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.
Tesla’s Supercharger Diner in Los Angeles dominated the company’s global usage rankings after just one year, proving the concept is more than just a one-off novelty location that will fade away.
The performance could incite the company to build more locations, something that CEO Elon Musk has hinted at for some time.
Tesla’s Supercharger Diner delivered 21.2 GWh of energy in its first year of operation, the company’s head of Charging, Max de Zegher, revealed on X. Of the top 10 most utilized Supercharger locations in Tesla’s global infrastructure, the Diner in Los Angeles was the most used by drivers, and it wasn’t particularly close:
Tesla Diner opened exactly 1 year ago. Inspiring that futuristic places like this exist.
It’s our highest usage Supercharger in the world: 21.2 GWh delivered in a year, 1.6k sessions/day.
Top 10 Superchargers by energy delivered: https://t.co/9YvJ8lw696 pic.twitter.com/koB3AUJHws
— Max (@MdeZegher) July 21, 2026
On its launch day one year ago, nobody was too sure what the Tesla Diner would be about. It seemed like an interesting concept, and considering it had been in the works for years, it was a highly anticipated launch that many were looking forward to.
Based on its success, we could see additional Diners with Superchargers built throughout the United States, and potentially beyond. Musk has said on several occasions that the company would be willing to bring the Diner idea to more markets.
Tesla makes major change at Supercharger Diner amid epic demand
Of the markets that Musk has mentioned, both Palo Alto and Austin have come to be perceived as ideal selections. However, there are no concrete plans as of now to build new Supercharger Diners anywhere; the location on Santa Monica Boulevard will remain the exclusive spot to pick up Tesla-inspired eats, at least for the time being.
Tesla short sellers won big following the company’s massive fall on Wall Street after it reported subpar Earnings on Wednesday.
Tesla short sellers collected about $4.12 billion in single-day profits on Thursday, according to Bloomberg. Shares fell as much as 15 percent during Thursday’s session. It closed as one of the worst days for Tesla on Wall Street in the past three years.
Investors sold off the stock after Tesla said it would aggressively direct its spending toward AI and its Optimus robot project. The company had record revenues, which were driven by one of the strongest quarters in terms of vehicle deliveries in company history.
However, it missed EPS estimates by reporting just $0.33, a far cry from the $0.53 analysts expected.
S3 Partners reported that about 3 percent of Tesla’s outstanding stock is sold short. Managing Director at S3, Ihor Dusaniwsky, provided the short seller’s potential profit, as well as another figure: shorts have likely had paper gains of $8.92 billion this year, as Tesla shares are down 30 percent in 2026.
Tesla (TSLA) Q2 2026 earnings results: miss on EPS, beat on revenue
Tesla has burned short sellers many times in the past, but the company’s latest Earnings Call was a chance for those skeptics to taste some payback. Although the company gave some very transparent information regarding future projects, the rollout of Robotaxi, Optimus, and Semi, many investors took their profits on Thursday.
Notable short sellers like Michael Burry have been transparent about their skepticism around Tesla shares. Burry just revealed three weeks ago that he had opened up a new short on the stock, stating he shorted Tesla shares at $416.22. “Happy it jumped back to this level,” he said in a blog post.
At the time of publication, Tesla shares were down about 3 percent and the stock was trading at $309.92.
Tesla’s long-standing saga regarding its door handles and a manual release has entered its latest chapter, and as a result, a big change is coming.
On Friday, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) denied Tesla’s petition that was seeking a defect investigation into roughly 180,000 Model 3 vehicles for an issue involving the emergency mechanical door release.
🚨 The NHTSA denied a petition from Tesla that would have thrown out concerns regarding its door handles.
NHTSA said Tesla’s petition did not present evidence of a safety-related defect warranting an investigation. The agency said a rulemaking process would be a better strategy. pic.twitter.com/j6PzUBM1mT
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 24, 2026
NHTSA said that Tesla’s petition did not present evidence of a safety-related defect in the door handles or their emergency releases. Instead, the agency determined that it would rather solve the issue of the lack of labeling or location of emergency mechanical door releases and the federal safety rules that govern them.
Essentially, the NHTSA wants to create and enforce rules that would require automakers to make emergency door latch releases more clearly labeled in a car. Despite a Tesla having manual door releases on all four passenger doors, many people do not know they exist or how they work.
Tesla addresses door handle complaints with simple engineering fix
In recent times, Tesla has faced some criticism involving its door handles, specifically because some occupants have reported that they are unable to exit their vehicles after losing power. The door handles on a Tesla are electronically operated, but in the event that the 12V battery dies, there is a manual release that can be used.
The NHTSA only identified a single complaint involving the mechanical door releases: a 2022 Model 3 owner said the release was concealed and unlabeled after the vehicle lost power after a front-end collision. It has also already started to create a separate rulemaking process to make emergency door-egress systems more obvious.
It should be noted that all Teslas have mechanical emergency door releases, but they are placed in various locations as the vehicles have aged and been redesigned from year to year. Refer to the safety manual for your vehicle if you have any confusion about where the emergency releases are and how they work.
Tesla’s Supercharger Diner probably just secured more locations
Tesla short sellers win big after shares fall after earnings
