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.
Tesla Cybercab stands to gain from new rules that the Trump Administration is aiming to enforce on autonomous vehicles. On Thursday, NHTSA, under the Trump Administration’s U.S. Department of Transportation, commenced rulemaking on the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS).
This effort aims to eliminate the mandate for manual brake pedals in vehicles that are designed to be driven exclusively by automated driving systems. This would impact the Tesla Cybercab, which the company has stated would operate without a steering wheel or pedals.
Tesla Cybercab launch is imminent after latest sighting at Giga Texas
The Trump Administration is looking to revise FMVSS No. 135, which requires standard braking systems on light-duty vehicles.
Currently, the regulation requires light-duty cars to use traditional manual braking systems that allow operators to slow the vehicle. With the advent of self-driving in the U.S., these regulations need updating, and these are the changes that could come to FMVSS No. 135:
- Removes requirements for hand- or foot-operated brake controls for vehicles designed never to be operated by a human. Existing rules still apply to AVs that retain manual controls.
- All subject vehicles must still meet the same stopping distance performance criteria via alternative testing procedures.
- While this update ensures AVs can physically stop when commanded, NHTSA is separately developing safety performance requirements for AVs in real-world driving scenarios.
- NHTSA will continue to use its broad defect enforcement authority to investigate unsafe ADS behavior and oversee recalls.
As autonomy becomes a greater part of passenger travel, these types of rule adjustments will be more than reasonable. It will give manufacturers the ability to self-certify their vehicles and avoid any red tape that could ultimately delay the deployment of these vehicles.
Administrators are also incredibly excited about the opportunity to play a role in the advancement of self-driving vehicles.
“We are at the cusp of the greatest technological revolution in vehicle technology since the innovation of the Model T,” NHTSA Administrator Jonathan Morrison said. “If we want America to lead the way, we have to reimagine our regulatory framework. That’s why under Secretary Sean Duffy’s AV Framework, NHTSA is tearing down pointless barriers to innovative designs while strengthening the fundamental safety requirements that matter and holding AV developers accountable for safe performance.”
The Cybercab entered mass production at Gigafactory Texas in April. Tesla ultimately plans to push the vehicle into its Robotaxi fleet, potentially when frameworks like these are established.
Tesla plans to boost production at its Gigafactory Berlin plant in Germany following a sharp rebound in sales and demand in Europe after a softer 2025.
The plans put Tesla in a better position to compete with strengthening companies in Europe and potentially other markets; demand indicators show Tesla is much better off than in 2025.
Last year was a tough year for Tesla in terms of overall demand in Europe. The company produced over 200,000 vehicles at the German plant last year, a soft figure compared to the 375,000 vehicles Tesla lists as its current capacity at the factory.
🚨 Tesla said this morning it will ramp up production at Gigafactory Berlin to a volume of 7,500 vehicles per week.
This is a 20 percent boost in production. Tesla will hire 1,000 new employees to help with the increase.$TSLA pic.twitter.com/kravKfRO5n
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 25, 2026
Tesla’s overall European sales dropped significantly last year due to a variety of factors. However, sales are rebounding, and demand is strong once again, and only getting stronger. Tesla is now planning to bump production of Model Y vehicles at Giga Berlin upward by about 20 percent. It will also bring 1,000 new jobs to the plant.
Tesla confirmed the details of its planned production expansion in Germany this morning. It is a strategy to keep up with strengthening demand.
In Q1, Tesla saw a record 61,000 vehicles produced at Giga Berlin. European registrations rebounded sharply, with Model Y seeing 117 percent increases in March 2026 compared to last year. Germany alone saw stark increases, with a quadrupling in registrations to 9,252 units.
This trend continued in other key European markets, including France, Denmark and Sweden. Tesla registrations were up over 46 percent in some of these markets, and Model Y continued its trend as a top BEV in the market.
Demand has been recovering strongly in 2026, giving Tesla a reason to expand production efforts at the factory. These increases signal management’s confidence in sustained or growing European pull for Berlin-built vehicles.
Tesla is being sued by the family of the woman who was killed in a Texas crash involving a Model 3. The driver, who is also being sued, claimed the vehicle was operating on Autopilot mode, but Tesla executives have come out challenging that claim, stating that the driver of the vehicle overrode the system.
The lawsuit was filed by 76-year-old Martha Avila’s daughter and her husband, who allege a “design defect” involving a Tesla and a failure to warn. The suit alleges negligence against Tesla and the driver, Michael Butler.
Butler “stated he was operating with an automated driving assistance system engaged at the time of the crash,” the Harris County Sheriff’s Office said in a statement. He showed no signs of intoxication and was cooperative, the Sheriff’s Office said, according to NBC News.
Just after reports of the crash and numerous headlines that immediately blamed Tesla’s Autopilot suite, both Tesla CEO Elon Musk and Head of AI Ashok Elluswamy challenged that. Musk said the crash made “no sense” given that Tesla Autopilot and Full Self-Driving do not travel at the speeds the door cameras captured the car traveling at, which Tesla says was 73 MPH.
Tesla finally clarifies fatal Texas crash, confirms driver manually overrode acceleration
Elluswamy also revealed that Tesla data showed Butler overrode the system by pressing the accelerator to 100%, and that the pedal was compressed fully even after the car had crashed. Tesla has not released this data to the public, likely because it is communicating with agencies like the NHTSA on an investigation.
The suit uses a Washington Post analysis of government data that “identified at least 17 fatal incidents linked to Tesla Autopilot.”
This is far from the first time an accident has been blamed on Autopilot. A fatal crash in Texas was blamed on Autopilot several years ago, but when Tesla released data to the NTSB, which was investigating the crash, Autopilot was not available where the crash occurred, and Autosteer was never enabled, meaning the car was manually controlled at the time of the accident.
“Application of the accelerator pedal was found to be as high as 98.8 percent,” the NTSB said in their findings. The highest recorded speed in the five seconds leading up to the impact was 67 miles per hour. The area where the crash occurred is residential, and Texas State laws… pic.twitter.com/XGD97NHVZ2
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) March 18, 2026
More information on the accident will be released as Tesla works with agencies to find the cause of the crash. From personal experience, it is hard to imagine Tesla Autopilot or FSD operating in this manner. It drives sometimes too cautiously in residential areas in parking lots, at least in my experience. Speeding happens, but at this rate in this type of area, it is hard to believe.
We look forward to more details being released with time.
Tesla Cybercab stands to gain from new Trump autonomy rules
Tesla plans production boost at Giga Berlin following rebound in Europe
