News
Tesla China owner ordered to pay damages after describing Model X as “suicide toy”
Tesla China’s legal team has secured another win, with the electric vehicle maker recently winning a defamation case filed against a Model X owner who previously described his vehicle as a “killing” or “suicide toy” in statements to the media. The court’s judgment required the defendant to post a public apology in a local newspaper and pay a fine of RMB 10,000 ($1,412) due to his actions.
The Model X owner, dubbed in reports as Mr. Wen, was reportedly driving his Model X from Fuyang to Zhengzhou when the vehicle suddenly decreased its speed from 100 km/h to 60 km/h. In later interviews with the media, Mr. Wen stated that the Model X’s brakes failed, which turned the all-electric vehicle into a “suicide toy.”
Apart from this, the Model X owner claimed that no one from Tesla China contacted him about the incident despite the malfunction. This statement was proven false as per the court ruling, since evidence showed that a Tesla China staff member contacted Mr. Wen on the day of the incident to get details on the situation.
The Tesla China staff member reportedly tried to get the vehicle inspected, but despite several tries from the electric vehicle maker, the Model X owner reportedly refused, according to the court order. As noted in the verdict, Mr. Wen later made statements in interviews that were inconsistent with the facts of the case. These statements ended up having a negative impact on Tesla’s business image in China.
Following is a screenshot of the court’s decision on the case.
And following is a rough translation of the text.
People’s Court of Guancheng Hui District, Zhengzhou City, Henan Province
Civil Judgment
(2022) Henan 0104 Minchu No. 8276
Plaintiff: Tesla Motors (Beijing) Co., Ltd., domiciled in Chaozhou, Beijing
Room 01, Room 801, 8th Floor, No. 77 Jianguo Road, Yang District.
Legal representative: [redacted]
Agent ad litem: [redacted]
Defendant: Wen
Court judgment:
1. It is determined that Mr. Wen’s remarks constitute infringement
2. Mr. Wen apologizes to Tesla
3. Mr. Wen compensates Tesla for losses
This court holds that civil subjects enjoy the right of reputation. No organization or individual may infringe upon the reputation rights of others by insulting or slandering. The right of reputation of a legal person refers to the right of a legal person not to be infringed by others for the social evaluation generated by all its activities. The plaintiff, as an enterprise legal person, enjoys the right of reputation according to law, and no one is allowed to fabricate or spread false information that damages the reputation and external image of its products. In this case, the defendant stated in an interview that no one contacted him after the vehicle involved in the case broke down, and claimed that the plaintiff company was “a dead pig is not afraid of boiling water”, which is inconsistent with the facts.
The evidence submitted by the plaintiff shows that on the day when the breakdown of the vehicle involved in the case occurred, a staff member contacted the defendant to understand the situation and made a request to inspect the vehicle involved in the case. He also communicated with the defendant many times about maintenance matters, but the defendant refused. However, in the interview, the defendant made a statement that was inconsistent with the facts, telling the plaintiff that consumers should send the vehicle for inspection and maintenance in time, and legally protect the rights of the problems with the vehicle.
However, the defendant refused to overhaul it, and made a statement under the condition that he believed that there was no major problem with the vehicle, “I bought a Tesla for 1.5 million, and I bought a killing toy or a suicide toy. It is worth it” and “I am not buying an electronic bomb, I am buying safety, what I want is safety and other statements containing derogatory language. The above-mentioned remarks of the defendant have been released and reproduced by the media platform, which has caused public criticism of the plaintiff, and the negative evaluation of the “Tesla” brand caused the plaintiff’s social evaluation to be lowered and the plaintiff’s right of reputation was violated.
To sum up, in accordance with Articles 110 and 1024 of the Civil Code of the People’s Republic of China and Paragraph 1 of Article 67 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China, the Supreme People’s Court Article 12, Paragraph 2 of the Provisions on Several Issues concerning the Application of Law in Civil Dispute Cases of Infringement of Personal Rights and Interests Using Information Networks stipulates that the judgment is as follows:
- The defendant Wen apologized to the plaintiff Tesla Motors (Beijing) Co., Ltd. within ten days after this judgment came into effect, and the content of the apology was reviewed and approved by the court. It was later published in “Henan Legal News”;
- The defendant Wen shall compensate the plaintiff Tesla Motors (Beijing) Co., Ltd. 10,000 yuan within ten days after this judgment takes effect.
Don’t hesitate to contact us with news tips. Just send a message to simon@teslarati.com to give us a heads up.
Investor's Corner
Tesla and SpaceX take “Terafab” Trademark fight to Federal Court
Tesla and SpaceX sue a small Illinois firm after cease and desist letters over Terafab.
Tesla and SpaceX are asking a federal judge to rule that their planned Terafab chip factory does not infringe a small Illinois company’s trademark, a request that arrives only after months of quiet negotiation broke down this summer.
The dispute traces to May 18, when Tesla filed three U.S. trademark applications for “Terafab” and “Tesla Terafab,” covering semiconductor chips and related chip making services. TERA-print LLC, a nanotechnology company that has held a federal trademark for “Tera-Fab” since 2021, responded five days later with a cease and desist letter. According to the lawsuit, first reported by Reuters, TERA-print argued that Tesla and SpaceX’s use of “Terafab” would confuse consumers familiar with its own trademark, which covers a desktop photolithography printer sold to researchers for sensor and bioengineering work.
What stands out in the filing is the timing of TERA-print’s own paperwork. One day before sending that cease and desist letter, on May 22, TERA-print applied to expand its existing registration to cover semiconductor materials, silicon chips, nanoelectronic devices and AI design services, categories it had not previously claimed. Tesla and SpaceX call that filing opportunistic in their complaint, noting it arrived two months after Tesla’s public Terafab announcement and just days after Tesla’s own trademark applications went in.
Elon Musk launches TERAFAB: The $25B Tesla-SpaceXAI chip factory that will rewire the AI industry
By June 10, TERA-print was threatening to sue for federal trademark infringement, false designation of origin and unfair competition, the complaint states. Rather than wait to be sued, Tesla, SpaceX and SpaceXAI met with TERA-print six separate times between June and August trying to resolve the dispute directly. Those talks collapsed, and the companies filed for declaratory judgment this week in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, asking a judge to find that “Terafab” does not infringe TERA-print’s mark before TERA-print can file a claim of its own.
TERA-print isn’t backing down. The company told PCMag it discussed a settlement with Tesla as recently as September 2 and feels misled by what it called Tesla’s professed interest in settling. Its CTO, Andrey Ivankin, said TERA-print holds a Defense Department contract to fabricate semiconductors and partially owns Mattiq Inc., an AI company built on TERA-print’s products, and that the company will vigorously defend its rights.
Tesla and SpaceX argue the overlap is superficial. Terafab is planned as a $16.8 billion complex spanning roughly 100 million square feet at the Grimes County site SpaceX confirmed last month, built to produce chips for Optimus robots, Tesla’s AI computing needs and SpaceX’s orbital data center ambitions, a scale and purpose the companies say no reasonable consumer would confuse with a tabletop lab printer. TERA-print’s product line has stayed focused on lithography tools for biological and sensor research since it registered its mark in 2021.
The trademark fight is the second legal dispute tied to the Terafab project in the past week, following a separate SpaceX suit aimed at keeping company records about the facility out of public view, as KBTX reported. Whether construction proceeds under the Terafab name now depends on a federal judge in Austin.
News
NHTSA just escalated its Tesla Cybercab investigation in a big way
NHTSA escalated its Cybercab audit into a sworn Special Order with a September 30 deadline.
Federal regulators have moved from asking Tesla questions about its Cybercab to demanding sworn answers. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issued a Special Order that requires a Tesla officer to sign an affidavit attesting to the completeness of the company’s responses, with a deadline of September 30.
The order builds on Audit Query AQ26002, which NHTSA opened on September 3, the same day Tesla began commercial Cybercab service in Austin. Teslarati covered that initial inquiry when it surfaced, noting the agency wanted to understand how Tesla certified a vehicle with no permanently attached steering wheel, pedals, or mirrors as compliant with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. A Special Order is a different tool and converts a fact finding review into a legally enforceable demand, the same mechanism NHTSA used against Tesla in 2023 during its Autopilot investigation.
Several of the 21 requests target a specific gap in Cybercab’s design. One asks whether Tesla used temporarily attached human controls at any point to help certify the vehicle, and if so, which standards depended on that equipment being present. Another quotes an existing rule directly: “The service brakes shall be activated by means of a foot control.” Cybercab has no foot pedal. NHTSA wants a detailed explanation of how the vehicle satisfies that requirement, and how it complies without the kind of exemption granted to Zoox in July under Part 555, the regulatory pathway built for steering wheel free vehicles.
The order does not claim Cybercab is unsafe or that Tesla broke a rule. It requires Tesla to explain, under oath, the reasoning behind decisions the company already made when it self-certified the vehicle. That distinction matters, but so does the exposure. Motor1’s reporting, summarized here, put potential civil penalty exposure as high as $139 million if NHTSA later finds the certification was flawed, on top of whatever criminal risk comes with a false sworn statement.
Tesla has not said publicly how it plans to respond. Cybercab is still carrying passengers in Austin through the Robotaxi app while the September 30 deadline approaches, and the company has continued expanding the vehicle’s footprint even as the regulatory question remains open. The Special Order does not pause any of that and just sets a date by which Tesla has to put its certification logic on the record, with a company officer’s name attached to it.
In a new interview on Wednesday, Tesla uber bull Ron Baron said that anyone looking to buy the company’s stock should do so as soon as they can.
Baron, founder and CEO of Baron Capital and one of Tesla’s most persistent institutional bulls, used a CNBC Squawk Box appearance on Wednesday to deliver a familiar message with fresh urgency: In his opinion, Tesla stock is a buy:
“The time to buy the stock is now. FSD is catching on, and it’s going to be bigger and bigger. 55% of new buyers are buying it (Teslas) with FSD. It’s going to be everywhere. It’s safer.”
The Baron Capital frontman’s case is built around Full Self-Driving. Tesla reported 1.48 million active FSD subscriptions in the second quarter, up 56 percent year over year, and company officials have said roughly 55 percent of new North American deliveries left with a subscription enabled.
Baron framed that attach rate as proof the product is moving from enthusiast extra to default expectation, and as a reason software, not just vehicle volume, should drive the next phase of value.
His conviction on Tesla shares is not theoretical, as Baron Capital made its first Tesla investment in 2014, after years of meetings that began around the 2010 IPO roadshow. The firm later built a large SpaceX position starting in 2017.
Ron Baron today in new interview on Tesla:
“The time to buy the stock is now. FSD is catching on, and it’s going to be bigger and bigger. 55% of new buyers are buying it (Teslas) with FSD. It’s going to be everywhere. It’s safer.” pic.twitter.com/Rv5PB0bVZ2
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) September 16, 2026
Baron said those Musk-led bets have generated about $30 billion of the $71 billion in profits Baron Capital has produced for clients. He put the firm’s current exposure at roughly $25 billion in SpaceX and $5 billion in Tesla. Personally, he described SpaceX as his largest holding, at about $5 billion, with about $1.5 billion in Tesla and additional Tesla exposure through the firm’s funds.
That concentration is also a statement of loyalty. Asked about talk of a SpaceX-Tesla combination, Baron said he had already walked Elon Musk through arguments for and against a deal, then declined to repeat them on air. His public position was simpler: “Whatever you decide is better is what I’m going to support,” he said to Musk.
Baron also said that he picked up the farewell edition of the Model S after Tesla decided to sunset the vehicle earlier this year, calling it his favorite car he’s ever driven.
Tesla and SpaceX take “Terafab” Trademark fight to Federal Court
NHTSA just escalated its Tesla Cybercab investigation in a big way
