538, keeping and maintaining the ‘Outperform’ rating it holds on shares. Kallo said the price target adjustment was a prudent recalibration tied to near-term risks.

Truist

Truist analyst William Stein pointed to deliveries and energy storage missing expectations, and cut his price target to $400 from $438. He maintained the ‘Hold’ rating the firm held on the stock previously.

Advertisement

JPMorgan

Adding to the bearish tone on Monday, April 6, JPMorgan’s Ryan Brinkman reiterated an Underweight (Sell) rating and $145 price target, implying roughly 60 percent downside from recent levels.

Brinkman highlighted a “record surge in unsold vehicles” that adds to free-cash-flow woes, with inventory swelling to an estimated 164,000 units.

Tesla’s comfort level taking risks makes the stock a ‘must own,’ firm says

He lowered his Q1 2026 EPS estimate to $0.30 from $0.43 and full-year 2026 EPS to $1.80 from $2.00, both below consensus. Brinkman noted that expectations for Tesla’s performance have “collapsed” across financial and operating metrics through the end of the decade, yet the stock has risen 50 percent, and average price targets have increased 32 percent.

Advertisement

This disconnect, he argued, prices in an unrealistic sharp pivot to stronger results beyond the decade, while near-term realities remain materially weaker.

He advised investors to approach TSLA shares with a “high degree of caution,” citing elevated execution risk, competition, and valuation concerns in lower-price, higher-volume segments.

The revisions have pulled the overall consensus lower. Aggregators show the average 12-month price target now ranging from approximately $394 to $416 across roughly 32 analysts, with a prevailing Hold rating and a mixed split of Buy, Hold, and Sell recommendations.

Brinkman’s $145 target stands as a notable outlier on the bearish side.

Advertisement

Not Everyone Has Turned Bearish on Tesla Shares

Not all firms turned more pessimistic. Wedbush Securities held its bullish $600 target, stressing that AI and full self-driving technology represent the core value drivers, with current delivery softness viewed as temporary.

These moves reflect a broader Wall Street recalibration: near-term EV demand faces pressure from high interest rates, intensifying competition, especially from lower-cost Chinese rivals, and slower adoption.

At the same time, many analysts continue to see Tesla’s technology leadership in software-defined vehicles, autonomy, robotaxis, and energy storage as pathways to outsized long-term gains once macro conditions ease and new models launch.

With Tesla’s first-quarter earnings report due later this month, upcoming details on cost discipline, Cybertruck ramp-up, and AI roadmaps will likely shape whether these target adjustments prove prescient or overly cautious. Investors remain divided between immediate delivery realities and the company’s ambitious vision.

Advertisement

Tesla shares are trading at $348.82 at the time of publishing.

Continue Reading

Elon Musk

Tesla Full Self-Driving feature probe closed by NHTSA

Actually Smart Summon allows owners to move their parked Tesla via a smartphone app remotely, directing the vehicle short distances in parking lots or private property while the driver supervises from the phone.

Published

on

tesla summon
Credit: YouTube/Hector Perez

A probe into a popular Tesla self-driving feature has been closed by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) after over a year of scrutiny from the government agency.

The NHTSA has officially closed its investigation into Tesla’s Actually Smart Summon (ASS) feature, marking a regulatory win for the electric vehicle maker after more than a year of scrutiny.

Here’s our coverage on the launch of the probe:

Tesla’s Actually Smart Summon feature under investigation by NHTSA

Advertisement

The preliminary investigation, opened last January, examined roughly 2.59 million Tesla vehicles equipped with the feature across the Model S, Model X, Model 3, and Model Y lineups. ASS is not available for Cybertruck currently.

Actually Smart Summon allows owners to move their parked Tesla via a smartphone app remotely, directing the vehicle short distances in parking lots or private property while the driver supervises from the phone.

Here’s a clip of us using it:

Introduced as an upgrade to the original Smart Summon, the feature was designed to enhance convenience but drew attention after reports of low-speed incidents where vehicles bumped into stationary objects like posts, parked cars, or garage doors.

The NHTSA’s Office of Defects Investigation reviewed 159 incidents, including one formal Vehicle Owner’s Questionnaire complaint and media reports.

Advertisement

Notably, all events occurred at very low speeds, resulted only in minor property damage, and involved zero injuries or fatalities. The agency determined that the incidents were “extremely rare”, a fraction of one percent across millions of Summon sessions, and did not indicate a systemic safety-related defect.

A key factor in the closure was Tesla’s proactive response through over-the-air (OTA) software updates.

During the probe, Tesla deployed at least six updates that improved camera-based object detection, enhanced neural network performance for obstacle recognition, and refined the system’s response to potential hazards. These iterative improvements, delivered wirelessly to the entire fleet, addressed the primary concerns around detection reliability and operator reaction time.

Critics of Tesla’s autonomous features had initially pointed to the crashes as evidence of rushed deployment, especially given the feature’s reliance on the company’s vision-only Full Self-Driving (FSD) stack. However, NHTSA’s decision to close the case without seeking a recall underscores the low-severity nature of the events and the effectiveness of software-based fixes in modern vehicles.

Advertisement

It definitely has its flaws. I used ASS yesterday unsuccessfully:

However, improvements will come, and I’m confident in that.

The closure comes as Tesla continues to push boundaries with its autonomous driving ambitions, including unsupervised FSD rollouts and robotaxi initiatives. For owners, the ruling reinforces confidence in Actually Smart Summon as a convenient, low-risk tool rather than a hazardous experiment.

While broader NHTSA reviews of Tesla’s higher-speed FSD capabilities remain ongoing, this outcome highlights how data-driven analysis and rapid OTA remediation can satisfy regulators in the evolving landscape of automated driving technology.

Advertisement

Tesla has not issued an official statement on the closure, but the move is widely viewed as bullish for the company’s autonomy roadmap, reducing one layer of regulatory overhang and allowing focus on further refinements.

Continue Reading

Elon Musk

Tesla uses Model S and X ‘sentimental’ value to enforce massive pricing move

By slashing production and creating immediate scarcity, the company has transformed these remaining vehicles into limited-edition relics. The price hike is not driven by rising material costs or new features.

Published

on

Credit: Tesla

Tesla is using the “sentimental” value that CEO Elon Musk talked about with the Model S and Model X to enforce one of the most massive pricing moves it has ever applied as it begins to phase out the flagship vehicles.

Tesla quietly executed one of its most calculated pricing plays yet. After officially ending production of the Model S and Model X, the company raised prices on every remaining new and demo unit by roughly $15,000.

The refreshed starting prices now sit at:

  • $109,990 for the Model S AWD
  • $124,900 for the Model S Plaid
  • $114,900 for the Model X AWD
  • $129,900 for the Model X Plaid

Every vehicle comes fully loaded with the Luxe Package, Full Self-Driving Supervised, four years of premium connectivity and service, and lifetime free Supercharging. What looks like a simple inventory adjustment is, in reality, a masterclass in monetizing nostalgia.

These are not ordinary cars. For many owners, the Model S and Model X represent the purest expression of Tesla’s original promise—the sleek, over-engineered flagships that proved electric vehicles could be faster, quieter, and more desirable than their gasoline counterparts.

Advertisement

Tesla removes Model S and X custom orders as sunset officially begins

They are the vehicles that carried Elon Musk’s vision from Silicon Valley startup to global automaker.

The final units rolling off the line carry an emotional weight that numbers alone cannot capture. Buyers are not simply purchasing transportation; they are acquiring a piece of Tesla history, the last examples of the very models that defined the brand’s first decade.

Tesla, with this move, understands this sentiment deeply.

Advertisement

By slashing production and creating immediate scarcity, the company has transformed these remaining vehicles into limited-edition relics. The price hike is not driven by rising material costs or new features.

It is driven by the knowledge that a certain segment of buyers, loyalists, collectors, and enthusiasts, will pay a premium precisely because these cars are about to disappear. The strategy converts emotional attachment into margin.

Where other automakers might discount outgoing models to clear lots, Tesla is betting that sentiment is worth more than volume.

The move also quietly rewards existing owners. Scarcity instantly boosts resale values for the hundreds of thousands of Model S and X already on the road, reinforcing brand loyalty among the very people who helped build Tesla’s reputation.

Advertisement

In the end, Tesla’s pricing decision reveals a sophisticated understanding of its audience. As the company pivots toward next-generation platforms, it has found a way to extract one final, lucrative chapter from its heritage.

For buyers willing to pay the new prices, the premium is not just for the car; it is for the feeling of owning the last true originals. Tesla has turned sentiment into strategy, and in the process, reminded everyone that even in the EV era, emotion remains a powerful line on the balance sheet.

Continue Reading