News
Tesla Model 3 buyer pays the price after inadvertently buying a resold wrecked unit
A Tesla enthusiast who purchased a second-hand Model 3 from a Florida car dealership website has paid a steep price after his vehicle turned out to be a previously totaled unit. This was despite the Model 3 being sold on the second-hand market as a clean title vehicle, and the fact that its Carfax report did not raise any red flags.
Luke Jackson, the Tesla enthusiast, told Channel 2 Action News that the Model 3 had been his dream car, and that he had saved up for the vehicle so that he could buy it in cash. When he saw the car being offered online, it looked like he had found the perfect second-hand Model 3. “The title looked clean. There’s only 9000 miles on it. It was a 2018. So perfect scenario,” Jackson told the news agency.
It took months before Jackson was made aware of his car’s true history. As it turned out, the Model 3 had been declared a total loss last year after suffering extensive front-end damage. It was later sold on an auto auction website where it was listed with an estimated repair cost of $34,000. Yet despite this, the Model 3 still had its original title, and it was not branded as salvaged when Jackson purchased it.
Channel 2 Action News noted that Jackson’s second-hand Model 3 is related to an investigation that it published back in September. During that time, the news site featured the story of a second-hand 2015 Toyota 4-Runner that has changed hands at least seven times over the last five years in five separate states. The whole time, the SUV had missing side airbags, a critical safety issue that none of its buyers knew about.
Jackson’s Model 3 and the safety-compromised 4-Runner had something in common. Both vehicles got their clean titles in Texas, and everything about it was legal. This is because Texas law has a 100% “total loss threshold,” which meant that unless a vehicle’s repair cost is more than what the car is worth, the title would remain original. This particular law effectively conceals the history of cars to a point, especially those that were involved in serious accidents.
Chris Humphries, one of the 4-Runner’s previous owners, has taken it upon himself to do some more digging on why such unsafe vehicles are being sold. Eventually, he noticed a pattern, which he shared with the news agency. A good number of the damaged vehicles for sale in Texas were listed under the same seller name: Progressive Insurance. The name of the seller was eventually hidden on the auto auction website, but not before Humphries was able to take screenshots of the listings.
When contacted by Channel 2 Action News, Progressive Insurance noted that it was following the laws and regulations set forth by Texas law. “We follow the laws and regulations set forth by the applicable state and are extremely confident we were in compliance with the Texas state law,” the firm responded.
-
The damaged Toyota 4-Runner emerged once more in November, this time in Nashville. Humphries noted that the SUV’s new owner actually has children who are riding in the backseat despite the vehicle not having any side airbags. The Model 3 owner, for his part, ended up losing his warranties when Tesla found out about his car’s history. As of date, the second-hand Model 3’s Supercharger access had been disabled as well.
“If I were to resell it, the value would be cut in half probably. Because it’s not under car warranty. They’re going to know now that it was salvaged. So I kind of just lost $20,000,” the Tesla enthusiast said.
Channel 2‘s report on the story could be found here.
In a new note to investors on Tuesday, Morgan Stanley analyst Andrew Percoco said that Tesla has one big financial question to answer for investors regarding its Robotaxi rollout, Full Self-Driving software, and Optimus.
Percoco said in the note that, for the most part, investors are still very positive about the direction the company is headed. However, there are some things the firm would like to see, and they have to do with financials.
Tesla (TSLA) Q2 2026 earnings results: miss on EPS, beat on revenue
Tesla bulls are more than convinced that the company’s Full Self-Driving software is proof it can develop physical AI. Financially, however, there are still some questions, especially on elevated spending, which CEO Elon Musk said would occur as the company works to roll out Robotaxi faster and continue developing its Optimus robot.
The latter two are where Tesla will have to prove progress to investors, as Percoco writes that both projects “will require clearer evidence that Robotaxi is scaling and more tangible Optimus proof points to support the ROI on elevated capex.”
Percoco said the second quarter earnings call did not change his long-term thesis of where Tesla is positioned in the AI race, which is out in front. However, there are concerns that weaker gross margins and higher R&D spend will stress financials, and that has “sharpened our (and investors’) focus on measurable progress across Robotaxi and Optimus.”
Additionally, Robotaxi still needs to be proven with more operation in existing cities while maintaining safety but improving how many rides it gives in any given time, he said. For Optimus, Percoco wrote that he is “still looking for evidence beyond commentary around SOP.”
Morgan Stanley put Percoco in charge of covering Tesla after long-time analyst Adam Jonas transitioned to the automotive side.
Currently, Morgan Stanley has a $415 price target on Tesla and a ‘Hold’ rating on the stock. It is trading at around $330 at the time of publication, which was 2:30 P.M. on the East Coast.
SpaceX’s massive investment in AI will make it a big winner, Argus Research said after the company’s successful earnings call last week.
The firm also upgraded shares to a Buy from Hold and set a $160 price target.
SpaceX (NASDAQ: SPCX) is currently recovering from its heavy AI infrastructure investments, as it spent nearly $16 billion in Q2 alone. The company did this primarily by monetizing high-demand GPU compute capacity at a much faster pace than traditional data center economics would suggest.
Company CFO Bret Johnsen said that SpaceX would be able to pay back anything on new deployments within a year.
There are plenty of ways the company can do this:
Leasing excess compute capacity through contracts
SpaceX has already built Colossus and Colossus II, largely for its own model training. However, much of that capacity is already rented out to third parties. It already has major deals with Anthropic, Google, and Reflection AI. These partnerships are adding billions per month to SpaceX’s spreadsheet.
High utilization driven by industry-wide scarcity
The demand for advanced AI training and inference capacity continues to exceed what is available for use. SpaceX can fill new racks quickly after they come online, so the capital deployed converts into revenue with minimal idle time.
Additionally, management and outside observers have described the new compute capital as behaving more like a cost-of-goods-sold than traditional multi-year capex, especially because of this rapid monetization pattern.
Capacity has already scaled from ~0.4 GW a year to 1.4 GW annually by the end of Q2. There are targets of more than 2 GW by year-end.
High incremental margins on the rental business once capacity is online
GPU cloud providers often operate at strong gross margins. SpaceX can monetize capacity that was already partially built or can be added efficiently. This means that incremental EBITDA margins on the rental revenue are usually high. This accelerates cash recovery relative to the gross capital outlay.
Parallel monetization of its own AI software and applications
Beyond pure infrastructure rental, SpaceX also generates revenue from Grok through subscriptions and usage, from X through ads, data, and other related services, enterprise APIs, and the planned integration of the Cursor coding tools acquisition.
These application layers ride on the same compute infrastructure and provide additional high-margin streams that could offset build-out costs. AI-segment revenue overall rose sharply to about $2.6 billion in Q2, according to Motley Fool. This was driven primarily by the infrastructure contracts, but the software side is also partially responsible.
Efficient, large-scale deployment and vertical integration advantages
SpaceX has emphasized the rapid construction of power and cooling infrastructure and favorable cost-per-megawatt economics relative to industry benchmarks in some disclosures.
Combined with its ability to scale capacity aggressively and the fact that many contracts start generating revenue within months of capacity coming online, the effective payback compresses dramatically compared with more conventional multi-year data-center projects.
SpaceX’s dominant near-term recovery path will turn the AI clusters into a hyperscale-style compute rental business for other leading AI companies while still using a portion for internal models.
Tesla headlights have caused a recall of over 20,000 of the company’s two most popular vehicles, the Model 3 and Model Y, due to the low-beam bulb exceeding the maximum allowed intensity according to federal standards.
Tesla initiated the recall with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) this morning, stating that the low-beam output “exceeds the maximum allowed intensity in the outer upper-right and outer upper-left areas of the 10U and 90U zone, as prescribed in FMVSS No. 108.”
Tesla sourced the impacted headlights from Marelli Automotive Lighting, a Mexico-based company. The recall impacts 2020-2023 Model Y vehicles and 2017-2023 Model 3 vehicles. It is estimated that every VIN in this recall is impacted by the defect.
🚨 Tesla is recalling 20,349 2020-23 Model Y vehicles and 2017-23 Model 3 vehicles due to an excessively bright headlamp low beam.
Currently, there is no remedy plan in place, as it is still being developed. pic.twitter.com/y34cIO2U0B
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) August 11, 2026
Typically, Tesla would remedy recalls of this nature through an Over-the-Air software update, which has been a major focus of criticism by the company and its supporters because the NHTSA still refers to it as a “recall,” even though it requires no action by the vehicle owner. The fix is shipped over the internet and downloaded to the car.
However, there appears to be a potentially different solution for this problem. Tesla has not developed a remedy for this issue, so it could potentially be on the way. The big issue appears to be the fact that these recalled lamps are out of production, and this is an old body style for both vehicles. The headlights and front-end designs are completely different.
Tesla switched to another supplier when the affected headlight design was discontinued. It plans to begin notifying owners of their remedy options by September 15.
Tesla filed a petition protesting the recall to fix the vehicles’ headlight issue, but the NHTSA denied it. Now, Tesla will come up with a solution to fix it.
Tesla has one big financial question to answer for investors: Morgan Stanley
SpaceX AI investment gamble will make it a big winner, firm says
