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 fleet reaches new milestone that should expel common complaint
There have been many complaints in the eight months that the Robotaxi program has been active about ride availability, with many stating that they have been confronted with excessive wait times for a ride, as the fleet was very small at the beginning of its operation.
Tesla Robotaxi is active in both the Bay Area of California and Austin, Texas, and the fleet has reached a new milestone that should expel a common complaint: lack of availability.
It has now been confirmed by Robotaxi Tracker that the fleet of Tesla’s ride-sharing vehicles has reached 200, with 158 of those being available in the Bay Area and 42 more in Austin. Despite the program first launching in Texas, the company has more vehicles available in California.
The California area of operation is much larger than it is in Texas, and the vehicle fleet is larger because Tesla operates it differently; Safety Monitors sit in the driver’s seat in California while FSD navigates. In Texas, Safety Monitors sit in the passenger’s seat, but will switch seats when routing takes them on the highway.
Tesla has also started testing rides without any Safety Monitors internally.
Tesla Robotaxi goes driverless as Musk confirms Safety Monitor removal testing
This new milestone confronts a common complaint of Robotaxi riders in Austin and the Bay, which is vehicle availability.
There have been many complaints in the eight months that the Robotaxi program has been active about ride availability, with many stating that they have been confronted with excessive wait times for a ride, as the fleet was very small at the beginning of its operation.
I attempted to take a @robotaxi ride today from multiple different locations and time of day (from 9:00 AM to about 3:00 PM in Austin but never could do so.
I always got a “High Service Demand” message … I really hope @Tesla is about to go unsupervised and greatly plus up the… pic.twitter.com/IOUQlaqPU2
— Joe Tegtmeyer 🚀 🤠🛸😎 (@JoeTegtmeyer) November 26, 2025
With that being said, there have been some who have said wait times have improved significantly, especially in the Bay, where the fleet is much larger.
Robotaxi wait times here in Silicon Valley used to be around 15 minutes for me.
Over the past few days, they’ve been consistently under five minutes, and with scaling through the end of this year, they should drop to under two minutes. pic.twitter.com/Kbskt6lUiR
— Alternate Jones (@AlternateJones) January 6, 2026
Tesla’s approach to the Robotaxi fleet has been to prioritize safety while also gathering its footing as a ride-hailing platform.
Of course, there have been and still will be growing pains, but overall, things have gone smoothly, as there have been no major incidents that would derail the company’s ability to continue developing an effective mode of transportation for people in various cities in the U.S.
Tesla plans to expand Robotaxi to more cities this year, including Miami, Las Vegas, and Houston, among several others.
Elon Musk
Tesla announces closure date on widely controversial Full Self-Driving program
Tesla has said that it will officially bring closure to its free Full Self-Driving transfer program on March 31, 2026, giving owners until the end of the quarter to move their driving suite to another vehicle with no additional cost.
Tesla has officially announced a closure date for a widely controversial Full Self-Driving program, which has been among the most discussed pieces of the driving suite for years.
The move comes just after the company confirmed it would no longer offer the option to purchase the suite outright, instead opting for a subscription-based platform that will be available in mid-February.
Tesla has said that it will officially bring closure to its free Full Self-Driving transfer program on March 31, 2026, giving owners until the end of the quarter to move their driving suite to another vehicle with no additional cost.
NEWS: Tesla has started to inform customers in the U.S. that free FSD transfer will end on March 31, 2026.
Tesla has previously said free FSD transfers would end “that quarter,” but this is the first time in many quarters they’ve communicated a specific end date. Time will tell… pic.twitter.com/iCKDvGuBds
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) January 18, 2026
After that date, Tesla owners who purchased the FSD suite outright will have to adopt the exclusive subscription-only program, which will be the only option available after February 14.
CEO Elon Musk announced earlier this month that Tesla would be ending the option to purchase Full Self-Driving outright, but the reasoning for this decision is unknown.
However, there has been a lot of speculation that Tesla could offer a new tiered program, which would potentially lower the price of the suite and increase the take rate.
Tesla is shifting FSD to a subscription-only model, confirms Elon Musk
Others have mentioned something like a pay-per-mile platform that would charge drivers based on usage, which seems to be advantageous for those who still love to drive their cars but enjoy using FSD for longer trips, as it can take the stress out of driving.
Moving forward, Tesla seems to be taking any strategy it can to increase the number of owners who utilize FSD, especially as it is explicitly mentioned in Musk’s new compensation package, which was approved last year.
Musk is responsible for getting at least 10 million active Full Self-Driving subscriptions in one tranche, while another would require the company to deliver 20 million vehicles cumulatively.
The current FSD take rate is somewhere around 12 percent, as the company revealed during the Q3 2025 Earnings Call. Tesla needs to bump this up considerably, and the move to rid itself of the outright purchase option seems to be a move to get things going in the right direction.
News
Tesla Model Y leads South Korea’s EV growth in 2025
Data from the Korea Automobile and Mobility Industry Association showed that the Tesla Model Y emerged as one of the segment’s single biggest growth drivers.
South Korea’s electric vehicle market saw a notable rise in 2025, with registrations rising more than 50% and EV penetration surpassing 10% for the first time.
Data from the Korea Automobile and Mobility Industry Association showed that the Tesla Model Y, which is imported from Gigafactory Shanghai, emerged as one of the segment’s single biggest growth drivers, as noted in a report from IT Home News.
As per the Korea Automobile and Mobility Industry Association’s (KAMA) 2025 Korea Domestic Electric Vehicle Market Settlement report, South Korea registered 220,177 new electric vehicles in 2025, a 50.1% year-over-year increase. EV penetration also reached 13.1% in the country, entering double digits for the first time.
The Tesla Model Y played a central role in the market’s growth. The Model Y alone sold 50,397 units during the year, capturing 26.6% of South Korea’s pure electric passenger vehicle market. Sales of the Giga Shanghai-built Model Y increased 169.2% compared with 2024, driven largely by strong demand for the all-electric crossover’s revamped version.
Manufacturer performance reflected a tightly contested market. Kia led with 60,609 EV sales, followed closely by Tesla at 59,893 units and Hyundai at 55,461 units. Together, the three brands accounted for nearly 80% of the country’s total EV sales, forming what KAMA described as a three-way competitive market.
Imported EVs gained ground in South Korea in 2025, reaching a market share of 42.8%, while the share of domestically produced EVs declined from 75% in 2022 to 57.2% last year. Sales of China-made EVs more than doubled year over year to 74,728 units, supported in no small part by Tesla and its Model Y.
Elon Musk, for his part, has praised South Korean customers and their embrace of the electric vehicler maker. In a reply on X to a user who noted that South Koreans are fond of FSD, Musk stated that, “Koreans are often a step ahead in appreciating new technology.”
Tesla Robotaxi fleet reaches new milestone that should expel common complaint
Tesla announces closure date on widely controversial Full Self-Driving program
