News
Tesla finally offers lease-to-buy options for Model 3 and Y, but it’s not available everywhere
Tesla is starting to offer the option to purchase its all-electric Model 3 and Model Y vehicles at the conclusion of a leasing period in some markets in Europe and Asia.
For some time, Tesla has not allowed owners to purchase their cars at the end of a leasing period. The car is to be returned to the automaker with no chance of a leaseholder buying out the car at the conclusion of the period. The car would be added to the company’s used inventory, to third-party resalers, or reserved for the future use of the Robotaxi fleet.
Tesla’s Leasing Program
Tesla’s leasing policy is one of the few automotive programs that is subjected to a required return policy at the conclusion of a leasing period. In its 2020 10-K filing with the SEC, Tesla details its process for receiving leased vehicles when the period is terminated.
The company states:
“Our used vehicle business supports new vehicle sales by integrating the trade-in of a customer’s existing Tesla or non-Tesla vehicle with the sale of a new or used Tesla vehicle. The Tesla and non-Tesla vehicles we acquire as trade-ins are subsequently remarketed, either directly by us or through third parties. We also remarket used Tesla vehicles acquired from other sources including lease returns.”
In some markets in the U.S., Canada, and Europe, Tesla did allow Model S and Model X leaseholders with the option to purchase the vehicle at the end of the lease period.
Tesla says:
“At the end of the lease term, customers are required to return the vehicles to us or for Model S and Model X leases in certain regions, may opt to purchase the vehicles for a pre-determined residual value.”
This program did not apply to the Model 3 or Model Y, as anyone who leased either of these cars would be required to relinquish possession of the vehicle with no chance of purchasing it at the end of the lease. However, Tesla added a new section to the 10-K in 2020, detailing the possibility of a lease-to-buy option in some markets in Europe and Asia, and it applies to the Model 3 and Model Y. The company writes, “This is not available with the Model 3 and Model Y,” on its website.
Lease-to-Buy Option for Model 3 and Model Y in Europe and Asia
Tesla added new language to the 2020 10-K filing that details its decision to allow lease-to-buy options on its vehicles in Europe and Asia.
The company wrote:
“We have outstanding direct leases and vehicles financed by us under loan arrangements accounted for as sales-type leases under ASC 842 in certain countries in Asia and Europe, which we introduced in volume during the third quarter of 2020. Depending on the specific program, customers may or may not have a right to return the vehicle to us during or at the end of the lease term. If the customer does not have a right to return, the customer will take title to the vehicle at the end of the lease term after making all contractual payments. Under the programs for which there is a right to return, the purchase option is reasonably certain to be exercised by the lessee and we therefore expect the customer to take title to the vehicle at the end of the lease term after making all contractual payments.”
In summation, Tesla is offering the option to buy a vehicle at the end of a lease in some markets. The customer has the option to return the vehicle as well in some cases, and Tesla is “reasonably certain” that the leaseholder will take possession of the vehicle title when the lease ends.
Teslarati obtained a list of the countries where this lease-to-buy option is available, according to the Online Design Studio. Some countries have explicit language that states the vehicle leaseholder must return the vehicle, while others indicate there is an option to purchase the car at the end of a lease. Some do not have any language that indicates what the leaseholder must do, which could indicate that the option to purchase the vehicle is available at the conclusion of the leasing period.
The countries where a lease-to-buy option is available are:
- Belgium
- Croatia
- Denmark
- France
- Italy
- the Netherlands
- Poland
- Taiwan
A few examples show that there is explicit language that indicates a lease can be purchased outright at the end of the period.
- France’s Design Studio contains language that indicates the vehicle can be purchased outright at the conclusion of a leasing period.
- Taiwan’s Design Studio explicitly states the vehicle can be bought outright at the end of a lease period.
Other Design Studio examples show that the vehicle must be returned to Tesla at the end of the leasing period.
- Tesla does not give the option to buy the vehicle outright at the end of the lease in Germany.
- Tesla explicitly tells U.S. leaseholders that they “forgo the option to buy your car at the end of the lease and must return it to Tesla after the lease term.”
Lastly, other Design Studios show no language either way, which seems to indicate the option to buy the car is available as the lease term expires.
- Tesla Poland has no explicit language stating that the car must be returned to Tesla.
- Tesla Italy also does not indicate specifically if the car should be returned to Tesla at the end of a lease.
Poland is one country where Tesla does not indicate whether the car is required to be returned at the end of a lease period. However, the option to buy the car at the end of the lease is available, according to one Polish Model 3 leaseholder who spoke to Teslarati. Model 3 leaseholder Szymon Janus said that Tesla does allow lease-to-buy options in his country of Poland, and at the end of the lease, can be purchased for “around 60% of the new car’s value,” he said. However, Tesla isn’t offering the lease-purchase option directly, it is operated through a bank, he says. This could be why Tesla has no explicit language depicting the required return of the vehicle at the lease’s end date.
Tesla has not revealed any further details within its 10-K filing that indicate whether the company will allow leased vehicles to be purchased at the end of a leasing period. However, it did detail some specific financial figures.
Tesla said:
“For the year ended December 31, 2020, we recognized $120 million of sales-type leasing revenue and $87 million of sales-type leasing cost of revenue.”
What do you think? Be sure to leave a comment below, or you can contact me directly at joey@teslarati.com or @KlenderJoey on Twitter.
Elon Musk
The Boring Company clears final Nashville hurdle: Music City loop is full speed ahead
The Boring Company has cleared its final Nashville hurdles, putting the Music City Loop on track for 2026.
The Boring Company has cleared one of its most significant regulatory milestones yet, securing a key easement from the Music City Center in Nashville just days ago, the latest in a series of approvals that have pushed the Music City Loop project firmly into construction reality.
On March 24, 2026, the Convention Center Authority voted to grant The Boring Company access to an easement along the west side of the Music City Center property, allowing tunneling beneath the privately owned venue. The move follows a unanimous 7-0 vote by the Metro Nashville Airport Authority on February 18, and a joint state and federal approval from the Tennessee Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration on February 25. Together, these green lights have cleared the path for a roughly 10-mile underground tunnel connecting downtown Nashville to Nashville International Airport, with potential extensions into midtown along West End Avenue.
Music City Loop could highlight The Boring Company’s real disruption
Nashville was selected by The Boring Company largely because of its rapid population growth and the strain that growth has placed on surface infrastructure. Traffic has become a persistent problem for residents, convention visitors, and airport travelers alike. The Music City Loop promises an approximately 8-minute underground transit time between downtown and the Nashville International Airport (BNA), removing thousands of vehicles from surface roads daily while operating as a fully electric, zero-emissions system at no cost to taxpayers.
The project fits squarely within a broader vision Musk has championed for years. In responding to a breakdown of the Loop’s construction costs, Musk posted on X: “Tunnels are so underrated.” The comment reflected a longstanding belief that underground transit represents one of the most cost-effective and scalable infrastructure solutions available. The Boring Company has claimed it can build 13 miles of twin tunnels in Nashville for between $240 million and $300 million total, a fraction of what comparable projects cost elsewhere in the country.

Image Credit: The Boring Company/Twitter
The Las Vegas Loop, The Boring Company’s first operational system, has served as a proof of concept. During the CONEXPO trade show in March 2026, the Vegas Loop transported approximately 82,000 passengers over five days at the Las Vegas Convention Center, demonstrating the system’s capacity during large-scale events. Nashville draws millions of convention visitors and tourists each year, and local business leaders have pointed to that same capacity as a major draw for supporting the project.
The Music City Loop was first announced in July 2025. Construction began within hours of the February 25 state approval, with The Boring Company’s Prufrock tunneling machine already in the ground the same evening. The first operational segment is targeted for late 2026, with the full route expected to be complete by 2029. The project represents one of the largest privately funded infrastructure efforts currently underway in the United States.
Elon Musk
Elon Musk demands Delaware Judge recuse herself after ‘support’ post celebrating $2B court loss
A banner on the post read “Katie McCormick supports this,” using LinkedIn’s heart-in-hand “support” icon, an endorsement stronger than a simple “like.” Musk’s lawyers argue the action creates “a perception of bias against Mr. Musk,” warranting immediate recusal to preserve judicial impartiality.
Tesla CEO Elon Musk’s legal team has filed a motion demanding that Delaware Chancellor Kathaleen McCormick disqualify herself from an ongoing high-stakes Tesla shareholder lawsuit.
The filing, submitted March 25, cites an apparent LinkedIn “support” reaction from McCormick’s account to a post celebrating a $2 billion jury verdict against Musk in a separate California securities-fraud case.
The move escalates long-simmering tensions between Musk, Tesla, and the Delaware judiciary, where McCormick previously presided over the landmark challenge to Musk’s record $56 billion 2018 compensation package.
Delaware Supreme Court reinstates Elon Musk’s 2018 Tesla CEO pay package
The LinkedIn post was written by Harry Plotkin, a Southern California jury consultant who assisted the plaintiffs who sued Musk over 2022 tweets about his Twitter acquisition. Plotkin praised the trial team for “standing up for the little guy against the richest man in the world.”
The New York Post initially reported the story.
A banner on the post read “Katie McCormick supports this,” using LinkedIn’s heart-in-hand “support” icon, an endorsement stronger than a simple “like.” Musk’s lawyers argue the action creates “a perception of bias against Mr. Musk,” warranting immediate recusal to preserve judicial impartiality.
This appears to be unequivocal proof she denied the pay package because of her own personal beliefs and not the law.
Corruption. https://t.co/8dvgcfYuvh
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) March 25, 2026
McCormick swiftly denied intentional endorsement. In a letter to attorneys, she stated she was unaware of the interaction until LinkedIn notified her. She wrote:
“I either did not click the ‘support’ icon at all, or I did so accidentally. I do not believe that I did it accidentally.”
The chancellor maintains the reaction was inadvertent, but critics, including Musk allies, call the explanation implausible given the platform’s deliberate interface.
McCormick’s central role in the Tesla pay-package litigation underscores the stakes. In Tornetta v. Musk, in January 2024, she ruled the 2018 performance-based stock-option grant, potentially worth $56 billion at the time and now valued far higher, was invalid.
The package consisted of 12 tranches of options, each vesting only after Tesla achieved ambitious market-cap and operational milestones. McCormick found Musk exercised “transaction-specific control” over Tesla as a controlling stockholder, the board lacked sufficient independence, and proxy disclosures to shareholders were materially deficient.
Applying the entire-fairness standard, she concluded defendants failed to prove the deal was fair in process or price and ordered full rescission, an “unfathomable” remedy she described as necessary to deter fiduciary breaches.
After the ruling, Tesla shareholders ratified the package a second time in June 2024. McCormick rejected that ratification in December 2024, holding that post-trial votes could not cure defects.
Tesla appealed. On December 19 of last year, the Delaware Supreme Court unanimously reversed the rescission remedy while largely leaving McCormick’s liability findings intact. The high court deemed total unwinding inequitable and impractical, restoring the package but awarding the plaintiff only nominal $1 damages plus reduced attorneys’ fees. Musk ultimately received the full award.
The current recusal motion arises in yet another Tesla derivative suit before McCormick. Legal observers say granting it could signal heightened scrutiny of judicial social-media activity; denial might reinforce perceptions of an insular Delaware bench.
Broader fallout includes accelerated corporate migration out of Delaware, Musk himself moved Tesla’s incorporation to Texas after the first ruling, and renewed debate over whether the state’s specialized courts remain the gold standard for corporate governance disputes.
A decision is expected soon; whichever way it lands, the episode highlights the fragile balance between judicial independence and public confidence in high-profile litigation.
News
Tesla Cybercab spotted next to Model Y shows size comparison
The Model Y is Tesla’s most-popular vehicle and has been atop the world’s best-selling rankings for the last three years. The Cybercab, while yet to be released, could potentially surpass the Model Y due to its planned accessible price, potential for passive income for owners, and focus on autonomy.
The Tesla Cybercab and Tesla Model Y are perhaps two of the company’s most-discussed vehicles, and although they are geared toward different things, a recent image of the two shows a side-by-side size comparison and how they stack up dimensionally.
The Model Y is Tesla’s most-popular vehicle and has been atop the world’s best-selling rankings for the last three years. The Cybercab, while yet to be released, could potentially surpass the Model Y due to its planned accessible price, potential for passive income for owners, and focus on autonomy.
Geared as a ride-sharing vehicle, it only has two seats. However, the car will be responsible for hauling two people around to various destinations completely autonomously. How they differ in terms of size is striking.
In a new aerial image shared by drone operator and Gigafactory Texas observer Joe Tegtmeyer, the two vehicles were seen side by side, offering perhaps the first clear look at how they differ in size.
Tesla Model Y vs. Tesla Cybercab:
✅ Overall Length:⁰Model Y: 188.7 inches (4,794 mm)⁰Cybercab: ~175 inches (≈4,445 mm)⁰→ Cybercab is about 13–14 inches shorter (roughly the length of a large suitcase).
✅ Overall Width (excluding mirrors):⁰Model Y: 75.6 inches (1,920 mm)… https://t.co/PsVwzhw1pe pic.twitter.com/58JQ5ssQIO
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) March 25, 2026
Dimensionally, the differences are striking. The Model Y stretches roughly 188 inches long, 75.6 inches wide, excluding its mirrors, and stands 64 inches tall on a 113.8-inch wheelbase. The Cybercab measures approximately 175 inches in length, about a foot shorter, and just 63 inches wide.
That narrower stance gives the Cybercab a dramatically more compact silhouette, making it easier to maneuver in tight urban environments and park in standard spaces that would feel cramped for the Model Y. Height is also lower on the Cybercab, contributing to its sleek, coupe-like profile versus the Model Y’s taller crossover shape.
Visually, the contrast is unmistakable. The Model Y presents as a family-friendly SUV with conventional doors, a prominent hood, and a spacious glass roof.
The Cybercab eliminates the steering wheel and pedals entirely, creating a clean, futuristic cabin that feels more lounge than cockpit.
Its doors open in a distinctive, wide-swinging motion, and the body features smoother, more aerodynamic lines optimized for autonomy. Parked beside a Model Y, the Cybercab appears almost toy-like in width and length, yet its low-slung stance and minimalist design emphasize agility over bulk.
🚨 We caught up with the Tesla Cybercab today in The Bay Area: pic.twitter.com/9awXiK26ue
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) March 24, 2026
Cargo capacity tells another part of the story. The Model Y offers generous real-world utility: 4.1 cubic feet in the front trunk and 30.2 cubic feet behind the rear seats, expanding to 72 cubic feet with the second row folded flat.
It comfortably swallows groceries, luggage, or sports equipment for five passengers. The Cybercab, designed for two riders, trades that volume for targeted efficiency.
It features a rear hatch with enough space for two carry-on suitcases and personal items, plenty for the typical robotaxi trip, while maintaining impressive legroom and headroom for its occupants.
In short, the Model Y prioritizes versatility and family hauling with its larger footprint and abundant storage. The Cybercab sacrifices size for simplicity, cost, and urban nimbleness.
At roughly 12 inches shorter and 12 inches narrower, it embodies Tesla’s vision for scalable, affordable autonomy: smaller on the outside, smarter inside, and ready to redefine how we move through cities.
The Cybercab and Model Y both will contribute to Tesla’s fully autonomous future. However, the size comparison gives a good look into how the vehicles are the same, and how they differ, and what riders should anticipate as the Cybercab enters production in the coming weeks.





