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
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 faces wrath of the Texas skies
SpaceX pushed Starship Flight 13 to Friday, blaming weather instead of the previous engine issues.
SpaceX called off Thursday’s launch attempt of Starship Flight 13, pushing the mission to Friday because of weather tied to Tropical Storm Bertha. The company confirmed the delay on X, noting “Now targeting Friday, July 24 for Starship’s thirteenth flight test, due to weather. A key objective for the flight test is to get clear imagery from the ground of Starship’s heatshield as it flies at a higher dynamic pressure during ascent, which won’t be possible with today’s weather conditions.”
This is the second delay for Flight 13 in two weeks. SpaceX first tried to launch the mission on July 16, but the countdown ended in an automated abort at T-0 when four of Super Heavy Booster 20’s 33 Raptor engines failed to ignite. Musk said at the time that two Raptors would need to be removed and replaced, as Teslarati reported. The company spent the following week destacking Ship 40 and Booster 20, swapping engines, and running leak checks before restacking the vehicle on Pad 2 Wednesday night, according to Spaceflight Now’s live coverage.
Unlike the engine problem, Thursday’s delay has nothing to do with the hardware. SpaceX wants clean footage of Starship’s heat shield captured from the ground as the vehicle flies through max dynamic pressure, something the storm’s cloud cover over South Texas would not allow. The company said visibility should improve for Friday’s attempt, with the same 90 minute window opening at 5:45 p.m. CT.
Flight 13 will be the second outing for the V3 versions of Starship and Super Heavy, following their debut on Flight 12 in May. The mission carries 20 production Starlink V3 satellites, the first time SpaceX has flown operational satellites rather than mass simulators on Starship. Six of those satellites are fitted with cameras to inspect the heat shield from a different angle during ascent, giving engineers a second data source beyond the ground imagery the weather is currently blocking.
Booster 20 will attempt a boostback burn and a splashdown landing burn in the Gulf of America, while Ship 40 follows a suborbital trajectory toward a landing in the Indian Ocean. The flight plan largely mirrors Flight 12, though the booster will run a more aggressive ascent burn after max Q this time, and the ship’s heat shield includes load sensing tiles meant to measure stress at the higher dynamic pressure SpaceX is targeting.
If Friday’s attempt succeeds, Flight 13 could be the last suborbital test in the program. SpaceX is already looking to push for an orbital flight on Flight 14.
Tesla stock (NASDAQ: TSLA) endured one of its sharpest single-day declines in years on July 23, tumbling approximately 14.5 percent and closing near $320 after opening the session around $374. The drop erased more than $140 billion in market value amid heavy trading volume and left the shares at multi-week lows.
The sell-off followed the company’s second-quarter 2026 results, released the previous evening. Tesla reported record revenue of $28.2 billion, up 26 percent year over year, driven by a Q2-record 480,126 vehicle deliveries. Energy storage deployments also rose strongly.
Tesla (TSLA) Q2 2026 earnings results: miss on EPS, beat on revenue
Yet profitability disappointed sharply. Operating income fell 57 percent to $398 million, compressing the operating margin to just 1.4 percent. Non-GAAP earnings per share came in at $0.33, well below the roughly $0.53 analysts had expected. Free cash flow turned negative by $1.1 billion as capital expenditures surged 142 percent to $5.8 billion, largely tied to accelerated spending on artificial intelligence, robotics, and autonomous systems.
The losses on capex were expected, as Tesla said it would be spending heavily in 2026.
Investors also reacted to lingering uncertainty surrounding key product timelines. During the Earnings Call, management reiterated ambitions for Robotaxi deployment and the Optimus humanoid robot, but offered limited new concrete milestones, renewing questions about execution pace that have long accompanied Tesla’s ambitious roadmap.
The magnitude of the decline places it among Tesla’s more severe one-day percentage losses since its 2010 initial public offering. Historically, the two largest single-day drops (split-adjusted) remain September 8, 2020, when shares fell 21.1 percent amid broader market volatility and valuation concerns, and January 13, 2012, with a 19.3 percent plunge during the company’s early growth struggles.
Other notable declines include an 18.6 percent drop on March 16, 2020, at the onset of pandemic-related market turmoil. Thursday’s move ranks roughly ninth on the all-time list but stands out as the steepest in more than a year.
Despite the short-term pain, Tesla’s long-term trajectory has repeatedly recovered from such volatility. The latest results underscore both the strength of its core automotive and energy businesses and the near-term costs of heavy investment in next-generation technologies.
Elon Musk clapped back at France’s decision to withhold the approval for Tesla’s Full Self-Driving (FSD) Supervised system, projecting a clear and blunt message to French Transport Minister Phillippe Tabarot, after he publicly rejected the technology in its current form.
Tabarot outlines several concerns with Tesla Full Self-Driving in a detailed video statement, where he said, “The safety trade-offs are not yet sufficient to authorize it as it currently stands,” he said. He emphasized that FSD is not a true self-driving system and that the driver remains fully responsible.
Key issues Tabarot also brought up included allowing speeding when surrounding traffic exceeds limits and what he believes are insufficient guarantees of driver attention during complex urban maneuvers such as lane changes, intersections, and roundabouts.
Delaying the approval of FSD in France will cost lives
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 22, 2026
While acknowledging technological progress and France’s support for autonomous innovation, Tabarot stressed that deployment must prioritize road safety. He noted ongoing technical discussions with Tesla, the Netherlands, and other European partners, with further ecosystem meetings planned for the fall.
Musk’s rebuke highlights the human cost of regulatory caution. Tesla’s latest safety reports provide compelling data supporting accelerated adoption. In the most recent 12-month period, vehicles using FSD (Supervised) recorded one major collision per approximately 5.1 million miles driven, dramatically better than the U.S. national average of one crash per 698,000 miles.
Even Tesla vehicles driven manually with active safety features outperform the average by a wide margin. These figures come from billions of real-world miles of telemetry, showing FSD vehicles involved in far fewer incidents than both manual Teslas and the broader U.S. fleet.
Critics argue Tesla’s comparisons require careful scrutiny regarding reporting thresholds and fleet demographics, yet the data consistently positions FSD as a potential lifesaver. With road fatalities remaining a leading cause of death worldwide, Musk contends that proven safer technology should not face prolonged bureaucratic hurdles.
France’s measured approach reflects the broader European regulatory caution, which many, especially Musk, have been critical of in the past. However, as autonomous systems from Tesla and competitors like Waymo demonstrate superior safety in independent studies, pressure is mounting for harmonized approvals.
Musk’s warning carries the belief that every month of delay may equate to avoidable tragedies on European roads.
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 faces wrath of the Texas skies
Tesla stock tumbles after earnings, one of its sharpest single-day declines
