News
EXCLUSIVE: Environmental lawyer tasked with suing Tesla speaks: ‘Win Some, Lose Some’
Since Tesla launched the construction of Giga Berlin, the company’s first European vehicle assembly plant in the State of Brandenburg, nearly every element of the project has been met with pushback and backlash from local citizens and other groups. The necessary removal of trees, the displacement of some species on the once forestry-infested property, groundwater, and a coolant tank have all been subjects of complaints brought to the attention of the California-based automaker.
Thousands of miles and a continent away from its home in Northern California, Tesla has sparred with local environmental groups NABU and the Green League for nearly a year, with lawyer Thorsten Deppner representing the Earth-friendly entities. In an exclusive interview with Teslarati, Deppner told us about his intentions for the lawsuit and what is next to come in a long line of issues that the automaker continues to sift through as production of sustainable passenger vehicles nears at the German plant.
Deppner, casually dressed and inviting me into a Zoom-like chatroom to talk about Tesla, was friendly. Knowing my position as a journalist covering the EV space and Tesla, specifically, Deppner was openly willing to talk about the points of the case that were recently put to rest, which has to do with the coolant tank that sits on the property of Giga Berlin. “Tesla had not filed certain documentation with respect to emergency procedures concerning the storage of a particular coolant. That coolant, if ignited, can produce Hydrogen Fluoride,” Deppner told me. “That was our main concern of this particular case.”
Credit: Twitter | @gigfactory_4
The tank was also the subject of a July 2021 investigation by the State Environment Agency, which was originally reported by Tagesspiegel. According to the report, the tank is reportedly holding the chemical tetrafluoropropene, and Tesla does not have permission to have this on the site. The coolant was not, and still is not present in the tank on site. However, Deppner’s cases were already set in motion when the State Agency decided to launch its investigation.
While somewhat risky for the company applying for the permit, this process is also risky for the citizens. Deppner’s most recent issue dealt with coolant tanks on Giga Berlin’s property, following the lawsuit with sand lizards that he won in December, as he proved Tesla broke German Endangered Species Law. A risk for the people in Deppner’s opinion, Tesla did not have the correct documentation to have the coolant tank on site. Safety regulations were not met, which ultimately could have become a risk to the people, especially if the highly toxic contents of the tank were released.
Many of those who have followed Tesla’s process in Berlin as things continue to progress know that preliminary permits were being issued left and right, giving Tesla permission to erect, construct, and perform nearly any task that it needed concrete authorization to perform. Deppner explained that German environmental law allows for those preliminary permits only if an application is more likely to be ultimately approved than not. Then, the company that filed the application will have the opportunity to begin building what was outlined in the documents, provided that the company is guaranteeing to restore the site to its original state if the application should be denied.
This tank was the subject of the most recent NABU and Green League lawsuit, which the groups and Deppner, their representing attorney, dropped. Deppner and the groups lost the injunction on this case, but it is still being monitored.
Deppner told me throughout the conversation on several occasions that the goal was never to have Tesla Giga Berlin shut down; the complaints and lawsuits were more meant to be “guidance.” The goal was to have Tesla adhere to German environmental law throughout the entire process of building Giga Berlin, a misconception that many people do not realize. “We did not want to have this project shut down; we just want Tesla to follow environmental law,” Deppner added.
Tesla Giga Berlin critic finally drops lawsuit over high costs
This is not to say that these groups don’t exist, the ones who would like nothing more than to shut down Tesla’s German operation and halt the spread of sustainable transportation, but Deppner said he was unwilling to represent those groups, as their funding may have been provided by untrustworthy sources. “I wouldn’t represent people or groups like that, not in the slightest,” Deppner said.
The next steps for Deppner are to continue monitoring the Tesla situation until things are ultimately filed, approved, and completed in Brandenburg. As for the attorney, he likely won’t be driving a Tesla anytime soon, but that is not to say that he doesn’t appreciate what the company is doing. He said that the mission of transitioning the world to sustainable energy and transportation is important, and EVs are undoubtedly a step in the right direction. As for the case, Deppner said, “You win some, you lose some.”
Don’t hesitate to contact us with tips! Email us at tips@teslarati.com, or you can email me directly at joey@teslarati.com.
Investor's Corner
Tesla and SpaceX take “Terafab” Trademark fight to Federal Court
Tesla and SpaceX sue a small Illinois firm after cease and desist letters over Terafab.
Tesla and SpaceX are asking a federal judge to rule that their planned Terafab chip factory does not infringe a small Illinois company’s trademark, a request that arrives only after months of quiet negotiation broke down this summer.
The dispute traces to May 18, when Tesla filed three U.S. trademark applications for “Terafab” and “Tesla Terafab,” covering semiconductor chips and related chip making services. TERA-print LLC, a nanotechnology company that has held a federal trademark for “Tera-Fab” since 2021, responded five days later with a cease and desist letter. According to the lawsuit, first reported by Reuters, TERA-print argued that Tesla and SpaceX’s use of “Terafab” would confuse consumers familiar with its own trademark, which covers a desktop photolithography printer sold to researchers for sensor and bioengineering work.
What stands out in the filing is the timing of TERA-print’s own paperwork. One day before sending that cease and desist letter, on May 22, TERA-print applied to expand its existing registration to cover semiconductor materials, silicon chips, nanoelectronic devices and AI design services, categories it had not previously claimed. Tesla and SpaceX call that filing opportunistic in their complaint, noting it arrived two months after Tesla’s public Terafab announcement and just days after Tesla’s own trademark applications went in.
Elon Musk launches TERAFAB: The $25B Tesla-SpaceXAI chip factory that will rewire the AI industry
By June 10, TERA-print was threatening to sue for federal trademark infringement, false designation of origin and unfair competition, the complaint states. Rather than wait to be sued, Tesla, SpaceX and SpaceXAI met with TERA-print six separate times between June and August trying to resolve the dispute directly. Those talks collapsed, and the companies filed for declaratory judgment this week in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, asking a judge to find that “Terafab” does not infringe TERA-print’s mark before TERA-print can file a claim of its own.
TERA-print isn’t backing down. The company told PCMag it discussed a settlement with Tesla as recently as September 2 and feels misled by what it called Tesla’s professed interest in settling. Its CTO, Andrey Ivankin, said TERA-print holds a Defense Department contract to fabricate semiconductors and partially owns Mattiq Inc., an AI company built on TERA-print’s products, and that the company will vigorously defend its rights.
Tesla and SpaceX argue the overlap is superficial. Terafab is planned as a $16.8 billion complex spanning roughly 100 million square feet at the Grimes County site SpaceX confirmed last month, built to produce chips for Optimus robots, Tesla’s AI computing needs and SpaceX’s orbital data center ambitions, a scale and purpose the companies say no reasonable consumer would confuse with a tabletop lab printer. TERA-print’s product line has stayed focused on lithography tools for biological and sensor research since it registered its mark in 2021.
The trademark fight is the second legal dispute tied to the Terafab project in the past week, following a separate SpaceX suit aimed at keeping company records about the facility out of public view, as KBTX reported. Whether construction proceeds under the Terafab name now depends on a federal judge in Austin.
News
NHTSA just escalated its Tesla Cybercab investigation in a big way
NHTSA escalated its Cybercab audit into a sworn Special Order with a September 30 deadline.
Federal regulators have moved from asking Tesla questions about its Cybercab to demanding sworn answers. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issued a Special Order that requires a Tesla officer to sign an affidavit attesting to the completeness of the company’s responses, with a deadline of September 30.
The order builds on Audit Query AQ26002, which NHTSA opened on September 3, the same day Tesla began commercial Cybercab service in Austin. Teslarati covered that initial inquiry when it surfaced, noting the agency wanted to understand how Tesla certified a vehicle with no permanently attached steering wheel, pedals, or mirrors as compliant with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. A Special Order is a different tool and converts a fact finding review into a legally enforceable demand, the same mechanism NHTSA used against Tesla in 2023 during its Autopilot investigation.
Several of the 21 requests target a specific gap in Cybercab’s design. One asks whether Tesla used temporarily attached human controls at any point to help certify the vehicle, and if so, which standards depended on that equipment being present. Another quotes an existing rule directly: “The service brakes shall be activated by means of a foot control.” Cybercab has no foot pedal. NHTSA wants a detailed explanation of how the vehicle satisfies that requirement, and how it complies without the kind of exemption granted to Zoox in July under Part 555, the regulatory pathway built for steering wheel free vehicles.
The order does not claim Cybercab is unsafe or that Tesla broke a rule. It requires Tesla to explain, under oath, the reasoning behind decisions the company already made when it self-certified the vehicle. That distinction matters, but so does the exposure. Motor1’s reporting, summarized here, put potential civil penalty exposure as high as $139 million if NHTSA later finds the certification was flawed, on top of whatever criminal risk comes with a false sworn statement.
Tesla has not said publicly how it plans to respond. Cybercab is still carrying passengers in Austin through the Robotaxi app while the September 30 deadline approaches, and the company has continued expanding the vehicle’s footprint even as the regulatory question remains open. The Special Order does not pause any of that and just sets a date by which Tesla has to put its certification logic on the record, with a company officer’s name attached to it.
In a new interview on Wednesday, Tesla uber bull Ron Baron said that anyone looking to buy the company’s stock should do so as soon as they can.
Baron, founder and CEO of Baron Capital and one of Tesla’s most persistent institutional bulls, used a CNBC Squawk Box appearance on Wednesday to deliver a familiar message with fresh urgency: In his opinion, Tesla stock is a buy:
“The time to buy the stock is now. FSD is catching on, and it’s going to be bigger and bigger. 55% of new buyers are buying it (Teslas) with FSD. It’s going to be everywhere. It’s safer.”
The Baron Capital frontman’s case is built around Full Self-Driving. Tesla reported 1.48 million active FSD subscriptions in the second quarter, up 56 percent year over year, and company officials have said roughly 55 percent of new North American deliveries left with a subscription enabled.
Baron framed that attach rate as proof the product is moving from enthusiast extra to default expectation, and as a reason software, not just vehicle volume, should drive the next phase of value.
His conviction on Tesla shares is not theoretical, as Baron Capital made its first Tesla investment in 2014, after years of meetings that began around the 2010 IPO roadshow. The firm later built a large SpaceX position starting in 2017.
Ron Baron today in new interview on Tesla:
“The time to buy the stock is now. FSD is catching on, and it’s going to be bigger and bigger. 55% of new buyers are buying it (Teslas) with FSD. It’s going to be everywhere. It’s safer.” pic.twitter.com/Rv5PB0bVZ2
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) September 16, 2026
Baron said those Musk-led bets have generated about $30 billion of the $71 billion in profits Baron Capital has produced for clients. He put the firm’s current exposure at roughly $25 billion in SpaceX and $5 billion in Tesla. Personally, he described SpaceX as his largest holding, at about $5 billion, with about $1.5 billion in Tesla and additional Tesla exposure through the firm’s funds.
That concentration is also a statement of loyalty. Asked about talk of a SpaceX-Tesla combination, Baron said he had already walked Elon Musk through arguments for and against a deal, then declined to repeat them on air. His public position was simpler: “Whatever you decide is better is what I’m going to support,” he said to Musk.
Baron also said that he picked up the farewell edition of the Model S after Tesla decided to sunset the vehicle earlier this year, calling it his favorite car he’s ever driven.
Tesla and SpaceX take “Terafab” Trademark fight to Federal Court
NHTSA just escalated its Tesla Cybercab investigation in a big way
