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 is improving Giga Berlin’s free “Giga Train” service for employees
With this initiative, Tesla aims to boost the number of Gigafactory Berlin employees commuting by rail while keeping the shuttle free for all riders.
Tesla will expand its factory shuttle service in Germany beginning January 4, adding direct rail trips from Berlin Ostbahnhof to Giga Berlin-Brandenburg in Grünheide.
With this initiative, Tesla aims to boost the number of Gigafactory Berlin employees commuting by rail while keeping the shuttle free for all riders.
New shuttle route
As noted in a report from rbb24, the updated service, which will start January 4, will run between the Berlin Ostbahnhof East Station and the Erkner Station at the Gigafactory Berlin complex. Tesla stated that the timetable mirrors shift changes for the facility’s employees, and similar to before, the service will be completely free. The train will offer six direct trips per day as well.
“The service includes six daily trips, which also cover our shift times. The trains will run between Berlin Ostbahnhof (with a stop at Ostkreuz) and Erkner station to the Gigafactory,” Tesla Germany stated.
Even with construction continuing at Fangschleuse and Köpenick stations, the company said the route has been optimized to maintain a predictable 35-minute travel time. The update follows earlier phases of Tesla’s “Giga Train” program, which initially connected Erkner to the factory grounds before expanding to Berlin-Lichtenberg.
-->Tesla pushes for majority rail commuting
Tesla began production at Grünheide in March 2022, and the factory’s workforce has since grown to around 11,500 employees, with an estimated 60% commuting from Berlin. The facility produces the Model Y, Tesla’s best-selling vehicle, for both Germany and other territories.
The company has repeatedly emphasized its goal of having more than half its staff use public transportation rather than cars, positioning the shuttle as a key part of that initiative. In keeping with the factory’s sustainability focus, Tesla continues to allow even non-employees to ride the shuttle free of charge, making it a broader mobility option for the area.
News
Tesla Model 3 and Model Y dominate China’s real-world efficiency tests
The Tesla Model 3 posted 20.8 kWh/100 km while the Model Y followed closely at 21.8 kWh/100 km.
Tesla’s Model 3 and Model Y once again led the field in a new real-world energy-consumption test conducted by China’s Autohome, outperforming numerous rival electric vehicles in controlled conditions.
The results, which placed both Teslas in the top two spots, prompted Xiaomi CEO Lei Jun to acknowledge Tesla’s efficiency advantage while noting that his company’s vehicles will continue refining its own models to close the gap.
Tesla secures top efficiency results
Autohome’s evaluation placed all vehicles under identical conditions, such as a full 375-kg load, cabin temperature fixed at 24°C on automatic climate control, and a steady cruising speed of 120 km/h. In this environment, the Tesla Model 3 posted 20.8 kWh/100 km while the Model Y followed closely at 21.8 kWh/100 km, as noted in a Sina News report.
These figures positioned Tesla’s vehicles firmly at the top of the ranking and highlighted their continued leadership in long-range efficiency. The test also highlighted how drivetrain optimization, software management, and aerodynamic profiles remain key differentiators in high-speed, cold-weather scenarios where many electric cars struggle to maintain low consumption.
Xiaomi’s Lei Jun pledges to continue learning from Tesla
Following the results, Xiaomi CEO Lei Jun noted that the Xiaomi SU7 actually performed well overall but naturally consumed more energy due to its larger C-segment footprint and higher specification. He reiterated that factors such as size and weight contributed to the difference in real-world consumption compared to Tesla. Still, the executive noted that Xiaomi will continue to learn from the veteran EV maker.
“The Xiaomi SU7’s energy consumption performance is also very good; you can take a closer look. The fact that its test results are weaker than Tesla’s is partly due to objective reasons: the Xiaomi SU7 is a C-segment car, larger and with higher specifications, making it heavier and naturally increasing energy consumption. Of course, we will continue to learn from Tesla and further optimize its energy consumption performance!” Lei Jun wrote in a post on Weibo.
-->Lei Jun has repeatedly described Tesla as the global benchmark for EV efficiency, previously stating that Xiaomi may require three to five years to match its leadership. He has also been very supportive of FSD, even testing the system in the United States.
Elon Musk
Elon Musk reveals what will make Optimus’ ridiculous production targets feasible
Musk recent post suggests that Tesla has a plan to attain Optimus’ production goals.
Elon Musk subtly teased Tesla’s strategy to achieve Optimus’ insane production volume targets. The CEO has shared his predictions about Optimus’ volume, and they are so ambitious that one would mistake them for science fiction.
Musk’s recent post on X, however, suggests that Tesla has a plan to attain Optimus’ production goals.
The highest volume product
Elon Musk has been pretty clear about the idea of Optimus being Tesla’s highest-volume product. During the Tesla 2025 Annual Shareholder Meeting, Musk stated that the humanoid robot will see “the fastest production ramp of any product of any large complex manufactured product ever,” starting with a one-million-per-year line at the Fremont Factory.
Following this, Musk stated that Giga Texas will receive a 10 million-per-year unit Optimus line. But even at this level, the Optimus ramp is just beginning, as the production of the humanoid robot will only accelerate from there. At some point, the CEO stated that a Mars location could even have a 100 million-unit-per-year production line, resulting in up to a billion Optimus robots being produced per year.
Self-replication is key
During the weekend, Musk posted a short message that hinted at Tesla’s Optimus strategy. “Optimus will be the Von Neumann probe,” the CEO wrote in his post. This short comment suggests that Tesla will not be relying on traditional production systems to make Optimus. The company probably won’t even hire humans to produce the humanoid robot at one point. Instead, Optimus robots could simply produce other Optimus robots, allowing them to self-replicate.
-->The Von Neumann is a hypothetical self-replicating spacecraft proposed by the mathematician and physicist John von Neumann in the 1940s–1950s. The hypothetical machine in the concept would be able to travel to a new star system or location, land, mine, and extract raw materials from planets, asteroids, and moons as needed, use those materials to manufacture copies of itself, and launch the new copies toward other star systems.
If Optimus could pull off this ambitious target, the humanoid robot would indeed be the highest volume product ever created. It could, as Musk predicted, really change the world.
Tesla is improving Giga Berlin’s free “Giga Train” service for employees
Tesla Model 3 and Model Y dominate China’s real-world efficiency tests
