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.
Elon Musk
Amazon shuts out Elon Musk’s Grok Bot so he may just build his own rival store
Musk promises SpaceX will cover Grok Bot purchase errors, tells users to shop beyond Amazon.
Elon Musk said SpaceX will reimburse users if Grok Bot botches a purchase or leaks their card details. A few hours later he was telling users to take their shopping elsewhere after Amazon shut the agent out.
The first post was a reply to an X user who said Grok Bot booked him a flight after he sent a photo of his credit card. “This works well,” Musk wrote. “If Grok @Bot makes a mistake with a purchase or leaks your card (never happened yet), SpaceX will make you whole,” said Musk.
The second came after another user posted the error his Grok Bot hit on Amazon: “Continued access by an unauthorized AI agent violates Amazon’s Conditions of Use, to which our customers have agreed.” The user said his bots can no longer order from the site. Musk answered, “Just ask Grok @Bot to buy what you want someplace else and get a better deal. There are far more purchasing websites than just Amazon!” He later added, “Maybe we should start a competitor to Amazon,” a possible hint at an X shopping service.
Just ask Grok @Bot to buy what you want someplace else and get a better deal.
There are far more purchasing websites than just Amazon!
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 15, 2026
The Amazon block did not start Thursday. A reply to Musk on October 10 said Amazon was blocking the bot, and Musk responded that Grok would find another way, then showed an order it placed on Lego’s website.
The latest reimbursement promise builds on late August when Musk told a Tesla investor weighing whether to give Grok Bot access to his bank accounts, “If Grok Bot messes up, we will make you whole,” as Teslarati covered when SpaceXAI added its Finance integration. That promise goes further than the company’s consumer terms, which make users responsible for what their agents do and generally cap liability at the greater of fees paid or $100. Neither Thursday post says those terms have changed, so for now it remains a statement on X rather than a published policy.
The two posts matter to Tesla owners because Grok Bot is no longer limited to a phone. Tesla brought it into its vehicles on September 22, and it is now enabled across every Cybercab and the rest of the Model Y Robotaxi fleet, as noted when Teslarati looked at why Grok Bot may be the Cybercab’s real advantage. A rider who asks for groceries or a coffee order is relying on retailers that let the agent in. Amazon has now said it will not, and Musk’s answer is to route around it.
Amazon has not commented publicly on the block in the posts Teslarati reviewed, and it is unclear whether Musk will follow through on a rival store.
So, how many of you do the vast majority of shopping on Amazon and hate that you do? Comment and let us know your thoughts!
Elon Musk
Elon Musk says Tesla’s Roadster demo could be a bang, quite literally
Musk says tonight’s Roadster demo will be a banger, maybe literally. The clues add up.
Elon Musk spent Wednesday and Thursday stacking teases on top of Tesla’s Roadster event, and the wording is getting harder to read as routine hype. Tesla streams the unveil tonight at 7:55 p.m. Central on X. Musk has called it “a candidate for greatest product demo of all time,” then added that “this demo will be a BANGER, probably metaphorically, though some chance literally.”
New Roadster is
beyond movies,
beyond imagination,
beyond human,
yet still made
by humans
on Earth— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 15, 2026
The “some chance literally” part is the line to watch. The Roadster has been tied to a SpaceX option package since 2018, and as we reported when the date was announced, the system is reportedly codenamed A71 and uses cold gas thrusters fed by a composite overwrapped pressure vessel, the same tank design SpaceX uses on Falcon 9. Musk has said a thruster equipped car could reach 60 mph in about 1.1 seconds. Cold gas thrusters firing at full output are loud, and reports ahead of the event say the car will be unmanned with spectators kept several hundred yards back. A literal bang could simply mean a demonstration that sounds like one, though it is also an admission that something could go wrong on stage.
Then there is “Timing is everything,” which Musk posted a day earlier. Stocktwits noted that 7:55 p.m. is 19:55 on a 24 hour clock, which echoes 1955, the year Marty McFly travels to in Back to the Future. Musk has made that connection before. In 2019 he replied to an animation of a flying DeLorean by saying the new Roadster “will actually do something like this.” Nothing from Tesla confirms the movie reference, but the stream time was chosen by someone, and Tesla has not been shy about this kind of wink.
Also, Tesla said it moved the event because it “can only be held outdoors,” and Musk then wrote that the demo was postponed “due to high winds,” as Teslarati covered at the time. A car running a standing start in front of a crowd shrugs off wind. A car that leaves the ground does not. The venue near SpaceX’s McGregor test site and the FAA airspace closures reported around the original date point the same way, though we also noted the delay could be a plain safety precaution. Musk has also described the new Roadster as “beyond movies, beyond imagination, beyond human, yet still made by humans on Earth.”
The only official figures remain the 2017 ones: 620 miles of range, a top speed above 250 mph, a 1.9 second 0 to 60 time, and prices of $200,000 for the base car and $250,000 for the Founders Series. Production is expected at Giga Texas in 2027 or 2028. Tesla has said the event will cover pricing, specifications and production targets, and its livestream preview has the full rundown. Tesla reports third quarter earnings on October 21, so whatever lands tonight will be fresh going into that call. We will have live coverage as soon as the stream starts.
Elon Musk
Elon Musk breaks his silence on the Starlink impact to Ukraine drones
Musk says the US military and president set Starshield limits, not SpaceX, amid Ukraine complaints.
Elon Musk says the speed limit cutting out Ukraine’s military Starlink terminals is not SpaceX’s decision. In a post on X Wednesday, Musk wrote that “Starshield systems are owned and controlled by the US government. Any limits on speed or usage are decided by the US military and ultimately POTUS.” He added that Starlink is a commercial service limited to civilian or defensive activities and “cannot be used for offensive military action, as doing so would be inappropriate for a commercial company.”
He was replying to Mykhailo Fedorov, Ukraine’s former defense minister, who had thanked Musk for restoring connectivity at speeds up to 160 km/h and said removing the Starshield limit entirely is “now critical for Ukraine’s defense.”
Starshield systems are owned and controlled by the US government. Any limits on speed or usage are decided by the US military and ultimately POTUS.
Starlink is a commercial service owned and controlled by SpaceX. Usage of Starlink is limited to civilian or defensive activities and cannot be used for offensive military action, as doing so would be inappropriate for a commercial company.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 14, 2026
The complaint started Tuesday night, when Ukrainian officials said military terminals began losing service above roughly 100 mph. Presidential adviser Serhiy Beskrestnov said the defense forces got no warning and several missions were disrupted, as Teslarati reported earlier Wednesday. The 7th Rapid Reaction Corps told Reuters connections dropped for 10 to 20 seconds at speeds well below the limit, which made drones harder to control. Poland’s foreign minister, Radoslaw Sikorski, asked Musk on X whether he is “playing politics with your products again.”
That is why the Starlink and Starshield distinction matters. SpaceX introduced Starshield in 2022 as the government version of Starlink, with an initial focus on Earth observation, communications and hosted payloads. It won a Space Force contract in 2023 with a $70 million ceiling. In December 2024, the Pentagon moved Ukraine’s terminals onto Starshield, covering about 3,000 units across two contracts. Ukraine’s military connections therefore run through a service that Musk now says sits under Washington’s control.
While Musk’s post describes who holds authority, it does not infer that anyone ordered the limit, and neither SpaceX nor the US government has confirmed who set it. Ukrainian officials have pointed to the timing, which follows President Trump’s push for an energy ceasefire and Musk’s Saturday post that “Zelensky has gone too far.” The BBC noted Trump denied threatening to restrict intelligence sharing with Kyiv, and no evidence has been presented that Washington requested the cap.
The episode also revives a promise from 2025. After Poland accused him of threatening Ukraine’s access, Musk said Starlink “will never turn off its terminals” and would not be used as a bargaining chip. Poland has since supplied more than 29,000 terminals to Ukraine. Teslarati also covered Kyiv’s search for Starlink alternatives in 2025, and the latest dispute gives that search new urgency.
Amazon shuts out Elon Musk’s Grok Bot so he may just build his own rival store
Elon Musk says Tesla’s Roadster demo could be a bang, quite literally
Elon Musk breaks his silence on the Starlink impact to Ukraine drones
The Pentagon taps Elon Musk to design the battlefield of the future
SpaceX reveals how its 1 Million AI satellite network will work and prevent space collisions
