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.
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
Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli responded to rumors of an imminent bankruptcy that was reportedly being mulled after a report stated the automaker was working with the firm AlixPartners to iron out its next steps.
The company felt a massive loss on Wall Street yesterday, as the report essentially pushed the stock down as much as 55 percent on Tuesday.
The report, published initially by Eletric-Vehicles.com, claimed Lucid was essentially in dire straits and was told by AlixPartners, a commonly used restructuring advisor, to either take shares private or file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.
Lucid’s head of Communications, Nick Twork, immediately challenged the report and stated the company “has sufficient liquidity to carry its operations well into next year.”
Now, the company’s CEO is chiming in as well, stating that the report is “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Napoli said:
“Lucid is not considering bankruptcy or a transaction to take the company private. Those reports are false. The Board did not explore either scenario. Period.
As disclosed in our most recent quarterly filing, Lucid has sufficient liquidity to fund its operations well into next year.
We work with outside advisors to improve operational performance and execution. They are not advising Lucid on a take-private transaction or bankruptcy, and any suggestion that they have recommended either course of action to management or the Board is false.
My priority is clear: turn this company around. That is where the leadership team and I are focused.
I look forward to providing a full update during our quarterly earnings call on August 4th.”
🚨 Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli calls rumors of financial issues “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Read his full remarks here: https://t.co/t3Pg1NHvzy pic.twitter.com/LvHUPhO4Qf
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 15, 2026
It seems pretty clear that Lucid is confident things will be okay, and, to be honest, they should not have much to worry about, especially considering the company has been backed by the Saudi Public Investment Fund (PIF) for years. It has solid financial backing, and its sales, while weak, are pretty much right on par with a company of this age.
Lucid also sent a Cease & Desist letter to the publication for their report.
Lucid shares have rebounded nicely and are up nearly 21 percent at the time of publication. As soon as the company dispelled the rumors of bankruptcy yesterday, the stock began to climb back toward more reasonable levels.
Tesla has once again demonstrated strong customer focus by swiftly addressing and fully refunding a bizarre Supercharger pricing glitch that affected drivers in Atlantic Canada.
The issue surfaced earlier this month when the Tesla app began displaying dramatically inflated per-minute charging rates at stations in Prince Edward Island and parts of New Brunswick.
One widely shared screenshot from a Charlottetown, PEI Supercharger showed rates reaching ridiculous levels: $6.00 per minute for the 180-250 kW tier, along with $3.57/min for 100-180 kW and $2.29/min for 60-100 kW.
Correct pricing will be going live at midnight tonight. All fees since July 2nd 2026 will be waived.
— Tesla Charging (@TeslaCharging) July 13, 2026
These figures were several times higher than normal Supercharger pricing in the region.
To put the error in perspective, charging at the highest incorrect rate would have been shockingly expensive.
At 250 kW, a common charging speed at Superchargers, a vehicle pulls roughly 4.17 kWh per minute. Under the glitch, a driver spending just 10 minutes at peak power would face a $60 bill. A typical 20- to 30-minute session to add meaningful range could have cost $120 to $180 or more, before any congestion fees.
Tesla gets another layer of gamification with Free Supercharging on the line
By comparison, standard Canadian Supercharger rates usually fall between $0.25 and $0.60 per kWh, making a similar session cost roughly $15–$40. The erroneous per-minute structure, combined with the inflated numbers, turned what should be a convenient stop into a potential financial shock.
The glitch appears to have started sometime around early July, and quickly drew attention on social media as owners questioned whether Tesla had implemented steep hidden increases. Some drivers even reported seeing $0 charges in their history, indicating broader billing confusion.
Tesla’s official Charging account on X stated that correct pricing would roll out at midnight on July 13, so the fix is already in effect. More importantly, the company announced it would waive all fees for every Supercharger session since July 2. This blanket waiver covers the entire affected period without requiring users to file individual claims, with automated refunds expected soon. The decision affects stations in PEI and nearby areas in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.
It’s a classy move, and rather than issuing partial credits or forcing owners to submit support tickets, Tesla simply absorbed the cost of the system error and made drivers whole. In an industry where hidden fees and bill disputes are common, Tesla’s proactive, no-questions-asked approach reinforces owner trust and highlights the company’s commitment to service excellence.
The incident, while disruptive for a short time, ultimately showcases Tesla’s ability to own mistakes and prioritize customer satisfaction. Atlantic Canada Tesla owners can now charge with confidence again, knowing the company has their back when technology glitches occur.
In an era of complex EV billing, such transparency and generosity are refreshing and set a positive example for the industry.
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
Elon Musk’s Texas ranch to showcase the lifelong work that changed the world
