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
Tesla stock gets latest synopsis from Jim Cramer: ‘It’s actually a robotics company’
“Turns out it’s actually a robotics and Cybercab company, and I want to buy, buy, buy. Yes, Tesla’s the paper that turned into scissors in one session,” Cramer said.
Tesla stock (NASDAQ: TSLA) got its latest synopsis from Wall Street analyst Jim Cramer, who finally realized something that many fans of the company have known all along: it’s not a car company. Instead, it’s a robotics company.
In a recent note that was released after Tesla reported Earnings in late January, Cramer seemed to recognize that the underwhelming financials and overall performance of the automotive division were not representative of the current state of affairs.
Instead, we’re seeing a company transition itself away from its early identity, essentially evolving like a caterpillar into a butterfly.
The narrative of the Earnings Call was simple: We’re not a car company, at least not from a birds-eye view. We’re an AI and Robotics company, and we are transitioning to this quicker than most people realize.
Tesla stock gets another analysis from Jim Cramer, and investors will like it
Tesla’s Q4 Earnings Call featured plenty of analysis from CEO Elon Musk and others, and some of the more minor details of the call were even indicative of a company that is moving toward AI instead of its cars. For example, the Model S and Model X will be no more after Q2, as Musk said that they serve relatively no purpose for the future.
Instead, Tesla is shifting its focus to the vehicles catered for autonomy and its Robotaxi and self-driving efforts.
Cramer recognizes this:
“…we got results from Tesla, which actually beat numbers, but nobody cares about the numbers here, as electric vehicles are the past. And according to CEO Elon Musk, the future of this company comes down to Cybercabs and humanoid robots. Stock fell more than 3% the next day. That may be because their capital expenditures budget was higher than expected, or maybe people wanted more details from the new businesses. At this point, I think Musk acolytes might be more excited about SpaceX, which is planning to come public later this year.”
He continued, highlighting the company’s true transition away from vehicles to its Cybercab, Optimus, and AI ambitions:
“I know it’s hard to believe how quickly this market can change its attitude. Last night, I heard a disastrous car company speak. Turns out it’s actually a robotics and Cybercab company, and I want to buy, buy, buy. Yes, Tesla’s the paper that turned into scissors in one session. I didn’t like it as a car company. Boy, I love it as a Cybercab and humanoid robot juggernaut. Call me a buyer and give me five robots while I’m at it.”
Cramer’s narrative seems to fit that of the most bullish Tesla investors. Anyone who is labeled a “permabull” has been echoing a similar sentiment over the past several years: Tesla is not a car company any longer.
Instead, the true focus is on the future and the potential that AI and Robotics bring to the company. It is truly difficult to put Tesla shares in the same group as companies like Ford, General Motors, and others.
Tesla shares are down less than half a percent at the time of publishing, trading at $423.69.
Elon Musk
SpaceX secures win as US labor board drops oversight case
The NLRB confirmed that it no longer has jurisdiction over SpaceX.
SpaceX scored a legal victory after the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) decided to dismiss a case which accused the company of terminating engineers who were involved in an open letter against founder Elon Musk.
The NLRB confirmed that it no longer has jurisdiction over SpaceX. The update was initially shared by Bloomberg News, which cited a letter about the matter it reportedly reviewed.
In a letter to the former employees’ lawyers, the labor board stated that the affected employees were under the jurisdiction of the National Mediation Board (NMB), not the NLRB. As a result, the labor board stated that it was dismissing the case.
As per Danielle Pierce, a regional director of the agency, “the National Labor Relations Board lacks jurisdiction over the Employer and, therefore, I am dismissing your charge.”
The NMB typically oversees airlines and railroads. The NLRB, on the other hand, covers most private-sector employers, as well as manufacturers such as Boeing.
The former SpaceX engineers have argued that the private space company did not belong under the NMB’s jurisdiction because SpaceX only offers services to “hand-picked customers.”
In an opinion, however, the NMB stated that SpaceX was under its jurisdiction because “space transport includes air travel” to get to outer space. The mediation board also noted that anyone can contact SpaceX to secure its services.
SpaceX had previously challenged the NLRB’s authority in court, arguing that the agency’s structure was unconstitutional. Jennifer Abruzzo, the NLRB general counsel under former United States President Joe Biden, rejected SpaceX’s claims. Following Abruzzo’s termination under the Trump administration, however, SpaceX asked the labor board to reconsider its arguments.
SpaceX is not the only company that has challenged the constitutionality of the NLRB. Since SpaceX filed its legal challenge against the agency in 2024, other high-profile companies have followed suit. These include Amazon, which has filed similar cases that are now pending.
News
Tesla accuses IG Metall member of secretly recording Giga Berlin meeting
The union has denied the electric vehicle maker’s allegations.
Police seized the computer of an IG Metall member at Tesla Giga Berlin on Tuesday amid allegations that a works council meeting was secretly recorded.
The union has denied the electric vehicle maker’s allegations.
In a post on X, Gigafactory Berlin plant manager André Thierig stated that an external union representative from IG Metall attended a works council meeting and allegedly recorded the session. Thierig described the event as “truly beyond words.”
“What has happened today at Giga Berlin is truly beyond words! An external union representative from IG Metall attended a works council meeting. For unknown reasons he recorded the internal meeting and was caught in action! We obviously called police and filed a criminal complaint!” Thierig wrote in his post on X.
Police later confirmed to local news outlet rbb24 that officers did seize a computer belonging to an IG Metall member at the Giga Berlin site on Tuesday afternoon. Tesla stated that employees had contacted authorities after discovering the alleged recording.
IG Metall denied Tesla’s accusations, arguing that its representative did not record the meeting. The union alleged that Tesla’s claim was simply a tactic ahead of upcoming works council elections.
The next works council election at Giga Berlin is scheduled for March 2 to 4, 2026. The facility’s management had confirmed the dates to local news outlets. The official announcement marks the start of the election process and campaign period.
Approximately 11,000 employees are eligible to participate in the vote.
The previous works council election at the plant took place in 2024, and it was triggered by a notable increase in workforce size. Under German labor law, regular works council elections must be held every four years between March 1 and May 31.
Tesla stock gets latest synopsis from Jim Cramer: ‘It’s actually a robotics company’
SpaceX secures win as US labor board drops oversight case
