Connect with us
tesla-new-gigafactory-locations tesla-new-gigafactory-locations

News

Tesla FSD’s prolonged release doesn’t make it a ‘fraud,’ company says

(Credit: cosmicxbird/Instagram)

Published

on

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.)

Advertisement

“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.”

Advertisement

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.”

Advertisement

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.”

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

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 LinkedInTwitter, Instagram, and Facebook.

Johnna Crider is a Baton Rouge writer covering Tesla, Elon Musk, EVs, and clean energy & supports Tesla's mission. Johnna also interviewed Elon Musk and you can listen here

Advertisement
Comments

Elon Musk

Elon Musk debunks latest rumors about SpaceX IPO

Musk has swiftly put to rest circulating reports suggesting that SpaceX would exclude popular retail brokerages Robinhood and SoFi from its highly anticipated initial public offering. In a direct response posted on X on March 31, Musk stated simply, “These reports are false,” addressing widespread speculation fueled by a Reuters article.

Published

on

(Credit: SpaceX)

Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk debunked the latest rumors about the space exploration company’s initial public offering (IPO), which has been the subject of a wide array of speculation over the last few weeks.

With SpaceX likely heading to Wall Street to become a publicly-traded stock in the coming months, there is a lot of speculation surrounding how it will happen, whether the company will potentially combine with Tesla, and more.

Tesla and SpaceX to merge in 2027, Wall Street analyst predicts

But the latest rumors have to do with where SpaceX will list the stock.

Advertisement

Musk has swiftly put to rest circulating reports suggesting that SpaceX would exclude popular retail brokerages Robinhood and SoFi from its highly anticipated initial public offering.

In a direct response posted on X on March 31, Musk stated simply, “These reports are false,” addressing widespread speculation fueled by a Reuters article.

Advertisement

The Reuters report, published March 30, claimed that Morgan Stanley’s E*Trade was in talks to lead the sale of SpaceX shares to small U.S. investors.

Sources indicated that Robinhood and SoFi, despite pitching for roles, faced potential exclusion from the retail allocation, with Fidelity also competing for a piece of the action. The story quickly spread across financial media, raising concerns among retail investors eager to participate in what could be one of the largest IPOs in history.

SpaceX has a reported valuation nearing $1.75 trillion, and Musk’s plan to allocate up to 30 percent of shares to individual investors — far above the typical 5-10% — had generated massive excitement.

Musk’s concise denial immediately calmed the narrative. The original X post quoting the rumor garnered significant engagement, with users expressing relief that everyday investors would not be sidelined.

Advertisement

This episode reflects Musk’s hands-on approach to SpaceX’s public debut.

Earlier reporting revealed plans for an unusually large retail slice to leverage Musk’s dedicated fan base and stabilize post-IPO trading. SpaceX aims to file potentially as early as this period, building on momentum from its Starship program and Starlink growth.

The IPO could mark a transformative moment, potentially elevating Musk’s status further while democratizing access to a company long reserved for accredited investors and institutions.

The rumor’s quick debunking also revives debates about retail access in high-profile listings. Robinhood gained popularity during the 2021 meme-stock surge but faced criticism for past trading restrictions.

Advertisement

SoFi has positioned itself as a modern financial platform for younger investors. Excluding them could have limited participation from tech-savvy retail traders who form a core part of Musk’s supporter base across Tesla and SpaceX.

While details remain fluid, Musk’s intervention reinforces commitment to broad accessibility. As preparations advance, investors await official filings. For now, the message is clear: rumors of restricted retail access were overstated, keeping the door open for widespread participation in SpaceX’s public chapter.

This development comes amid broader market enthusiasm for space and technology stocks. Musk’s transparency through X continues to shape public perception, distinguishing SpaceX’s path from traditional Wall Street norms. With retail allocation potentially reaching 30 percent, the IPO promises to be both commercially massive and culturally significant.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Elon Musk

Tesla Optimus Gen 3 is coming to the Tesla Diner with new ambitions

Tesla’s Optimus robot left the Hollywood Diner within months of opening. Now Musk is planning its return with a bigger role and a major Gen 3 upgrade underway.

Published

on

By

Tesla Optimus Gen 3 [Credit: Tesla]

Tesla’s Optimus robot was one of the most talked-about features when the Tesla Diner opened on Santa Monica Boulevard in Hollywood on July 21, 2025. Dubbed “Poptimus” by Tesla fans, the Gen 2 robot stood upstairs at the retro-futuristic, drive-in theater and Tesla Supercharging station, scooping popcorn into bags and handing them to guests with a wave.

The diner itself had been years in the making. Elon Musk first floated the idea in 2018 with a tweet about building an “old-school drive-in, roller skates & rock restaurant” at a Hollywood Supercharger. What eventually opened was a unique two-story neon-lit space, with 80 EV charging stalls, and Optimus serving as a live demonstration of where Tesla’s ambitions were headed.


But Optimus did not stay long, and was gone by December 2025.

Now, the robot is set to return with a more demanding job. Musk has ambitions for Optimus to take on a food runner role in 2026, delivering meals directly to cars at the Supercharger stalls. While the latest Gen 3 Optimus is likely to initially take on its previous popcorn-serving role, it wouldn’t be out of the question for Optimus to see a quick promotion. With improved  hand dexterity that features 50 total actuators and 22 degrees of freedom per hand, and significantly more powerful processing through Tesla’s latest AI5 chip that includes Grok-powered voice interaction, Musk described Optimus at the Abundance Summit on March 12, 2026, as “by far the most advanced robot in the world, Nothing’s even close.”

That confidence is backed by a major manufacturing shift. At the Q4 2025 earnings call in January, Musk announced Tesla would discontinue the Model S and Model X and convert those Fremont production lines to build Optimus. “It’s time to basically bring the Model S and X programs to an end,” he said, calling for a pivot that reflects where the Tesla’s future lies.

Continue Reading

Elon Musk

Musk forces Judge’s exit from shareholder battles over viral social media slip-up

McCormick insisted in a court filing that she harbors no actual bias against Musk or the defendants. She claimed she either never clicked the “support” button, LinkedIn’s version of a “like,” or did so accidentally.

Published

on

(Credit: Tesla)

Many Tesla fans are familiar with the name Kathaleen McCormick, especially if they are investors in the company.

McCormick is a Delaware Chancery Court Judge who presided over Tesla CEO Elon Musk’s pay package lawsuit over the past few years, as well as his purchase of Twitter. However, she will no longer be sitting in on any issues related to Musk.

Elon Musk demands Delaware Judge recuse herself after ‘support’ post celebrating $2B court loss

In a rare admission of potential optics issues in one of America’s most powerful corporate courts, Delaware Chancery Court Chancellor Kathaleen McCormick stepped aside Monday from a cluster of shareholder lawsuits targeting Elon Musk and Tesla’s board.

Advertisement

The move came just days after Musk’s legal team highlighted her apparent “support” on LinkedIn for a post that mocked the billionaire over his 2022 tweets about the $44 billion Twitter acquisition.

McCormick insisted in a court filing that she harbors no actual bias against Musk or the defendants. She claimed she either never clicked the “support” button, LinkedIn’s version of a “like,” or did so accidentally.

She wrote in a newly published memo from the Delaware Chancery Court:

“The motion for recusal rests on a false premise — that I support a LinkedIn post about Mr. Musk, which I do not in fact support. I am not biased against the defendants in these actions.”

Advertisement

Yet she granted the reassignment anyway, acknowledging that the intense media scrutiny surrounding her involvement had become “detrimental to the administration of justice.”

The consolidated cases will now be handled by three of her colleagues on the Delaware Court of Chancery, the nation’s go-to venue for high-stakes corporate disputes. The lawsuits accuse Musk and Tesla directors of breaching fiduciary duties through lavish executive compensation and lax governance oversight.

One prominent claim, filed by a Detroit pension fund, challenges massive stock awards granted to board members, alleging the payouts harmed the company. The litigation also overlaps with issues stemming from Musk’s turbulent 2022 Twitter purchase.

McCormick’s history with Musk made her a lightning rod. In 2022, she presided over the fast-tracked lawsuit that ultimately forced Musk to complete the Twitter deal after he tried to back out.

Advertisement

Then in 2024, she struck down his record $56 billion Tesla compensation package, ruling the approval process was flawed and overly CEO-friendly. The Delaware Supreme Court later reinstated the pay on technical grounds, but the ruling fueled Musk’s long-standing criticism of the state’s judiciary.

Musk has repeatedly urged companies to reincorporate elsewhere, arguing Delaware courts have grown hostile to visionary leaders. Monday’s recusal hands him a symbolic victory and underscores how personal social-media activity can collide with judicial impartiality standards.

Delaware law requires judges to step aside if there’s even a “reasonable basis” to question their neutrality.

Court watchers say the episode highlights growing tensions in corporate America’s legal epicenter. While McCormick maintained her impartiality, the appearance of bias proved too costly to ignore. The cases will proceed without her, but the broader debate over Delaware’s dominance in business litigation is far from over.

Advertisement
Continue Reading