News
Tesla is looking to eliminate contracts for faster vehicle delivery process
In what appears to be yet another initiative to deliver as many of its electric cars as possible to customers, Elon Musk has announced that Tesla is trying to get rid of paper contracts completely. According to Musk, Tesla’s delivery process should be as simple as a tap on a screen. Under the system, returns for Tesla’s vehicles should be a lot simpler as well.
Musk’s Twitter update came as a response to Tesla enthusiast JD Mankovsky, who noted that his sister-in-law has been in a delivery center for hours waiting for her all-electric SUV’s contracts to be finished. Mankovsky stated that there was a backlog in the delivery center’s contract/legal approval level, causing handovers to be delayed. In classic fashion, Musk promptly responded with an idea in tow.
We’re trying to get rid of contracts completely. Should just be “tap here & you get your car”. Then, if you don’t like it for any reason, just return it like any other product.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 23, 2018
If Tesla does employ what could pretty much be described as a tap and drive system, it would be yet another way for the company to separate itself from the conventions of the traditional auto industry. Issuing and signing contracts, after all, are a well-known, time-consuming aspect of the vehicle delivery process, and it is one practice that Tesla still engages in today. By getting rid of paper contracts, Tesla will separate itself even more from traditional auto sales practices. Such a practice will also make the buying experience of Tesla’s vehicles more similar to consumer tech products than conventional cars.
In a way, using a digital signing system for its vehicles is a strategic move for Tesla. The use of digital contracts, after all, has only been growing over the years. In the United States alone, digital signatures are an option for filing tax returns over the internet, and that is valid in every state today. Tesla would likely need to adapt to additional regulations if or when it starts using digital contracts, but the transition could be done.
Elon Musk’s statement about returning vehicles if customers are not satisfied further emphasizes the idea that Tesla’s vehicles are more like computers on wheels than regular vehicles. Elon Musk has, over the years, underscored the idea that Tesla is a different breed of carmaker, not only in terms of its products but also in terms of its business practices. Returning cars to the company in a manner similar to returning an iPhone to Apple definitely falls under that category. Returned vehicles could even give the company a considerable revenue. Apple, for one, usually uses returned units to be sold later on as refurbished devices. Tesla could employ a similar strategy, opening a lineup between its brand new and CPO offerings.
Looking at Elon Musk’s tweet in the short-term, the removal of traditional paper contracts seems to be yet another way for Tesla to increase its delivery figures. The company, after all, is currently pushing for profitability this third quarter. For Tesla to do this, it would have to deliver as many cars as it can to customers, particularly higher-margin vehicles like the Model 3 Performance, the Model S P100D, and the Model S P100D. Such a system ties in perfectly with the company’s new 5-Minute Sign & Drive system for Model 3 deliveries as well.
In a way, Tesla’s efforts to expedite the deliveries of its vehicles are in the best interests of the company’s customers. Earlier this month, Tesla announced that it had sold its 200,000th electric car in the United States, triggering the phase-out period for the $7,500 tax credit granted to its customers. The tax credit is set to decrease over the next quarters and fully expire by December 2019. Thus, from this point until the end of next year, it would be up to Tesla to deliver as many vehicles as possible to ensure that its customers qualify for a federal tax credit.
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
