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.
Elon Musk said he is planning to give “every one of his SpaceX shares to every kid in America” in 2027, stating that “this will be the first of many.”
SpaceX went public earlier this year, and its stock price has been relatively stable since leveling off shortly after its IPO. Based on its current price, it’s a gift of just over $10 billion to children across the United States.
It appears to be closely related to President Donald Trump’s bank accounts for children, which were set up earlier this year as Trump Accounts.
Just hours earlier, Anthropic had announced the establishment of its Anthropic Public Benefit Fund, “a new wholly-owned entity dedicated entirely to public benefit.” Musk responded by stating he recommended “giving the shares directly to the public,” and that he would be doing it that way.
Just a little bit later, Musk said children across the U.S. would be getting a share from him:
Next year, I will give one of my SpaceX shares to every kid in America.
This will be the first of many.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 19, 2026
There are roughly 70 million children, meaning someone under the age of 18, in the United States, according to the Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics. Musk’s ownership of SpaceX stock shows he has around 849 million Class A shares of SpaceX stock, according to filings with the SEC.
Elon Musk revealed in a post on X that “Permits were impossible to get,” explaining the fate of The Boring Company’s most ambitious East Coast proposal.
The comment responded to a query about what became of his July 20, 2017 announcement that he had “just received verbal govt approval” for an underground Hyperloop connecting New York City, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Washington, D.C., capable of carrying passengers from the Big Apple to the Nation’s Capital in just 29 minutes.
The Boring Company receives verbal ‘approval’ to build NY to DC Hyperloop tunnel
The 2017 post, which envisioned city-center stations and multiple elevators in each city, sparked immediate scrutiny. Local and state officials in New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and D.C. said they had no knowledge of any approval. A White House spokesperson confirmed only “promising conversations” about the transformative infrastructure.
Musk clarified shortly after that there was “still a lot of work” to do for formal approvals.
@cybrtrkguy Permits were impossible to get
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 19, 2026
Limited progress followed, as Maryland Governor Larry Hogan’s administration issued a conditional utility permit and supported work near Fort Meade. In 2018, Washington, D.C., granted a preliminary permit for site preparation and excavation on a vacant lot at 53 New York Ave. NE in the NoMa neighborhood, which The Boring Company said could become a station.
A draft environmental assessment for a D.C.-Baltimore segment was released in 2019. Yet, by April 2021, the company had removed the project from its website, and the Federal Highway Administration reported receiving no indication of further interest. Communication with Maryland officials had ceased.
The full corridor would have required coordination among the District of Columbia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, New York, the Federal Highway Administration, the Army Corps of Engineers, the National Park Service, and other agencies.
Environmental reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act, utility clearances, and approvals for novel infrastructure added to the overall complexity of the project and its approval.
Speculation on the permitting barriers centers around a few factors, but a multi-state, multi-level route involving unproven high-speed vacuum-tube technology inherently triggers exhaustive safety, environmental, and engineering reviews that can stretch for years, even for conventional projects.
There are also other elements, of course, like officials who may face political exposure if a privately funded, untested system encountered anything such as cost overruns, delays, or safety issues. On the outset of this project, there were limited things such as engineering plans or demonstrated technology maturity, which also added to the potential skepticism.
The East Coast vision for Boring Co., once framed as a privately funded revolution that could reshape Northeast travel, quietly ended without construction of the promised network. Musk’s recent statement frames the outcome as a regulatory impasse, unfortunate but not unexpected.
Tesla CEO Elon Musk took to his social media platform X on Sunday to remind everyone that the Roadster’s true meaning is not about company growth or adding dollars to shareholders’ pockets. Sometimes, you just do things because you can.
Following the Roadster’s epic unveiling event last Thursday, skeptics and critics of the company or the project itself came out to say that the vehicle is a pointless project because it is not geared toward growing the company, delivering supreme margins for profitability, nor does it contribute to the big picture of Artificial/Super Intelligence.
But that’s just the thing: Roadster is not meant to be some shareholder dream; it’s meant to be a vehicle that people buy just because it is something awesome, unique, and the first of its kind.
Tesla Roadster: Three configs, one can fly, 0-60 in 0.8 seconds
Musk had to remind those who are skeptical about the Roadster’s importance to the company mission that while it is not a major contributor to Tesla’s long-term goals, it is something that is being built just because it can be:
“Optimus and Cybercab will be the vast majority of Tesla’s value. The only things that will scale to incredible size (K2 and beyond) economically are super intelligence, robots, solar power, and mass to space. And, of course, if you have the first two, the rest will follow. But Roadster is super cool, so we’re doing it anyway.”
Musk has said on many occasions that Optimus would be the project that would make up the vast majority of Tesla’s value in the coming years.
Robotics will be a major focus of Tesla over the coming years, especially as Musk believes Optimus will enable work to be optional for humans and will enable what he calls “High Universal Income.”
Optimus and Cybercab will be the vast majority of Tesla’s value.
The only things that will scale to incredible size (K2 and beyond) economically are super intelligence, robots, solar power and mass to space.
And, of course, if you have the first two, the rest will follow.
But Roadster is super cool, so we’re doing it anyway.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 18, 2026
Cybercab will be a passive income opportunity for owners, Musk and Tesla have said for a very long time, as a fleet of self-driving vehicles will operate within a ride-hailing Robotaxi service that won’t require a human driver to be present.
Tesla investors are more than enthusiastic about the company’s future projects, at least from a general consensus perspective. However, it is important to note that the Roadster is a fun and cool project that pushes the boundaries of what people thought was possible for an automobile.
What we saw last week was the first true example of a flying car, and despite the backlash about how it might not contribute to Tesla’s grand ambitions, it’s okay to have fun sometimes, too.
Elon Musk will give ‘every kid in America’ a SpaceX share in 2027
Elon Musk reveals why Boring Co’s biggest East Coast project never happened
Tesla CEO Elon Musk reminds everyone about Roadster’s true meaning
SpaceX reveals how its 1 Million AI satellite network will work and prevent space collisions
Tesla Roadster: Three configs, one can fly, 0-60 in 0.8 seconds
