News
Tesla faces lawsuit from New Jersey auto dealer association
Tesla is currently facing a lawsuit from an auto dealer association operating in New Jersey. In a filing submitted on Wednesday to the state’s Superior Court, the New Jersey Coalition of Automotive Retailers (NJ CAR) called for legal action against the electric car maker for what it alleged were violations of multiple laws.
The dealer association argued in its filing that the New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission, together with a number of state agencies, have so far failed to enforce consumer protection laws, advertising laws, and franchise and dealer licensing laws regarding the electric car maker. In a statement to Automotive News, Jim Appleton, president of New Jersey’s Coalition of Automotive Retailers, argued that the group does not fear competition from Tesla. Instead, it simply objects to unfair competition.
“It may appear ironic that the head of a trade association that represents new car dealers is suing the State of New Jersey to urge enforcement of the strict laws that regulate new car dealers. But NJ CAR has spent decades advocating for firm and fair rules that create a level playing field and promote a competitive marketplace that benefits consumers and honest business owners, alike. Neighborhood new car dealers don’t fear competition from Tesla — which accounts for less than 1% of the new car market in New Jersey — they simply object to unfair competition which places consumers at risk and local businesses at a competitive disadvantage,” he said.
At the center of the dealer association’s lawsuit against Tesla is the electric car maker’s expanding presence in the state. In 2015, New Jersey allowed Tesla to operate four direct sales locations, a rule that the coalition argues was violated when Tesla decided to open a fifth location in the form of a gallery. According to the auto dealers, the fifth location’s distinction as a “gallery” does not mean anything since the electric car maker conducts sales-related actions in the location. Interested customers, for example, could configure their vehicle orders on the gallery.
“Whether or not any sales are finalized at Tesla’s gallery, the above-mentioned activities that take place at the gallery are designed and intended to lead to a sale and certainly constitute ‘offering vehicles for sale,’” the complaint read. It should be noted that while the dealers’ concerns appear valid, the lawsuit fails to account for the fact that customers do not need to be in a Tesla gallery or store to configure their vehicle order. Due to the company’s simple online configurator, vehicle orders could be completed in any location with mobile internet access.
Apart from its grievances about Tesla’s fifth location, the dealer association also alleged that the state failed to enforce consumer protection laws when the electric car maker pulled a “bait and switch” with the Model 3 by announcing a $35,000 variant of the vehicle and later encouraging its customers to purchase more expensive versions of the electric sedan. This complaint will likely be easily rebutted, considering that the $35,000 Model 3 is available today, albeit as an off-menu item. Business practices that incentivize consumers to purchase higher-end products are pretty common as well, in both the auto and tech sphere.
Lastly, the New Jersey Coalition of Automotive Retailers also accused Tesla of misleading consumers by describing its Autopilot system as a “Self-Driving” solution and listing incentives and estimated gas savings in its vehicle pricing. “There is simply no justifiable basis for the State to continue to permit Tesla’s conduct here. When taken together, the actions make it clear that state defendants have chosen to actively ignore Tesla’s unlawful acts and have permitted them to continue,” the coalition wrote in its complaint.
Similar to its other allegations, the dealers’ complaints about Tesla appear to be the result of misinformation. For example, Autopilot, which comes standard with any Tesla except the $35,000 Model 3, is not advertised as a “self-driving” solution. Tesla’s autonomous driving suite is its Full Self-Driving system, which is separate from Autopilot. Tesla’s configurator also allows customers to view a vehicle’s default purchase price and one that includes potential savings. An explainer on incentives is also present on Tesla’s official website, where all vehicle purchases are made.
Neither Tesla nor the New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission has issued a comment about the recently-filed lawsuit.
Tesla operates differently from traditional automakers since the company does not utilize a dealer network to sell its vehicles. Instead, it sells its cars directly to consumers. This allows Tesla to have full control of vehicle pricing, ensuring that the purchase price of its electric cars is regulated, while making the car buying experience as simple as possible. This strategy is akin to what is being adopted by tech companies such as Apple, whose stores provide interested customers with an opportunity to interact with its products.
News
Tesla dispels reports of ‘sales suspension’ in California
“This was a “consumer protection” order about the use of the term “Autopilot” in a case where not one single customer came forward to say there’s a problem.
Sales in California will continue uninterrupted.”
Tesla has dispelled reports that it is facing a thirty-day sales suspension in California after the state’s Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) issued a penalty to the company after a judge ruled it “misled consumers about its driver-assistance technology.”
On Tuesday, Bloomberg reported that the California DMV was planning to adopt the penalty but decided to put it on ice for ninety days, giving Tesla an opportunity to “come into compliance.”
Tesla enters interesting situation with Full Self-Driving in California
Tesla responded to the report on Tuesday evening, after it came out, stating that this was a “consumer protection” order that was brought up over its use of the term “Autopilot.”
The company said “not one single customer came forward to say there’s a problem,” yet a judge and the DMV determined it was, so they want to apply the penalty if Tesla doesn’t oblige.
However, Tesla said that its sales operations in California “will continue uninterrupted.”
It confirmed this in an X post on Tuesday night:
This was a “consumer protection” order about the use of the term “Autopilot” in a case where not one single customer came forward to say there’s a problem.
Sales in California will continue uninterrupted.
— Tesla North America (@tesla_na) December 17, 2025
The report and the decision by the DMV and Judge involved sparked outrage from the Tesla community, who stated that it should do its best to get out of California.
One X post said California “didn’t deserve” what Tesla had done for it in terms of employment, engineering, and innovation.
Tesla has used Autopilot and Full Self-Driving for years, but it did add the term “(Supervised)” to the end of the FSD suite earlier this year, potentially aiming to protect itself from instances like this one.
This is the first primary dispute over the terminology of Full Self-Driving, but it has undergone some scrutiny at the federal level, as some government officials have claimed the suite has “deceptive” naming. Previous Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg was vocally critical of the use of the name “Full Self-Driving,” as well as “Autopilot.”
News
New EV tax credit rule could impact many EV buyers
We confirmed with a Tesla Sales Advisor that any current orders that have the $7,500 tax credit applied to them must be completed by December 31, meaning delivery must take place by that date. However, it is unclear at this point whether someone could still claim the credit when filing their tax returns for 2025 as long as the order reflects an order date before September 30.
Tesla owners could be impacted by a new EV tax credit rule, which seems to be a new hoop to jump through for those who benefited from the “extension,” which allowed orderers to take delivery after the loss of the $7,500 discount.
After the Trump Administration initiated the phase-out of the $7,500 EV tax credit, many were happy to see the rules had been changed slightly, as deliveries could occur after the September 30 cutoff as long as orders were placed before the end of that month.
However, there appears to be a new threshold that EV buyers will have to go through, and it will impact their ability to get the credit, at least at the Point of Sale, for now.
Delivery must be completed by the end of the year, and buyers must take possession of the car by December 31, 2025, or they will lose the tax credit. The U.S. government will be closing the tax credit portal, which allows people to claim the credit at the Point of Sale.
🚨UPDATE: $7,500 Tax Credit Portal “Closes By End of Year”.
This is bad news for pending Tesla buyers (MYP) looking to lock in the $7,500 Tax Credit.
“it looks like the portal closes by end of the year so there be no way for us to guarantee the funds however, we will try our… pic.twitter.com/LnWiaXL30k
— DennisCW | wen my L (@DennisCW_) December 15, 2025
We confirmed with a Tesla Sales Advisor that any current orders that have the $7,500 tax credit applied to them must be completed by December 31, meaning delivery must take place by that date.
However, it is unclear at this point whether someone could still claim the credit when filing their tax returns for 2025 as long as the order reflects an order date before September 30.
If not, the order can still go through, but the buyer will not be able to claim the tax credit, meaning they will pay full price for the vehicle.
This puts some buyers in a strange limbo, especially if they placed an order for the Model Y Performance. Some deliveries have already taken place, and some are scheduled before the end of the month, but many others are not expecting deliveries until January.
Elon Musk
Elon Musk takes latest barb at Bill Gates over Tesla short position
Bill Gates placed a massive short bet against Tesla of ~1% of our total shares, which might have cost him over $10B by now
Elon Musk took his latest barb at former Microsoft CEO Bill Gates over his short position against the company, which the two have had some tensions over for a number of years.
Gates admitted to Musk several years ago through a text message that he still held a short position against his sustainable car and energy company. Ironically, Gates had contacted Musk to explore philanthropic opportunities.
Elon Musk explains Bill Gates beef: He ‘placed a massive bet on Tesla dying’
Musk said he could not take the request seriously, especially as Gates was hoping to make money on the downfall of the one company taking EVs seriously.
The Tesla frontman has continued to take shots at Gates over the years from time to time, but the latest comment came as Musk’s net worth swelled to over $600 billion. He became the first person ever to reach that threshold earlier this week, when Tesla shares increased due to Robotaxi testing without any occupants.
Musk refreshed everyone’s memory with the recent post, stating that if Gates still has his short position against Tesla, he would have lost over $10 billion by now:
Bill Gates placed a massive short bet against Tesla of ~1% of our total shares, which might have cost him over $10B by now
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) December 17, 2025
Just a month ago, in mid-November, Musk issued his final warning to Gates over the short position, speculating whether the former Microsoft frontman had still held the bet against Tesla.
“If Gates hasn’t fully closed out the crazy short position he has held against Tesla for ~8 years, he had better do so soon,” Musk said. This came in response to The Gates Foundation dumping 65 percent of its Microsoft position.
Tesla CEO Elon Musk sends final warning to Bill Gates over short position
Musk’s involvement in the U.S. government also drew criticism from Gates, as he said that the reductions proposed by DOGE against U.S.A.I.D. were “stunning” and could cause “millions of additional deaths of kids.”
“Gates is a huge liar,” Musk responded.
It is not known whether Gates still holds his Tesla short position.
Tesla dispels reports of ‘sales suspension’ in California
New EV tax credit rule could impact many EV buyers
