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 has apparently revised the policy it previously had listed for Full Self-Driving transfers on the newest All-Wheel-Drive Cybertruck that the company had sold for a steal price of just $59,000 earlier this year.
After initially stating that customers who bought the pickup would be able to transfer FSD purchases, Tesla recently changed the language in those terms and conditions to reflect that this would no longer be the case.
Tesla launches new Cybertruck trim with more features than ever for a low price
The adjustment in terminology has caused a handful of orderers to cancel their reservations due to the loss of FSD transfer:
Just cancelled my 59k CT order today. My screenshot from that day of order (feb 20th) clearly shows that it would be eligible.
Terms were retroactively modified. Our 2020 Y and 2023 S are just fine for now. pic.twitter.com/D9PFnId1B4
— Ryan Scanlan 👥 (@Xenius) June 8, 2026
Tesla said orders for the new Cybertruck AWD must be placed by March 31, 2026, to qualify for the FSD transfer. The language in the document from earlier this year explicitly states that they “may qualify” for the transfer program, but the date of March 31 is explicitly mentioned.
Additionally, Tesla Delivery Advisors reached out to some orderers of the AWD Cybertruck, who were told there was “an update to the eligibility of the Full Self-Driving (Supervised) transfer.” Tesla stated they could:
- proceed without the transfer,
- upgrade to a Premium or Cyberbeast trim and request an FSD Transfer
- cancel the order and be refunded the $250 order fee.
Tesla turning around and changing these terms will undoubtedly result in a handful of cancellations on the part of those who have placed an order for this truck. They could pay $99 per month for an FSD subscription, which is now the only option available, but having purchased the suite outright on another vehicle and being told the transfer policy would be upheld, only to have it cancelled, is a tough pill to swallow.
These moves were also made by Tesla just before deliveries were set to begin on the Cybertruck AWD configuration. Reservation holders have started receiving VINs for their trucks, and Tesla is preparing to hand over the first units.
It’s a disappointing move from Tesla that will undoubtedly make some of its fans who have bought the truck frustrated.
In the world of autonomous ride-hailing, there are only a handful of names. Among those few companies lies a strategy play by each to keep the opposition on their toes. Tesla, on the other hand, already tipped its hand at where it is headed next.
Tesla has signaled its next major push in the autonomous ride-hailing market by filing for an Autonomous Vehicle Network Company permit in Nevada (Docket 26-05015). Through Tesla Robotaxi, LLC, the company seeks approval to operate up to 5,000 robotaxis in Clark County, including high-traffic areas like Las Vegas and Henderson airports, within the first 12 months of launch.
This filing builds on Tesla’s earlier testing approvals from the Nevada DMV in September 2025 and preparations such as maintenance hubs in the Las Vegas area. Nevada represents a strategic expansion into a major tourist destination, where high visitor volumes could drive strong utilization and showcase the reliability of unsupervised autonomy to a broad audience.
We’d have to assume this means Tesla is targeting Las Vegas, and it’s a great move from a business perspective.
Vegas is such a melting pot of people from all around the country and the world. It will expose people from all corners of the globe to Tesla’s autonomy capabilities https://t.co/Qz3fQmhULF pic.twitter.com/Du5pj2RyWC
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 6, 2026
Approval would mark a significant step toward commercial operations in a new state, following progress in Texas.
Tesla’s shareholder decks and earnings calls have clearly outlined these ambitions. In the Q4 2025 shareholder deck, the company listed planned Robotaxi coverage for the first half of 2026, explicitly naming Las Vegas alongside Phoenix, Miami, Orlando, and Tampa, with Dallas and Houston already advancing. Austin was noted as “ramping unsupervised,” while the Bay Area remained in safety-driver mode.
By Q1 2026, the deck updated statuses to reflect launches in Dallas and Houston, with “preparations underway” for the remaining cities, including Las Vegas. Paid Robotaxi miles nearly doubled sequentially in Q1, underscoring momentum even as broader timelines adjusted slightly for regulatory and operational readiness.
On earnings calls, CEO Elon Musk and executives have emphasized a phased rollout prioritizing safety. Unsupervised operations in Texas have shown strong results with no reported accidents or injuries in the program. Tesla continues groundwork in additional major U.S. metros through testing and permitting, positioning it to scale quickly once approvals clear.
This Nevada move aligns with Tesla’s vision of transforming from an EV maker into an AI and robotics leader. The forthcoming Cybercab, which started production at Giga Texas in April, is expected to eventually dominate the fleet, replacing many Model Y vehicles and driving down costs to enable affordable rides.
For investors and the industry, this signals Tesla’s intent to dominate key Sun Belt and tourist markets where weather, regulations, and demand favor rapid scaling. Success in Las Vegas could validate the model for denser urban and high-tourism environments, accelerating the shift toward a future where robotaxis generate meaningful revenue.
Las Vegas will also expand knowledge among the general public at Tesla’s capabilities, helping people experience driverless ride-hailing from several companies during their time on The Strip.
Investor's Corner
Tesla just did something in South Korea that no foreign carmaker has ever done
Tesla’s Model Y just became South Korea’s best-selling car, beating every domestic model in May.
Tesla did something last month that no foreign car has ever done in South Korea by outselling every vehicle in the country, domestic or imported, finishing the month with Model Y as the single best-selling car across the entire Korean market. According to data from the Korea Automobile Importers and Distributors Association released on June 4, the Model Y recorded 8,762 units sold in May, pushing the Kia Sorento into second place at 7,836 units and the Hyundai Grandeur into third at 5,183 units. It is the first time an imported vehicle has outsold every domestic model on a single-month basis.
Tesla imported 10,866 cars into South Korea in May, making it the top import brand for the fourth consecutive month. BMW followed at 6,555 units, less than two-thirds of Tesla’s total, while BYD registered just 1,032 units. The combined domestic sales of GM Korea, Renault Korea, and KG Mobility last month totaled just 7,019 units, meaning a single Tesla model outsold three Korean automakers combined.
Tesla FSD earns high praise in South Korea’s real-world autonomous driving test
South Korea has historically been one of the hardest markets for foreign automakers to crack. Hyundai and Kia together control close to 70% of the overall market and carry deep consumer loyalty built over decades. Tesla’s path into this market was an uphill battle due to high import duties, limited service infrastructure, and early skepticism about charging networks. In 2024, the Model Y was the best-selling imported car in South Korea with 18,717 units for the full year. By 2025, after the Juniper refresh, it cleared 50,000 units and took the top spot among all EVs.
Year to date, Tesla has a 250.8% increase in the country over the same period last year, and now holds a 30.8% share of the entire imported car segment for 2026. EVs as a category represented 48.6% of all imported passenger car registrations in May. As Teslarati has reported, the Juniper refresh brought meaningful improvements to range, interior quality, and ride refinement that addressed the most common criticisms of earlier Model Y versions. Those upgrades appear to be resonating in markets like South Korea where buyers compare Tesla directly against high end domestic competitors.
Tesla revises FSD transfer policy on new Cybertruck trim, causing cancellations
Tesla tipped its hand at where Robotaxi is heading next
