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.
Elon Musk flew under the radar with his recent purchase of a $1 billion energy company, according to Federal Trade Commission (FTC) documents.
Transaction number 202612350 listed Tesla and SpaceX frontman Elon Musk as the acquiring party and CF APR Super Holdings LLC as the seller, with New APR Energy, LLC as the acquired entity. The deal, which closed without public announcement, came to light on May 14.
BREAKING: Elon Musk acquires Jacksonville power company APR Energy in a deal valued at more than $1,000,000,000.00.
— Polymarket Money (@PolymarketMoney) July 15, 2026
Analysts inferred the deal’s scale from minority stakeholder disclosures, including one report of a 5 percent interest sold for approximately $50.4 million. Fortress Investment Group had purchased APR’s assets in late 2024, rebranded the operation as New APR Energy, and subsequently transferred ownership to Musk.
APR Energy specializes in rapidly deployable power infrastructure. The company maintains one of the world’s largest fleets of mobile gas and diesel turbines, with more than 1.1 gigawatts of generation capacity. Its modular units, which are often trailer-mounted, enable turnkey installations ranging from 20 MW to over 500 MW.
APR provides full engineering, procurement, construction, operation, and maintenance services for behind-the-meter power plants, serving everything from data centers, utilities, and industrial clients.
The firm has expanded aggressively to meet surging demand, recently adding turbines and deploying over 100 MW for a major AI hyperscaler. Its solutions bridge critical gaps where grid interconnections face delays of two to five years, according to Yahoo.
The acquisition means something more for Musk. As he continues to expand projects in artificial intelligence, especially xAI, his AI venture, there is a greater need to supply energy-intensive supercomputing clusters, including the Colossus project, with what they need: reliable and high-capacity power.
Ownership of APR provides immediate access to flexible generation assets that can be deployed adjacent to data centers, reducing dependence on a strained infrastructure. It also complements Tesla’s energy storage business, so Musk will be able to pull from his own entities to address the rapid scaling demands of AI training and compute.
Tesla had a petition protesting a recall to fix a potential issue with 2017-2023 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles’ headlights was denied, as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) disagreed with the company’s opinion of things.
The recall covers approximately 19,917 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles built from 2017 to 2023. Tesla initially submitted a noncompliance report for the headlights on these vehicles on March 15, 2024. Tesla then petitioned for an exemption from the fix, which violated FMVSS No. 108 (40 CFR 571.108), arguing that the “noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
🚨 Tesla was denied a petition by the NHTSA to avoid a recall of 19,900 2017-2023 Model 3 and Model Y vehicles.
The NHTSA found that the vehicles’ headlights may exceed maximum lighting levels. Tesla argued it was inconsequential and did not require a recall. pic.twitter.com/m8Jmm1teLL
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 16, 2026
The NHTSA disagreed, stating that Tesla’s conclusion that the headlights do not increase any risk was not an opinion it shared. The agency said it disagreed with Tesla’s assumption that glare is not increased to surrounding traffic. This issue could be highlighted even more in certain weather conditions.
Tesla will be required to remedy the issue, the NHTSA ruled:
“In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that Tesla has not met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 108 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Tesla’s petition is hereby denied, and Tesla is consequently obligated to provide notification of and free remedy for that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.”
The issue here appears to be the angle of the headlights and the brightness they emit during operation. The NHTSA report states that:
“Tesla’s headlamp supplier, Marelli Automotive Lighting, tested 25 right-hand and 25 left-hand lamps, and for this sample, found the maximum photometric intensity measured in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone was between 136.2 cd and 230.1 cd for the right-hand lamps and between 117.5 cd and 160.3 cd for the left-hand lamps. According to Tesla, these tests revealed that the photometric intensity of the right-hand and left-hand headlamp lower beam on the subject vehicles may measure as much as 230.1 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone, exceeding the maximum photometric intensity by 105.1 cd. Additionally, Tesla states that a left-hand lamp tested by a Transport Canada recognized laboratory measured a maximum of 171.27 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone. Despite these measurements exceeding the allowed photometric maximum of 125 cd, Tesla believes that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.”
Tesla also argued at some points that the headlights had not been deemed responsible for any complaints, accidents, or injuries related to the noncompliance.
Lifestyle
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
The NTSB confirmed the driver, not Tesla’s FSD, caused the fatal Texas house crash.
The National Transportation Safety Board released preliminary findings Wednesday confirming that a Tesla driver, not the vehicle’s software, caused a fatal crash in Katy, Texas in June. The driver, 44-year-old Michael Butler, had engaged Full Self-Driving Supervised mode on Rose Hollow Lane, a residential street with a 30 mph speed limit, before manually overriding the system by pressing the accelerator pedal all the way to 100%. Data recovered from the 2025 Tesla Model 3 showed the vehicle was traveling over 70 miles per hour when it struck a home and killed 76-year-old Martha Avila, who was inside. Weather was clear, the road was dry, and it was daylight.
Texas man charged in fatal Tesla crash where he blamed Autopilot
Butler told authorities he had passed out at the wheel. But security camera footage obtained by the NTSB told a different story, and showed the car accelerating through an intersection before leaving the road entirely. Police also found that Butler’s phone had Google searches including the terms “Tesla FSD not aggressive enough 2026” and “Tesla FSD too timid,” raising serious questions about how he was using the system before the crash. Butler has since been charged with manslaughter. The victim’s family has filed a lawsuit against both Butler and Tesla, alleging negligence.
The NTSB findings aligned directly with what Tesla VP of AI Software Ashok Elluswamy had already stated publicly on X in the weeks after the crash, writing that “the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100%.” The data confirmed his account.
Yup. In this case, the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100% of the accel pedal in this residential area. They reached a speed of 73 mph during the crash, and had the accelerator pressed even after the crash.
— Ashok Elluswamy (@aelluswamy) June 22, 2026
Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future
Tesla has to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says
