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.
Cybertruck
Tesla Cybertruck earns IIHS Top Safety Pick+ award
To commemorate the accolade, the official Cybertruck account celebrated the milestone on X.
The Tesla Cybertruck has achieved the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety’s (IIHS) highest honor, earning a Top Safety Pick+ rating for 2025 models built after April 2025.
The full-size electric pickup truck’s safety rating is partly due to the vehicle’s strong performance in updated crash tests, superior front crash prevention, and effective headlights, among other factors. To commemorate the accolade, the official Cybertruck account celebrated the milestone on X.
Cybertruck’s IIHS rating
As per the IIHS, beginning with 2025 Cybertruck models built after April 2025, changes were made to the front underbody structure and footwell to improve occupant safety in driver-side and passenger-side small overlap front crashes. The moderate overlap front test earned a good rating, and the updated side impact test also received stellar marks.
The Cybertruck’s front crash prevention earned a good rating in pedestrian scenarios, with the standard Collision Avoidance Assist avoiding collisions in day and night tests across child, adult crossing, and parallel paths. Headlights with high-beam assist compensated for limitations, contributing to the top award.
Safest and most autonomous pickup
The Cybertruck is one of only two full-size pickups to receive the IIHS’ Top Safety Pick + rating. It is also the only one equipped with advanced self-driving features via Tesla’s Full Self-Driving (Supervised) system. Thanks to FSD, the Cybertruck can navigate inner city streets and highways on its own with minimal supervision, adding a layer of safety beyond passive crash protection.
Community reactions poured in, with users praising the vehicle’s safety rating amidst skepticism from critics. Tesla itself highlighted this by starting its X post with a short clip of a Cybertruck critic who predicted that the vehicle will likely not pass safety tests. The only question now is, of course, if the vehicle’s Top Safety Pick+ rating from the IIHS will help the Cybertruck improve its sales.
News
Tesla stands to gain from Ford’s decision to ditch large EVs
Tesla is perhaps the biggest beneficiary of Ford’s decision, especially as it will no longer have to deal with the sole pure EV pickup that outsold it from time to time: the F-150 Lightning.
Ford’s recent decision to abandon production of the all-electric Ford F-150 Lightning after the 2025 model year should yield some advantages for Tesla.
The Detroit-based automaker’s pivot away from large EVs and toward hybrids and extended-range EVs that come with a gas generator is proof that sustainable powertrains are easy on paper, but hard in reality.
Tesla is perhaps the biggest beneficiary of Ford’s decision, especially as it will no longer have to deal with the sole pure EV pickup that outsold it from time to time: the F-150 Lightning.
Here’s why:
Reduced Competition in the Electric Pickup Segment
The F-150 Lightning was the Tesla Cybertruck’s primary and direct rival in the full-size electric pickup market in the United States. With Ford’s decision to end pure EV production of its best-selling truck’s electric version and shifting to hybrids/EREVs, the Cybertruck faces significantly less competition.
Credit: Tesla
This could drive more fleet and retail buyers toward the Cybertruck, especially those committed to fully electric vehicles without a gas generator backup.
Strengthened Market Leadership and Brand Perception in Pure EVs
Ford’s pullback from large EVs–citing unprofitability and lack of demand for EVs of that size–highlights the challenges legacy automakers face in scaling profitable battery-electric vehicles.
Tesla, as the established leader with efficient production and vertical integration, benefits from reinforced perception as the most viable and committed pure EV manufacturer.
Credit: Tesla
This can boost consumer confidence in Tesla’s long-term ecosystem over competitors retreating to hybrids. With Ford making this move, it is totally reasonable that some car buyers could be reluctant to buy from other legacy automakers.
Profitability is a key reason companies build cars; they’re businesses, and they’re there to make money.
However, Ford’s new strategy could plant a seed in the head of some who plan to buy from companies like General Motors, Stellantis, or others, who could have second thoughts. With this backtrack in EVs, other things, like less education on these specific vehicles to technicians, could make repairs more costly and tougher to schedule.
Potential Increases in Market Share for Large EVs
Interestingly, this could play right into the hands of Tesla fans who have been asking for the company to make a larger EV, specifically a full-size SUV.
Customers seeking large, high-capability electric trucks or SUVs could now look to Tesla for its Cybertruck or potentially a future vehicle release, which the company has hinted at on several occasions this year.
With Ford reallocating resources away from large pure EVs and taking a $19.5 billion charge, Tesla stands to capture a larger slice of the remaining demand in this segment without a major U.S. competitor aggressively pursuing it.
News
Ford cancels all-electric F-150 Lightning, announces $19.5 billion in charges
“Rather than spending billions more on large EVs that now have no path to profitability, we are allocating that money into higher returning areas, more trucks and van hybrids, extended range electric vehicles, affordable EVs, and entirely new opportunities like energy storage.”
Ford is canceling the all-electric F-150 Lightning and also announced it would take a $19.5 billion charge as it aims to quickly restructure its strategy regarding electrification efforts, a massive blow for the Detroit-based company that was once one of the most gung-ho on transitioning to EVs.
The announcement comes as the writing on the wall seemed to get bolder and more identifiable. Ford was bleeding money in EVs and, although it had a lot of success with the all-electric Lightning, it is aiming to push its efforts elsewhere.
It will also restructure its entire strategy on EVs, and the Lightning is not the only vehicle getting the boot. The T3 pickup, a long-awaited vehicle that was developed in part of a skunkworks program, is also no longer in the company’s plans.
Instead of continuing on with its large EVs, it will now shift its focus to hybrids and “extended-range EVs,” which will have an onboard gasoline engine to increase traveling distance, according to the Wall Street Journal.
“Ford no longer plans to produce select larger electric vehicles where the business case has eroded due to lower-than-expected demand, high costs, and regulatory changes,” the company said in a statement.
🚨 Ford has announced it is discontinuing production of the F-150 Lightning, as it plans to report a charge of $19.5 billion in special items.
The Lightning will still be produced, but instead with a gas generator that will give it over 700 miles of range.
“Ford no longer… pic.twitter.com/ZttZ66SDHL
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) December 15, 2025
While unfortunate, especially because the Lightning was a fantastic electric truck, Ford is ultimately a business, and a business needs to make money.
Ford has lost $13 billion on its EV business since 2023, and company executives are more than aware that they gave it plenty of time to flourish.
Andrew Frick, President of Ford, said:
“Rather than spending billions more on large EVs that now have no path to profitability, we are allocating that money into higher returning areas, more trucks and van hybrids, extended range electric vehicles, affordable EVs, and entirely new opportunities like energy storage.”
CEO Jim Farley also commented on the decision:
“Instead of plowing billions into the future knowing these large EVs will never make money, we are pivoting.”
Farley also said that the company now knows enough about the U.S. market “where we have a lot more certainty in this second inning.”
Tesla Cybertruck earns IIHS Top Safety Pick+ award
Tesla stands to gain from Ford’s decision to ditch large EVs
