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.
Tesla CEO Elon Musk announced that the company will extend Cybertruck production slightly to handle its extensive order backlog.
On Wednesday, Musk announced that “In order to work through more of the Cybertruck order backlog, production will be extended through the end of summer 2027.”
In order to work through more of the Cybertruck order backlog, production will be extended through the end of summer 2027
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) November 11, 2026
Tesla has already attempted to simplify its last months of production for the Cybertruck by eliminating several trim levels and only offering the Cyberbeast, the most expensive trim that starts at $109,990. The other two trim levels, the Cybertruck All-Wheel-Drive and Premium All-Wheel-Drive have both been discontinued.
There has been plenty of backlash against Tesla’s decision to ax the Cybertruck, but the company’s forecast prioritizes Cybercab and autonomy. Factory space at Gigafactory Texas that is not necessary is now being set aside for the Cybercab as the company truly embraces its “transportation-as-a-service” model.
There is still a slim chance the Cybertruck survives. Last evening, Tesla upfitter Unplugged Performance offered to take the Cybertruck line off of Tesla’s hands and continue building it, along with a CyberSUV.
Nevertheless, Tesla seems to be ending the Cybertruck on its terms after what will be a three-and-a-half-year run. It still does not really feel quite real; I think many of us thought the Cybertruck would be around for years to come.
Musk added more detail, stating that while it was not the smartest move, “there must be some room in this world for sentimentality or what’s the point?”
This is not the smartest move from a profit-maximizing standpoint btw, but there must be some room in this world for sentimentality or what’s the point?
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) November 11, 2026
Other EV pickups on the market have experienced a similar fate.
The Ford F-150 Lightning was axed by the Detroit company due to the continued losses the company took from sales. That truck was never profitable, and Ford is still taking a quarterly loss in its EV side. However, things are moving along as it has plans for a mass market EV pickup, which will likely gather some substantial demand if Ford can get it just right.
Perhaps another extension or even a total change of heart might come. Only Musk knows.
In a sudden and closely watched milestone, Tesla Robotaxi has edged past Waymo on the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles automated vehicle registry. As of November 10, Tesla lists 1,302 registered vehicles under Tesla Robotaxi, LLC, compared with Waymo’s 1,297.
The flip is narrow, but real, according to the State’s books. Tesla’s Texas fleet, following an expansion on November 10, now consists of 729 Model Ys and 573 purpose-built Cybercab vehicles. Waymo’s roster is dominated by the Jaguar I-PACE and a growing number of Zeekr-based Ojai minivans.
NEW: Tesla Robotaxi just added 20 Tesla Model Ys to its fleet. The Texas fleet now stands at 1302 vehicles.
Live tracker: https://t.co/ri0WMLRhCQ
Tracker powered by @EVject
— Texas Autonomous Vehicle Tracker (@texasavtracker) November 10, 2026
Those figures come from the same public TxDMV automated vehicle listings that independent trackers have monitored since a Texas law required operators to disclose fleet sizes.
The scale of Tesla’s climb is pretty interesting and shows how much the company has grown its autonomous ride-hailing fleet over the past months. When the registry first became public in late May 2026, Tesla listed just 42 vehicles on it. Meanwhile, Waymo had several hundred vehicles registered to it.
Tesla CEO Elon Musk shades Waymo: ‘Never really had a chance’
Since then, Tesla has multiplied its authorized Texas fleet more than thirty times, driven by repeated Model Y additions and a steady build of Cybercabs. Waymo has also expanded, but at a slower pace than Tesla.
It is also important to note that registrations are not necessarily equal to operational fleet. The TxDMV list shows the number of vehicles each company is permitted to run, but it does not report how many are actively carrying riders, which cities they serve, or trip volume. Both companies stage vehicles and run mixed fleets that can include units in testing or temporarily offline.
A lead on the registry therefore signals capacity and regulatory positioning more than immediate ride volume.
Tesla has use the growing authorized fleet to expand its unsupervised service beyond the original Austin geofence area, as now it is flowing into cities like San Antonio and Dallas. The company has highlighted plans for a broader Cybercab deployment, eventually into new states and territories.
Waymo is operating across multiple Texas markets and in other areas of the United States.
Right now, the five-vehicle margin is thin and could reverse with the next large registration from either side. For the moment, however, the public Texas record shows Tesla holding the larger authorized Robotaxi fleet in the state.
Elon Musk
SpaceX just cleared a key FCC hurdle in its fight with Verizon and AT&T
The FCC accepted SpaceX’s bid for Grain’s 800 MHz spectrum, opening review for Starlink Mobile.
The Federal Communications Commission has formally opened its review of SpaceX’s plan to buy a nationwide block of 800 MHz spectrum from Grain Management, moving Starlink Mobile one step closer to operating as a full U.S. wireless carrier.
In a public notice issued Tuesday, the FCC’s Wireless Telecommunications Bureau said it accepted for filing the applications to transfer control of two Grain license companies, Prism License Co. 1 and Prism License Co. 2, to Starlink Spectrum Holdings, a wholly owned SpaceX subsidiary. The deal covers 546 paired licenses across 3,224 counties, reaching roughly 100% of the U.S. population in all 50 states, Washington, D.C., Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. The proceeding sits under WT Docket No. 26-313.
Acceptance is not approval. It means the applications cleared an initial review and the public comment window is now open. Comments and petitions to deny are due December 1, and oppositions are due December 8. The bureau also said the conditions attached to Grain’s July purchase of the licenses from T-Mobile, which require rapid buildout for terrestrial and direct to device service, would carry over to SpaceX if the transfer is approved.
SpaceX announced the agreement on October 8, saying the new airwaves would let Starlink Mobile’s signal reach phones inside buildings, something its 2 GHz spectrum from EchoStar cannot do as well. The portfolio includes up to 14 MHz of paired spectrum in the 817 to 824 MHz and 862 to 869 MHz bands, which most existing phones already support. Elon Musk called it “the last critical piece of the spectrum puzzle needed for SpaceX to provide complete phone coverage in America.”
According to the filing, SpaceX would hold up to 89 MHz of total spectrum in any given market after the deal closes, including up to 14 MHz below 1 GHz. That is far under the 385 MHz threshold the FCC uses to flag a transaction for closer competitive scrutiny, and well short of the roughly 300 MHz each of AT&T, Verizon and T-Mobile holds.
Tuesday’s notice does not decide how SpaceX can use the spectrum from orbit. A separate application SpaceX filed on October 27 seeking authority to provide supplemental coverage from space on the same frequencies, along with related waiver requests, is still pending before the commission.
The ground network is already taking shape. Last week, SpaceX picked Qualcomm to supply radios, baseband units and software for a nationwide 5G build, with deployment across tens of thousands of U.S. cell sites starting in 2027. The FCC also voted on October 29 to advance a proposal opening another 482 MHz to direct to device service, though AT&T, Verizon and T-Mobile hacritive pushed to strip nearly 300 MHz from it. SpaceX President Gwynne Shotwell has said service on SpaceX’s own airwaves is targeted for early 2028.
Tesla extends Cybertruck production as Musk concedes ‘sentimentality’
Tesla overtakes Waymo in Texas as Robotaxi fleet performs shock flip
