Three Tesla owners have sued the automaker in a class action lawsuit that was filed on August 2, 2023, after a report from Reuters last week claims the company “exaggerates” its range ratings.
Teslarati examined the complaint, and we are here to give you a breakdown of what the suit says and what the three plaintiffs are suing Tesla for.
The Plaintiffs
Tesla is being sued by James Porter, Bryan Perez, and Dro Esraeili Estepanian, who state in their complaint against the automaker that their action “arises out of Tesla’s false advertising of its electric vehicles’ range, which Tesla grossly overvalued when selling the vehicles to consumers.”
According to the complaint, Porter owns a Model Y Performance and noticed a discrepancy in his vehicle’s range was compared to what it told him:
“After taking delivery of his Tesla vehicle in June 2022, Plaintiff Porter fully charged his vehicle to 100% battery charge and took a 2-hour trip to visit family, approximately 92 miles away. When he arrived at his destination, Plaintiff Porter noticed that the vehicle was left with approximately 40% charge.”
Perez owns a Model 3 Long Range, and the complaint states he had the same issue:
“After receiving his Tesla vehicle, Plaintiff Perez fully charged his vehicle to 100% battery charge and took an approximately 90-mile trip to visit his parents. After returning home from the approximately 180-mile round trip, he noticed that his vehicle showed that it had roughly 10-15% charge remaining.”
Estepanian also has a Model 3 Long Range, and the complaint describes a similar situation:
“Plaintiff Estepanian travels 140 to 150 miles round trip for his daily commute, and he routinely charges his vehicle to 90% battery charge (which equates to approximately 299 miles), per Tesla’s recommendation. Based on a 90% battery charge (and 299-mile starting range), he typically returns from his approximately 150-mile round trip each day and his Tesla vehicle’s screen displays that approximately 100 to 110 miles of range remain, which equates to roughly 33% battery charge remaining. Thus, Plaintiff Estepanian’s electric vehicle consistently loses approximately 189 miles of range during his daily commute—despite only driving approximately 140 to 150 miles round trip each day.”
The Plaintiffs’ Claims
The plaintiffs state that range is a key feature of electric vehicles and is “one of the most important features that consumers generally consider when purchasing an EV, because it correlates to the distance they can travel before needing to recharge the vehicle.”
Throughout the suit, the complaint shows images of Tesla’s website, highlighting range ratings and other “key features,” including top speed and acceleration.
They also include other pieces of evidence that seem to indicate Tesla has exaggerated range estimates.
One part of the complaint states:
“Tesla’s tactics to inflate the range estimates for its vehicles has continued. Recently, South Korean regulators fined Tesla for false advertising the ranges of its vehicles. Specifically, the Korea Fair Trade Commission found that Tesla exaggerated the “driving ranges of its cars on a single charge, their fuel cost-effectiveness compared to gasoline vehicles as well as the performance of its Superchargers.”
They also stated that other car companies to do not exaggerate range ratings, citing Recurrent’s testing of the Ford Mustang Mach-E, Chevrolet Bolt, and Hyundai Kona:
“Other electric vehicle manufacturers do not overestimate the range of their vehicles to the same extent. For example, Recurrent tested the Ford Mustang Mach-E, the Chevrolet Bolt, and the Hyundai Kona—all electric vehicles and direct competitors to Tesla model vehicles—and found their estimated ranges to be more accurate. In fact, the Hyundai Kona generally underestimated the range the vehicle could travel before requiring a recharge.”
Allegations in the Class Action Suit
The plaintiffs seek to represent anyone in California who purchased any Tesla vehicle and hope to solve questions including:
- a. Whether Tesla model vehicles fail to deliver the advertised estimated vehicle range in normal driving conditions;
- b. Whether Tesla exaggerated its advertised estimated vehicle ranges;
- c. Whether Tesla knew that its advertised estimated vehicle ranges were exaggerated and could not be met under normal driving conditions;
- d. When Tesla gained such knowledge;
- e. Whether Tesla designed, manufacture, marketed, advertised, sold, or otherwise placed its model vehicles into the stream of commerce with such knowledge;
- f. Whether Tesla intentionally concealed the fact that its advertised estimated vehicle ranges were exaggerated or otherwise could not be met under normal driving conditions;
- g. Whether Tesla’s conduct to divert complaints from Class Members who voiced concerns over their Tesla model vehicle’s range violated the terms of Tesla’s warranties;
- h. Whether Plaintiffs and Class Members were harmed by the fraud and deceptive practices alleged herein;
- i. Whether Tesla was unjustly enriched by its deceptive practices; and
- j. Whether Plaintiffs and the Class are entitled to equitable or injunctive relief
The case is 3:2023cv03878, Porter et al v. Tesla, Inc., and has been assigned to Judge Laurel Beeler.
I’d love to hear from you! If you have any comments, concerns, or questions, please email me at joey@teslarati.com. You can also reach me on Twitter @KlenderJoey, or if you have news tips, you can email us at tips@teslarati.com.
Tesla Vice President of Vehicle Engineering, Lars Moravy, recently revealed the company has thought about introducing a Plaid powertrain on the Model 3, but there could be some challenges involved.
On the Ride the Lightning podcast, Moravy revealed that he thinks about a Plaid Model 3 “all the time,” and it certainly has a place in Tesla’s potential lineup of future vehicles.
Now that the Plaid powertrain is technically defunct due to the newfound absence of the Model S and Model X, Tesla could find a way to reintroduce the lightning-quick trim level to its mass-market vehicles.
But there are going to be some challenges with it. Moravy said that the Model 3 Plaid would likely adopt the carbon-sleeved motors that the Model S Plaid had. However, packaging would be a major challenge, as Moravy said on the podcast, it would be a “tight engineering squeeze.”
It’s important to note that there are no active production plans for the Model 3 Plaid at this point, but it’s also worth noting that with the Model S and Model X Plaid no longer available, Tesla would likely be willing to introduce something that is even more white-knuckle than the Model 3 Performance, which already boasts a 2.9-second 0-60 MPH acceleration rate and a top speed of 163 MPH.
Of course, there is the Roadster, but we don’t know when that will exactly make it to market, and we know that, for sure, it will not be accessible to many.
Tesla unveils juicy new detail on the Roadster and hints at new unveil timeline
Tesla has prided itself in building some of the best cars out there, but they’re also interested in building cars that are simply fun to be in.
A Plaid Model 3 could truly push the limits and could end up being one of the best cars Tesla will ever build, especially if it can shave off at least half of a second from its 0-60 MPH time and increase its top speed slightly.
More than anything, the real changes will be in the ride and aerodynamics. Tesla improving things like the suspension, handling, and downforce will be the true trademarks of its Plaid powertrain; putting it in the Model 3 could be a great move for the company and for customers interested in high-end performance.
Elon Musk
NASA’s first human outpost on the Moon starts now – SpaceX on deck
NASA named the rovers, landers, and vendors that will build America’s first Moon Base.
NASA has laid out its most detailed Moon Base plan to date, describing a permanent outpost near the Moon’s south pole that the agency intends to build over the coming decade as a direct stepping stone to Mars. “The Moon Base will be America’s and humanity’s first outpost on another celestial world,” NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman said, adding that every mission crewed and uncrewed “will be a learning opportunity as we return to the lunar surface, build the infrastructure to stay, and master the skills required to live and operate in one of the most demanding and dangerous environments imaginable.”
The plan is structured in three phases involving both uncrewed and crewed missions to deliver equipment, vehicles, and infrastructure to the surface, with the first three moon base missions targeted to launch before the end of 2026.
Moon Base I, targeting fall 2026, will use Blue Origin’s Blue Moon Mark 1 lander to deliver scientific instruments to the Shackleton Connecting Ridge, the same region where Artemis astronauts will land. Moon Base II will send Astrobotic’s Griffin lander carrying more than 1,100 pounds of cargo including Astrolab’s FLIP rover to begin developing mobility systems on the surface. Moon Base III will carry the Lunar Vertex science mission on Intuitive Machines’ Nova-C Trinity lander to study lunar swirls near the south pole, with ESA and Korean science payloads aboard.
On the rover side, NASA awarded Astrolab $219 million and Lunar Outpost $220 million to build the first phase of Lunar Terrain Vehicles, with both rovers targeted for deployment to the lunar surface by 2028. Astrolab’s crewed rover weighs roughly 2,000 pounds and can reach over 6 mph. Lunar Outpost’s Pegasus rover can operate autonomously or via remote control at over 9 mph. Blue Origin separately received $188 million with an option worth $280.4 million to deliver cargo landers for rover transport.
NASA also confirmed that MoonFall, a mission deploying four survey drones to scout Artemis landing sites, has selected Firefly Aerospace to build the transport spacecraft, with a 2028 launch target.
SpaceX sits at the center of that commercial layer. SpaceX holds the NASA Human Landing System contract for the Starship-derived lander that will put astronauts on the surface under Artemis IV, currently targeting 2028. Before that can happen, SpaceX must demonstrate in-orbit propellant transfer at scale, a process requiring multiple Starship tanker launches to fuel a single mission. Water ice at the lunar south pole is central to the base’s long-term viability, as it can be converted into drinking water, breathable oxygen, and rocket fuel, directly reducing dependence on Earth resupply. That resource loop becomes far more practical if Starship can land and be refueled on or near the Moon itself.
Elon Musk has publicly stated that Starship V3, which recently completed its first flight, should be capable enough for initial Mars missions. The Moon Base plan announced Tuesday is the infrastructure layer that connects everything between those two ambitions, and SpaceX is the only American company currently contracted to build the rocket that gets humans to either destination.
A new Tesla patent that has been granted to the company this week has revealed a potential strategy for solving a major issue that could impact both the Full Self-Driving suite and Optimus.
The patent, which is No. 12,636,684, describes a “Lens Cleaning System,” and was submitted by Tesla in May 2025.
The language in the patent details a lens cleaning system that can dispense fluid and wipe it away with a wiper assembly.
Optimus can see you now… 🤖👁️
The patent for @Tesla_Optimus‘s eye structure just dropped. $TSLA pic.twitter.com/Jac4VhDmKH
— SETI Park (@seti_park) May 26, 2026
This would effectively clean any debris that would potentially impact the visibility of the cameras on Tesla automobiles or Optimus’s camera eyes. Perhaps the most pertinent example is through the Full Self-Driving suite, as debris that can accumulate on the vehicle’s exterior cameras can impact the suite’s ability to operate effectively.
This requires a remedy through manual cleaning, but this patent hints that Tesla could be planning to implement this new technology on its upcoming vehicles.
Interestingly, we have started to see it on some Robotaxi vehicles, and it will likely be included in the Cybercab, especially as that vehicle will enable full autonomy.
Back in January, the first Model Y Robotaxi units were spotted with camera washers on the side repeaters, as the video below shows fluid squirting and rinsing off any debris that is limiting visibility.
🚨 Tesla looks to have installed Camera Washers on the side repeater cameras on Robotaxis in Austin
pic.twitter.com/xemRtDtlRR— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) January 23, 2026
This hardware patent does bring up an interesting question for those of us who own Teslas with AI4 and have been told that our cars will one day be capable of full autonomy: Will this washer be available as a retrofit on already-built cars?
Perhaps the “Lens Cleaning System” patent is a good look at one way Tesla plans to combat one of the most obvious issues of autonomy that utilizes a camera-based system. For Optimus, it could be less needed as it could be manually cleaned by owners. For cars, it seems like a bigger necessity, especially as autonomy nears and Tesla gets close to launching a feature-complete FSD suite.
Tesla teases going Plaid Mode with the Model 3
NASA’s first human outpost on the Moon starts now – SpaceX on deck
