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.
News
Tesla Robotaxi appears to be heading to a new U.S. city
Things are expanding for Robotaxi, but the big sign that it is really moving along greatly will be with the expansion to a new city. Tesla has not gone outside of Austin or the Bay Area as of yet, and launching in a new city will be a great indicator of progress.
Tesla Robotaxi appears to be heading to a new U.S. city, and although the company has revealed plans to launch in six new metros this year, it has yet to establish a new location outside of Austin and the Bay Area of California, where it has operated since last Summer.
A lot full of Model Y vehicles was spotted in Henderson, a town just north of Las Vegas, but there seems to be more than just this hint indicating that the Sin City will be the next location to offer potentially driverless rides in a Tesla using its Full Self-Driving suite.
These Model Ys are not your typical vehicles, as they are fitted with hardware that is only on Robotaxis: a rear camera washer is the dead giveaway:
🚨 These rear camera washers are only present on Robotaxi vehicles
Maybe Las Vegas is the next city to get the Robotaxi suite 😀 https://t.co/my3da5L4zc pic.twitter.com/jYFQuX1j2E
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) March 17, 2026
The photos and video of the lot were taken by TheZacher on X, who spotted the Model Y fleet in the Henderson parking lot.
The rear camera washer is the main piece of evidence here that indicates Tesla could be looking to expand Robotaxi to Las Vegas, a major ride-hailing hot spot, as it is one of the biggest tourist attractions in the United States. Ride-sharing is a major industry in Vegas, especially for those who are staying off the Strip.
Tesla has also been extremely transparent that Vegas is on its radar for the Robotaxi fleet, as it revealed last year that it was one of five new U.S. cities that it planned to launch the ride-hailing service in this year.
Tesla confirms Robotaxi is heading to five new cities in the U.S.
The others were Phoenix, Dallas, Houston, and Miami.
Things are expanding for Robotaxi, but the big sign that it is really moving along greatly will be with the expansion to a new city. Tesla has not gone outside of Austin or the Bay Area as of yet, and launching in a new city will be a great indicator of progress.
It will also give Tesla a new benchmark against rival company Waymo, which has operated in Las Vegas for some time.
News
Tesla Roadster gets new unveiling date once again
Musk announced last year that the unveiling, which initially happened back in 2018, would take place on April Fool’s Day. Initial deliveries at the 2018 event were slotted for 2020, but delays in the project, as well as prioritization of other things, continued to push the Roadster back.
The Tesla Roadster is perhaps the most anticipated vehicle in the company’s history, but those who have been waiting anxiously for it will have to push their timelines back once again.
Tesla CEO Elon Musk has revealed that the company is once again pushing back the unveiling event that was originally planned for April 1. It will now take place “probably in late April.”
True.
New Roadster unveil probably in late April. https://t.co/NShZxpK5cI
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) March 17, 2026
Musk announced last year that the unveiling, which initially happened back in 2018, would take place on April Fool’s Day. Initial deliveries at the 2018 event were slotted for 2020, but delays in the project, as well as prioritization of other things, continued to push the Roadster back.
There has been so much hype about the Roadster that people are right to be excited about the prospect of its existence.
Musk’s most recent rumblings about the vehicle came last Fall, when he appeared on the Joe Rogan Experience podcast, where he once again hinted the car would be able to hover for a short period.
He said:
“Whether it’s good or bad, it will be unforgettable. My friend Peter Thiel once reflected that the future was supposed to have flying cars, but we don’t have flying cars. I think if Peter wants a flying car, he should be able to buy one…I think it has a shot at being the most memorable product unveiling ever. [It will be unveiled] hopefully before the end of the year. You know, we need to make sure that it works. This is some crazy technology in this car. Let’s just put it this way: if you took all the James Bond cars and combined them, it’s crazier than that.”
Additionally, he said the vehicle would not be something that would prioritize safety. Musk said that “If safety is your number one goal, do not buy the Roadster.” It’s made for speed and excitement, not for grocery-getting.
Elon Musk just said some crazy stuff about the Tesla Roadster
As the April 1 unveiling event that was originally planned was nearing without any communication to fans, media, or anyone who would potentially be in attendance, it seemed to be pretty obvious that Tesla was not ready to pull the trigger on the event quite yet.
There could be some last-minute things to finalize, or it could be something else. One thing is for certain, though: we are not super surprised that things were moved back.
Tesla has definitely been putting some things in motion for the Roadster. A few months back, Tesla started to ramp up hiring for the Roadster, and earlier in March, it submitted a patent application for a new seat design.
Elon Musk
Tesla named by U.S. Gov. in $4.3B battery deal for American-made cells
What began as an open secret in the energy industry was confirmed by the U.S. Department of the Interior on Monday: Tesla is the buyer behind LG Energy Solution’s blockbuster $4.3 billion battery supply agreement.
What began as an open secret in the energy industry is becoming more real after the U.S. Department of the Interior named Tesla as the stakeholder in the LG Energy Solution’s blockbuster $4.3 billion battery supply agreement.
Tesla and LG Energy Solution are expanding their partnership to build a LFP prismatic battery cell manufacturing facility in Lansing, Michigan, launching production in 2027. The announcement, made as part of the Indo-Pacific Energy Security Summit results, ends months of speculation.
“American-made cells will power Tesla’s Megapack 3 energy storage systems produced in Houston, creating a robust domestic battery supply chain.”, notes a press release on the U.S. Department of the Interior website.
Tesla has long utilized China’s Contemporary Amperex Technology Co. (CATL), the world’s largest LFP battery maker, as one of its primary suppliers. That relationship made financial sense for years, considering that Chinese LFP cells were cheap, abundant, and reliable. But with escalated tariffs on Chinese imports and an increasingly growing Tesla Energy business that’s particularly reliant on LFP cells for products including its Megapack battery storage units designed for utilities and large-scale commercial projects.
The announcement of a deepened partnership between LG Energy Solution and Tesla has strategic logic for both parties. For Tesla, it secures a tariff-compliant, domestically produced battery supply for its fast-growing energy division. LGES, now producing LFP batteries in Michigan, becomes the only major supplier currently scaling U.S. production, outpacing rivals like Samsung SDI and SK On. LG Energy Solution’s Lansing plant, formerly known as Ultium Cells 3, was previously operated as a joint venture with General Motors. LGES acquired GM’s stake in May 2025 and now fully owns the site, with a production capacity of 50 GWh per year. LG Energy said the contract includes options to extend the supply period by up to seven years and boost volumes based on further consultations.
For the broader industry, the ripple effects are significant. This deal signals that domestic battery manufacturing can be financially viable and not just aspirational. Utilities, energy developers, and rival automakers will take note as American-made LFP supply becomes a competitive reality rather than a distant promise.
For consumers, the benefits will take time but are real. A more resilient, U.S.-based supply chain means fewer price shocks from trade disputes, more stable Megapack availability for the grid storage projects that reduce electricity costs, and long-term downward pressure on energy storage prices as domestic production scales.
Deliveries are set to begin in 2027 and run through mid-2030, and as grid storage demand accelerates, reliable, US-made battery supply is no longer a future ambition. It is becoming a core requirement of the country’s energy strategy.
Tesla Robotaxi appears to be heading to a new U.S. city
Tesla Roadster gets new unveiling date once again
