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.
News
Tesla dispels reports of ‘sales suspension’ in California
“This was a “consumer protection” order about the use of the term “Autopilot” in a case where not one single customer came forward to say there’s a problem.
Sales in California will continue uninterrupted.”
Tesla has dispelled reports that it is facing a thirty-day sales suspension in California after the state’s Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) issued a penalty to the company after a judge ruled it “misled consumers about its driver-assistance technology.”
On Tuesday, Bloomberg reported that the California DMV was planning to adopt the penalty but decided to put it on ice for ninety days, giving Tesla an opportunity to “come into compliance.”
Tesla enters interesting situation with Full Self-Driving in California
Tesla responded to the report on Tuesday evening, after it came out, stating that this was a “consumer protection” order that was brought up over its use of the term “Autopilot.”
The company said “not one single customer came forward to say there’s a problem,” yet a judge and the DMV determined it was, so they want to apply the penalty if Tesla doesn’t oblige.
However, Tesla said that its sales operations in California “will continue uninterrupted.”
It confirmed this in an X post on Tuesday night:
This was a “consumer protection” order about the use of the term “Autopilot” in a case where not one single customer came forward to say there’s a problem.
Sales in California will continue uninterrupted.
— Tesla North America (@tesla_na) December 17, 2025
The report and the decision by the DMV and Judge involved sparked outrage from the Tesla community, who stated that it should do its best to get out of California.
One X post said California “didn’t deserve” what Tesla had done for it in terms of employment, engineering, and innovation.
Tesla has used Autopilot and Full Self-Driving for years, but it did add the term “(Supervised)” to the end of the FSD suite earlier this year, potentially aiming to protect itself from instances like this one.
This is the first primary dispute over the terminology of Full Self-Driving, but it has undergone some scrutiny at the federal level, as some government officials have claimed the suite has “deceptive” naming. Previous Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg was vocally critical of the use of the name “Full Self-Driving,” as well as “Autopilot.”
News
New EV tax credit rule could impact many EV buyers
We confirmed with a Tesla Sales Advisor that any current orders that have the $7,500 tax credit applied to them must be completed by December 31, meaning delivery must take place by that date. However, it is unclear at this point whether someone could still claim the credit when filing their tax returns for 2025 as long as the order reflects an order date before September 30.
Tesla owners could be impacted by a new EV tax credit rule, which seems to be a new hoop to jump through for those who benefited from the “extension,” which allowed orderers to take delivery after the loss of the $7,500 discount.
After the Trump Administration initiated the phase-out of the $7,500 EV tax credit, many were happy to see the rules had been changed slightly, as deliveries could occur after the September 30 cutoff as long as orders were placed before the end of that month.
However, there appears to be a new threshold that EV buyers will have to go through, and it will impact their ability to get the credit, at least at the Point of Sale, for now.
Delivery must be completed by the end of the year, and buyers must take possession of the car by December 31, 2025, or they will lose the tax credit. The U.S. government will be closing the tax credit portal, which allows people to claim the credit at the Point of Sale.
🚨UPDATE: $7,500 Tax Credit Portal “Closes By End of Year”.
This is bad news for pending Tesla buyers (MYP) looking to lock in the $7,500 Tax Credit.
“it looks like the portal closes by end of the year so there be no way for us to guarantee the funds however, we will try our… pic.twitter.com/LnWiaXL30k
— DennisCW | wen my L (@DennisCW_) December 15, 2025
We confirmed with a Tesla Sales Advisor that any current orders that have the $7,500 tax credit applied to them must be completed by December 31, meaning delivery must take place by that date.
However, it is unclear at this point whether someone could still claim the credit when filing their tax returns for 2025 as long as the order reflects an order date before September 30.
If not, the order can still go through, but the buyer will not be able to claim the tax credit, meaning they will pay full price for the vehicle.
This puts some buyers in a strange limbo, especially if they placed an order for the Model Y Performance. Some deliveries have already taken place, and some are scheduled before the end of the month, but many others are not expecting deliveries until January.
Elon Musk
Elon Musk takes latest barb at Bill Gates over Tesla short position
Bill Gates placed a massive short bet against Tesla of ~1% of our total shares, which might have cost him over $10B by now
Elon Musk took his latest barb at former Microsoft CEO Bill Gates over his short position against the company, which the two have had some tensions over for a number of years.
Gates admitted to Musk several years ago through a text message that he still held a short position against his sustainable car and energy company. Ironically, Gates had contacted Musk to explore philanthropic opportunities.
Elon Musk explains Bill Gates beef: He ‘placed a massive bet on Tesla dying’
Musk said he could not take the request seriously, especially as Gates was hoping to make money on the downfall of the one company taking EVs seriously.
The Tesla frontman has continued to take shots at Gates over the years from time to time, but the latest comment came as Musk’s net worth swelled to over $600 billion. He became the first person ever to reach that threshold earlier this week, when Tesla shares increased due to Robotaxi testing without any occupants.
Musk refreshed everyone’s memory with the recent post, stating that if Gates still has his short position against Tesla, he would have lost over $10 billion by now:
Bill Gates placed a massive short bet against Tesla of ~1% of our total shares, which might have cost him over $10B by now
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) December 17, 2025
Just a month ago, in mid-November, Musk issued his final warning to Gates over the short position, speculating whether the former Microsoft frontman had still held the bet against Tesla.
“If Gates hasn’t fully closed out the crazy short position he has held against Tesla for ~8 years, he had better do so soon,” Musk said. This came in response to The Gates Foundation dumping 65 percent of its Microsoft position.
Tesla CEO Elon Musk sends final warning to Bill Gates over short position
Musk’s involvement in the U.S. government also drew criticism from Gates, as he said that the reductions proposed by DOGE against U.S.A.I.D. were “stunning” and could cause “millions of additional deaths of kids.”
“Gates is a huge liar,” Musk responded.
It is not known whether Gates still holds his Tesla short position.
Tesla dispels reports of ‘sales suspension’ in California
New EV tax credit rule could impact many EV buyers
