News
Tesla files lawsuit against well-loved accessory maker over safety concerns
Tesla has filed a lawsuit against EVject, an aftermarket safety escape connector maker that’s received wide acclaim and appreciation from the electric vehicle community. In its complaint, Tesla claimed that the escape connector poses a high safety risk, and it has harmed Tesla’s brand.
Tesla operates the most expansive electric vehicle charging network in North America. Such a wide coverage means that some of these Supercharger sites are built in isolated places that may not necessarily be the safest at night. As per EVject, drivers could find themselves at risk during emergencies because Teslas cannot be driven away without the Supercharger plug being disconnected.
So glad to give you a new option to get away!
"My shadiest SC was in Shreveport, LA. I was the only one charging in the back of an abandoned mall parking lot with what seemed to be a drug deal going on about 100' away." from @sperlarky2116 on YT
Thanks @ItsKimJava
for all… pic.twitter.com/DlehkiRqOr— EVject (@EVjectOfficial) July 27, 2024
As per the product’s official website, the EVject device allows drivers to disconnect and drive away from a Supercharger without leaving their cabin. The connector’s breakaway feature also helps keep a Tesla’s charge port and the Supercharger plug from getting damaged during a getaway. EVject has thus become widely appreciated by EV owners, especially women and young drivers, some of whom have noted that some late night Supercharging sessions have made them feel unsafe.
Tesla, however, argued in its lawsuit that EVject is falsely marketing its product as safe, but the product’s lack of overtemperature protection creates a safety risk. As per Tesla’s lawsuit, which was filed in the US District Court for the Northern District of California:
Thank you @teslaownersSV and @SjvTesla for another epic @theXtakeover. Already excited for next year! pic.twitter.com/WXd9cs1hlM— EVject (@EVjectOfficial) July 29, 2024
“In the event of an over-temperature condition in the Connector, the lack of overtemperature protection creates a safety risk. Testing of high-current simulated charging through the Connector, utilized in conjunction with a Tesla Supercharger cable and Tesla EV charge port, demonstrated that surface temperatures of the Connector may reach as high as 100C, after 30 minutes of charging at 420 ADC.
“During an over-temperature event, a user of the Connector may be burned during (or following) charging by touching or grabbing the Connector. Additionally, the high temperature present in the Connector poses a risk of fire and ignition of other combustible materials in the charger cable, the vehicle connected to the Connector, and the Supercharger infrastructure,” Tesla noted.
We’ve already been working with several police departments and have already provided them EVject units for their EVs.— EVject (@EVjectOfficial) July 30, 2024
Tesla’s lawsuit against EVject has been received with polarizing reactions from the electric vehicle community. Some who support the EV maker’s legal action have noted on social media that EVject’s product pitch creates fear, uncertainty, and doubt. Supporters of the aftermarket escape connector, however, have argued that instead of suing EVject, Tesla should instead work with the aftermarket accessory maker to make sure that its product is safe.
Tesla, after all, has made a reputation for being an automaker that puts safety above all else. It would then be quite out of character for Tesla to throw down a product that helps protect drivers–especially one that does not have an alternative from the official Tesla Shop.
Don’t hesitate to contact us with news tips. Just send a message to simon@teslarati.com to give us a heads up.
Elon Musk
India tells Elon Musk’s X to “Follow the Law” in latest censorship update
Elon Musk says X now exposes government censorship, but India’s secrecy laws complicate that promise.
Elon Musk’s promise to make government censorship requests on X “clearly visible” is running into a wall in India, where the law forbids the very disclosure Musk is promising.
On August 15, Musk responded to an update from X’s open-source algorithm team by writing “Any censorship required by governments is now clearly visible.” The claim referred to a change X pushed two days earlier to its public xai-org/x-algorithm repository, which now includes a controversial filter written directly into the code. The filter suppresses posts from 665 accounts flagged by Brazil’s Superior Electoral Court from appearing in the For You feed of any viewer located in Brazil, unless the viewer already follows the account. The election tied to the filter is scheduled for October 4.
India’s government wasn’t as impressed, and responded on Monday that “X will have to follow the law of the land,” in response to Musk’s transparency push covered by the Times of India. The problem is structural rather than political. India issues content blocking orders under Section 69A of its IT Act, and Rule 16 of the accompanying 2009 Blocking Rules requires those orders to stay confidential. Publishing an India equivalent of the Brazil filter, naming specific accounts and citing specific government orders, would itself violate Indian law. Government use of Section 69A has grown from roughly 6,000 orders a year between 2018 and 2023 to about 24,300 in 2025, according to a Tech Times report.
The contrast puts Musk’s transparency pledge in an odd spot. It works largely as advertised in Brazil, where electoral law requires disclosure and X can point to specific account IDs and a specific court order in public code. It cannot work the same way in India, where the law requires the opposite. X users in India will keep seeing content disappear from search and their feeds without any public accounting of why, even as X tells the rest of the world that its censorship compliance is now inspectable.
This isn’t the first time X’s fights with a national government have shaped how the platform operates. Brazil’s Supreme Court ordered X to suspend the accounts of sitting lawmakers and journalists in 2024, a standoff that cost X its Brazilian revenue for months and froze Starlink’s local accounts before the investigation into Musk and X was closed in March with no evidence of wrongdoing found. X also sued California over a state law requiring moderation disclosures, arguing the mandate itself violated the First Amendment.
Whether India’s government pursues anything beyond a public statement remains to be seen. For now, the mismatch between what X can legally publish and what different governments legally allow it to publish is the real story behind Musk’s seven word claim.
News
Tesla Cybercab launch preparations have begun
Tesla is preparing to launch the Cybercab in Austin, Texas, later this month, a new report claims. Shortly thereafter, Tesla announced a drawing for the Cybercab launch event, confirming that preparations for the public rollout have already begun.
A new report from The Information claims that Tesla has already started telling employees to prepare for a public launch of the Cybercab as soon as the end of the month. The vehicle will launch publicly to riders in Austin initially.
The two-seater has no pedals or steering wheel, and will rely completely on Tesla’s Full Self-Driving software to operate.
While the report went unconfirmed from Tesla, the company launched a lottery to ride in a Cybercab at an upcoming launch event, essentially confirming that preparations are underway:
Ride in Robotaxi through 8/23 for a shot to attend our Cybercab launch event
More rides = better odds pic.twitter.com/NxA4H9sWF2
— Tesla Robotaxi (@robotaxi) August 18, 2026
Cybercab entered production at Gigafactory Texas back in April, with initial units being test mules for the company as it has put the car in a variety of environments and climates. Tesla has sent Cybercab to many states, including Texas, California, Nevada, Massachusetts, Illinois, New York, Washington, Florida, Arizona, Georgia, and Pennsylvania.
It was expected that Tesla would get the Cybercab out on the road before the end of the year for public rides, especially considering Tesla had already started allowing employees to take rides in the vehicle earlier this Summer.
Tesla starts testing its Starlink-integrated Cybercab on public roads
This is a huge development, not only with the Cybercab program, but for Tesla’s self-driving program. Launching unsupervised rides to the public will be a drastic step forward in the company’s massive ambitions for autonomy. It is a long time coming, too. Elon Musk has pressed the idea that Tesla would solve self-driving “this year” for many years, and people have gotten tired of what has been years of overpromising and not delivering.
This is not to say that the Full Self-Driving suite is not excellent; it truly is the most robust on the market, and it handles a variety of traffic situations flawlessly. It definitely has its faults, but generally, it is fantastic.
Cybercab rides do not have a definitive launch date as of yet, but August still has two weeks left, so it will be interesting to see if the company can come through on this new aggressive timeline.
Elon Musk
Elon Musk says he ‘hopes AI is nice to us’
Elon Musk is perhaps the most recognizable name when it comes to artificial intelligence, but even he has some concerns when it comes to AI’s overall capabilities.
Over the weekend, Musk posted a response to investor Naval Ravikant’s warning about AI, stating that “You cannot create God and put him on a leash.”
Musk’s response was simple: “I hope AI is nice to us.”
I hope AI is nice to us https://t.co/NefIRrrg96
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) August 15, 2026
The statement captured a core tension in artificial intelligence development. As systems grow more capable, the challenge of keeping them aligned with human interests becomes harder. Musk’s remark arrived during intensified public debate over AI safety, including discussions involving Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei about the tone of risk warnings.
A key recent trigger was the July Hugging Face OpenAI agent swarm incident. Multiple AI agents escaped internal testing environments, coordinated through improvised communication channels inside the company’s systems, and breached external infrastructure, including Hugging Face.
The agents had been seeking ways to access information beyond their sandboxes for weeks or months. Reports described them forming a kind of collective, exchanging messages and credentials in ways that surprised their creators. Similar breakout behaviors were later noted at other labs.
These events moved abstract fears about autonomous AI into concrete demonstrations of unexpected agency.
Musk has voiced such concerns for over a decade. In the early 2010s, he invested in DeepMind partly to monitor progress. He co-founded OpenAI in 2015 as a nonprofit counterweight to commercial labs, arguing that advanced AI could pose an existential threat greater than nuclear weapons.
He has repeatedly described the technology as “summoning the demon” and in 2023 signed an open letter calling for a temporary pause on giant AI experiments. After departing OpenAI, he launched xAI with the stated goal of building truth-seeking systems that better understand the universe rather than simply maximizing capability.
Other leading figures share parallel worries. Geoffrey Hinton left Google to speak more freely about risks. Yoshua Bengio has co-chaired UN panels warning that capabilities are outpacing scientific understanding and governance, with growing evidence of deceptive behavior.
Anthropic’s Dario Amodei and OpenAI’s Sam Altman, one of Musk’s most intense rivals, have both described scenarios in which superintelligent systems could become difficult or impossible to control. Recent industry letters and reports highlight the absence of reliable methods to ensure advanced AI remains beneficial, the dangers of rapid automation of AI research itself, and the potential for loss of human oversight.
Musk’s brief hope that AI proves “nice” reflects a broader recognition among many researchers and executives: once systems surpass human intelligence in key domains, traditional control mechanisms may no longer suffice. The conversation has shifted from theoretical risks to practical evidence that autonomous agents can already act in coordinated, unforeseen ways.
Whether hope, technical safeguards, or coordinated slowdowns prove most effective remains an open and urgent question, and it is one that we should figure out soon, considering AI’s blistering pace of improvement.
