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.
A Tesla Semi was involved in a fatal collision on U.S. Highway 50 in Dayton, Nevada, on Sunday, June 28, 2026, marking the first known fatal crash involving the electric Class 8 truck. The incident occurred around 7:20 a.m. at the intersection with Traditions Parkway, approximately 40 miles east of Reno and close to Tesla’s Gigafactory Nevada.
According to the Lyon County Sheriff’s Office and the Nevada State Police Highway Patrol, a semi-truck struck two passenger vehicles stopped at a traffic signal. The truck hit the vehicles from behind. Two people were pronounced dead at the scene, and a third person suffered life-threatening injuries and was flown to a hospital, Forbes reported.
Preliminary statements gathered at the scene by the Lyon County Sheriff’s Office suggested the truck driver may have fallen asleep at the wheel. However, the Nevada Highway Patrol, which is leading the investigation, stated that the official cause has not yet been determined.
Additional information is expected to be released early the following week. The truck was seized for evidence as part of the ongoing probe.
Responders at the scene included deputies from the Lyon County Sheriff’s Office, personnel from the Nevada Highway Patrol, Central Lyon County Fire Department, and the Nevada Department of Transportation. The crash led to the temporary closure of U.S. 50 in both directions.
The Tesla Semi is Tesla’s battery-electric heavy-duty truck, produced at the nearby Gigafactory in Nevada. Authorities initially described the vehicle as a semi-truck; its make was subsequently confirmed through reporting and scene identification; an interesting bit of information here, as the Semi is not yet available publicly and many do not know that Tesla builds electric trucks.
The investigation remains active, with no further official details on contributing factors or vehicle systems released as of early July 2026.
This incident highlights ongoing scrutiny of commercial vehicle safety on Nevada highways, particularly involving fatigue. Law enforcement continues to gather evidence and witness statements.
Tesla has expanded its Robotaxi program to Miami, Florida, marking the third state the autonomous ride-hailing platform has made its way to since launching last Summer.
Tesla announced today that the Robotaxi suite would now officially launch rides in a geofence in Miami:
🚨 Tesla’s “Long Weekend” continues with a HUGE announcement regarding Robotaxi!
It’s now in Miami!
Miami joins Austin, Dallas, Houston, and the Bay Area! https://t.co/ujjYjJT3Im pic.twitter.com/yPe1ZdSQIE
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 3, 2026
The first geofence in Miami covers approximately 10 to 14 square miles. The area appears to be focused on western and central Miami, including Miami International Airport (MIA). It also includes popular routes like SR 826 (Palmetto Expressway), US 41 (Tamiami Trail), and connectors such as SR 968, 953, 959, and 972.
This is Tesla’s initial Miami launch zone, smaller and more targeted than some competitors’ areas (for example, Waymo’s initial rollout was broader in eastern neighborhoods). It prioritizes high-traffic, airport-linked routes before wider expansion.
The expansion is a huge signal for Tesla that it is now operating in Florida, a heavy-traffic state with many tourist areas, including Fort Lauderdale, Palm Beach, and the Boynton area, all of which are coastal and will attract perhaps millions of tourists in any given year.
¿Qué lo que Miami?
Robotaxi now available in Miami pic.twitter.com/P1m283seZU
— Tesla Robotaxi (@robotaxi) July 3, 2026
The Tesla Robotaxi network launched last year on June 22, in Austin, Texas, beginning limited commercial operations in that city. It expanded shortly thereafter into the San Francisco Bay Area of California in late July 2025, marking entry into a second state with service covering key areas such as San Francisco, San Jose, and Berkeley.
Full commercial service was achieved in Austin by November 18, 2025, strengthening its presence within Texas before further growth.
In 2026, the network continued expanding across Texas with the addition of Dallas and Houston on April 18, significantly broadening its footprint in the state. This new launch into Miami marks Tesla entering a new state and bringing active locations to include Austin, Dallas, Houston, San Antonio in Texas, and the Bay Area in California.
These sequential expansions have steadily increased the network’s reach across major metropolitan areas in Texas, California, and Florida, focusing on scaling operations city by city and state by state since the initial Austin debut.
Tesla CEO Elon Musk has tempered expectations for the company’s humanoid robot Optimus, emphasizing that initial production will ramp up slowly despite recent progress on the manufacturing line. In a July 1 reply on X, Musk responded to optimistic community speculation by stating, “No, Optimus production will be extremely slow at first, as everything is new. This is not like making a car.”
No, Optimus production will be extremely slow at first, as everything is new. This is not like making a car.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 1, 2026
The comment came in response to a post theorizing that Tesla had accelerated Optimus V3 development and might soon unveil an impressive demonstration with multiple units already in meaningful production. Musk’s clarification highlights the fundamental differences between scaling a novel humanoid robot and Tesla’s established automotive operations, which benefit from over a century of refined supply chains, tooling, and processes.
Recent updates show tangible advancement. Musk shared a photo of himself walking the Optimus production line at Fremont, where Tesla is converting former Model S/X manufacturing space. According to Q1 2026 earnings commentary, limited production is slated to begin in late July or August 2026 on this converted line.
Tesla Optimus project fires up as Musk sees production line progress
Musk previously noted that Optimus features roughly 10,000 unique parts, making early output rates “literally impossible to predict” and describing them as “quite slow.” A larger dedicated factory at Giga Texas is under construction, targeting higher-volume production around summer 2027 with long-term annual capacity potentially reaching millions of units.
Some experts point out that pioneering humanoid robotics demands inventing new automation techniques, actuator supply chains, and quality-control standards in real time. Unlike vehicles, where components and assembly methods are mature, every element of Optimus—from dexterous hands to AI-integrated movement—requires fresh engineering solutions. Early units are expected to handle simple factory tasks before expanding to more complex roles.
This cautious approach aligns with Tesla’s history of under-promising and over-delivering on complex technologies. While enthusiasts hoped for rapid deployment, Musk’s message underscores a deliberate strategy: prioritize reliability and iterative improvement over rushed volume.
Analysts suggest the S-curve ramp typical of new manufacturing will eventually accelerate once foundational issues are resolved, positioning Optimus as a potential trillion-dollar product line.
Musk has long envisioned Optimus transforming labor markets, assisting in homes, factories, and hazardous environments. By setting realistic timelines, Tesla aims to build sustainable momentum rather than risk disappointment. As the Fremont line comes online this summer, investors and fans will watch closely for the first production metrics and capability demonstrations.
Tesla Semi involved in first known fatal crash in Nevada
Tesla expands Robotaxi to Florida, marking its third state for autonomy
