

News
Tesla FSD’s prolonged release doesn’t make it a ‘fraud,’ company says
Tesla Full Self-Driving’s prolonged release doesn’t make it a “fraud,” the company said in a motion to dismiss a case.
Tesla is currently involved in a class-action lawsuit from a few Autopilot and Full Self-Driving customers and has recently filed a motion to dismiss the case with the U.S. District Court in San Francisco. In that motion, a statement was made by Tesla’s attorneys that may have been taken out of context by some media reports.
Teslarati obtained a copy of the motion, and here is what we found.
After some background information on FSD, Tesla noted that each of the plaintiffs purchased a vehicle, and “all but one allegedly purchase the FSDC package.” (FSDC is an acronym for full self-driving capability.)
“Plaintiffs knew at the time of purchase that their cars were not completely autonomous. And they knew that the timeline towards more complete autonomy was contingent upon numerous factors, including software development and regulatory approval. Yet now they sue Tesla, complaining that their cars are not completely autonomous.”
The document noted that four out of five of the named plaintiffs have valid arbitration agreements with Tesla that should be enforced and cover all of their claims. The one plaintiff who opted out “advanced a consolidated complaint riddled with defects, and that should be dismissed.”
The plaintiff “sued too late–five years after he purchased his vehicle and the optional software package, well after any of his claims accrued. All of his claims are time-barred and should be dismissed. Moreover, the hundreds-of-paragraph, narrative complaint fails to support a single cognizable legal theory. The Complaint makes no mention of the parties’ written contract or Tesla’s car warranty. It instead cherry-picks numerous statements allegedly made by Tesla and attempts to manufacture claims for fraud and breach of warranty.”
Tesla’s attorneys made several statements, including that headline-worthy one regarding FSD and failure. However, the attorneys never claimed that FSD is a failure. In the document, the attorneys pointed out that the complaint “identifies no statement that Tesla made that was fraudulent.”
Additionally, it added that no there was no statement made that Tesla’s vehicles, including those equipped with the FSDC package, were fully autonomous at the time of the Plaintiff’s purchase. Tesla’s website also made it very clear that those vehicles were not.
Tesla’s attorneys noted that the plaintiff allegedly researched Tesla’s online and public statements and reviewed them before buying his vehicles. The labels of “Autopilot,” “Enhanced Autopilot,” or “Full Self-Driving Capability” didn’t mean that the vehicles were fully autonomous. Tesla’s attorneys also noted that Tesla’s user manuals plainly showed this as well.
“Nor would any reasonable consumer purchase a Tesla vehicle with the belief that it is fully autonomous based solely on these labels,” the attorneys said.
Instead, each of the plaintiffs alleged that they “decided to purchase [his or her] vehicle and the ADAS packages after researching, reviewing, and relying on Tesla’s online and other public statements.”
The plaintiff’s “assertion that Tesla promised the vehicles were already fully autonomous when they were sold rings hollow,” the attorneys stated.
“His assertion that Tesla promised to release completely autonomous capabilities ‘within a reasonable time after,’ his purchase fares no better.”
“No allegations show that Tesla promised that the FSDC package would enable full autonomy within a specified period of time. Many of the statements quoted in the Complaint did not even concern the FSDC package,” the attorneys said, adding that this makes it irrelevant to the plaintiff’s claims.
“In addition, the quoted statements were also often accompanied by and subject to the qualifier that a release of fully autonomous capabilities to the general public would require government approval, a variable over which Tesla had no control, and that any regulatory clearance would require a vast amount of data to show that completely autonomous driving is significantly safer than human driving.”
The attorneys cited another federal court that said similar statements “do not constitute fraud” because they indicate that Tesla wasn’t making the absolute representation the Plaintiff said he was.
“Same here. Especially under the heightened Rule 9(b) standard, no allegation suggests that the aspirational statements that Tesla did make were, somehow, false when made. See Richardson, 2000 WL.”
“To the contrary, allegations in the Complaint demonstrate that Tesla has been constantly improving its ADAS technology by releasing software updates, with a goal of achieving more and better autonomy capabilities in the future.”
“Mere failure to realize a long-term, aspirational goal is not fraud.“
In reference to the above statement, the attorneys pointed out that the courts often rejected the argument that a plaintiff can prove the fraudulent intent by pointing to Tesla’s “subsequent failure to perform under the agreement.”
Since launching the software in 2015, Tesla has made a lot of progress toward FSD and autonomous. Tesla has had two AI Day events explaining the technology being developed and used. And Tesla has since launched an FSD Beta testing program, and you can read the recent Tesla FSD Beta news here.
Disclosure: Johnna is a $TSLA shareholder and believes in Tesla’s mission.
Your feedback is welcome. If you have any comments or concerns or see a typo, you can email me at johnna@teslarati.com. You can also reach me on Twitter at @JohnnaCrider1.
Teslarati is now on TikTok. Follow us for interactive news & more. Teslarati is now on TikTok. Follow us for interactive news & more. You can also follow Teslarati on LinkedIn, Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook.
Investor's Corner
Tesla investors may be in for a big surprise
All signs point toward a strong quarter for Tesla in terms of deliveries. Investors could be in for a surprise.

Tesla investors have plenty of things to be ecstatic about, considering the company’s confidence in autonomy, AI, robotics, cars, and energy. However, many of them may be in for a big surprise as the end of the $7,500 EV tax credit nears. On September 30, it will be gone for good.
This has put some skepticism in the minds of some investors: the lack of a $7,500 discount for buying a clean energy vehicle may deter many people from affording Tesla’s industry-leading EVs.
Tesla warns consumers of huge, time-sensitive change coming soon
The focus on quarterly deliveries, while potentially waning in terms of importance to the future, is still a big indicator of demand, at least as of now. Of course, there are other factors, most of them economic.
The big push to make the most of the final quarter of the EV tax credit is evident, as Tesla is reminding consumers on social media platforms and through email communications that the $7,500 discount will not be here forever. It will be gone sooner rather than later.
It appears the push to maximize sales this quarter before having to assess how much they will be impacted by the tax credit’s removal is working.
Delivery Wait Time Increases
Wait times for Tesla vehicles are increasing due to what appears to be increased demand for the company’s vehicles. Recently, Model Y delivery wait times were increased from 1-3 weeks to 4-6 weeks.
This puts extra pressure on consumers to pull the trigger on an order, as delivery must be completed by the cutoff date of September 30.
Delivery wait times may have gone up due to an increase in demand as consumers push to make a purchase before losing that $7,500 discount.
More People are Ordering
A post on X by notable Tesla influencer Sawyer Merritt anecdotally shows he has been receiving more DMs than normal from people stating that they’re ordering vehicles before the end of the tax credit:
Anecdotally, I’ve been getting more DMs from people ordering Teslas in the past few days than I have in the last couple of years. As expected, the end of the U.S. EV credit next month is driving a big surge in orders.
Lease prices are rising for the 3/Y, delivery wait times are… pic.twitter.com/Y6JN3w2Gmr
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) August 13, 2025
It’s not necessarily a confirmation of more orders, but it could be an indication that things are certainly looking that way.
Why Investors Could Be Surprised
Tesla investors could see some positive movement in stock price following the release of the Q3 delivery report, especially if all signs point to increased demand this quarter.
We reported previously that this could end up being a very strong rebounding quarter for Tesla, with so many people taking advantage of the tax credit.
Whether the delivery figures will be higher than normal remains to be seen. But all indications seem to point to Q3 being a very strong quarter for Tesla.
Elon Musk
Tesla bear Guggenheim sees nearly 50% drop off in stock price in new note
Tesla bear Guggenheim does not see any upside in Robotaxi.

Tesla bear Guggenheim is still among the biggest non-believers in the company’s overall mission and its devotion to solving self-driving.
In a new note to investors on Thursday, analyst Ronald Jewsikow reiterated his price target of $175, a nearly 50 percent drop off, with a ‘Sell’ rating, all based on skepticism regarding Tesla’s execution of the Robotaxi platform.
A few days ago, Tesla CEO Elon Musk said the company’s Robotaxi platform would open to the public in September, offering driverless rides to anyone in the Austin area within its geofence, which is roughly 90 square miles large.
Tesla CEO Elon Musk confirms Robotaxi is opening to the public: here’s when
However, Jewsikow’s skepticism regarding this timeline has to do with what’s going on inside of the vehicles. The analyst was willing to give props to Robotaxi, saying that Musk’s estimation of a September public launch would be a “key step” in offering the service to a broader population.
Where Jewsikow’s real issue lies is with Tesla’s lack of transparency on the Safety Monitors, and how bulls are willing to overlook their importance.
Much of this bullish mentality comes from the fact that the Monitors are not sitting in the driver’s seat, and they don’t have anything to do with the overall operation of the vehicle.
Musk also said last month that reducing Safety Monitors could come “in a month or two.”
Instead, they’re just there to make sure everything runs smoothly.
Jewsikow said:
“While safety drivers will remain, and no timeline has been provided for their removal, bulls have been willing to overlook the optics of safety drivers in TSLA vehicles, and we see no reason why that would change now.”
He also commented on Musk’s recent indication that Tesla was working on a 10x parameter count that could help make Full Self-Driving even more accurate. It could be one of the pieces to Tesla solving autonomy.
Jewsikow added:
“Perhaps most importantly for investors bullish on TSLA for the fleet of potential FSD-enabled vehicles today, the 10x higher parameter count will be able to run on the current generation of FSD hardware and inference compute.”
Elon Musk teases crazy new Tesla FSD model: here’s when it’s coming
Tesla shares are down just about 2 percent today, trading at $332.47.
News
Tesla Model 3 hits quarter million miles with original battery and motor
The Model 3’s Battery Management System (BMS) shows a State of Health between 88% and 90%.

A Western Australian Tesla Model 3 has captured global attention after racking up an impressive 410,000 kilometers (254,000 miles) on its original battery and motor, while still retaining around 90% of its original battery health.
Long-term Model 3
The 2021 Model 3 Standard Plus, equipped with a 60 kWh lithium iron phosphate (LFP) battery, has been in constant use as an Uber rideshare vehicle. According to Port Kennedy EV specialist EV Workz, the car’s Battery Management System (BMS) shows a State of Health between 88% and 90%.
EV Workz owner Edi Gutmanis shared the findings on Facebook’s Electric Vehicles For Australia page on August 8, and the post quickly went viral. As per Gutmanis, the Model 3’s charging history shows 15,556 kWh delivered via DC fast charging (29% of the total) and 38,012 kWh via AC charging (71% of the total).
Gutmanis also broke down the fuel savings for the Model 3. A petrol car covering the same 410,000 km at 7L/100km and $1.70 per liter would cost an estimated AU$50,000 in fuel. By comparison, charging the Tesla using average commercial rates would be about AU$20,737 and just AU$13,000 if using Western Australia’s EV tariff. That’s a potential refueling saving of roughly $37,000, not including the avoided maintenance costs of an internal combustion engine.
Simple fix
The car came into EV Workz for a driveline “judder” issue, as per a report form EV Central Australia. Gutmanis found the real cause was simply worn motor mount bushes. After seven hours of labor and $130 in parts, “the car drives just as good as the first day it left the dealership,” Gutmanis said.
Gutmanis, whose business also performs EV conversions on classics and 4x4s, says the results aren’t surprising. “We expect this sort of longevity with EV batteries,” he explained, though this is the highest-mileage Model 3 he has encountered in Australia.
-
Elon Musk1 week ago
Elon Musk teases crazy new Tesla FSD model: here’s when it’s coming
-
Elon Musk5 days ago
Elon Musk confirms Tesla AI6 chip is Project Dojo’s successor
-
News5 days ago
Tesla Model Y L reportedly entered mass production in Giga Shanghai
-
Elon Musk6 days ago
Tesla CEO Elon Musk details massive FSD update set for September release
-
News2 weeks ago
Tesla takes first step in sunsetting Model S and X with drastic move
-
Cybertruck5 days ago
Tesla’s new upgrade makes the Cybertruck extra-terrestrial
-
News3 days ago
Elon Musk reaffirms Tesla Semi mass production in 2026
-
News6 days ago
Elon Musk explains why Tesla stepped back from Project Dojo