News
Tesla representative removed from auto dealer’s board by Virginia Senate
Tesla Inc. employee Cody Arnett was relieved of his post in Virginia’s Motor Vehicle Dealer Board earlier this week, amid an ongoing battle over the electric carmaker’s right to sell directly to consumers in the state. Arnett, who was appointed by former Governor Terry McAuliffe before he stepped down from office, raised some eyebrows among other members of the MVDB, many of whom felt that the Tesla employee was not qualified for the post.
His removal from the MVDB seemed to have been caused by strong opposition to Tesla’s dealership-free business model by the Virginia Automobile Dealers Association (VADA), an influential group of legacy auto dealers that holds to the notion that automakers must sell vehicles through franchised dealerships. Arnett, who currently works as a performance coach for Tesla, was set to serve for four years on Virginia’s Motor Vehicle Dealer Board. As one of the MVDB’s 19 members, Arnett was tasked with the regulation and oversight of new and used automobile dealers in the state. On January 15, however, the VADA formally submitted a request to strip the 29-year-old Tesla employee of his appointment.
According to the VADA, Arnett should not be allowed to serve on the MVDB because he was not the owner of a franchised vehicle dealership. In a statement to the Richmond Times-Dispatch, the auto group’s president and CEO, Don Hall, asserted that the technicality ultimately disqualifies the Tesla employee from holding one of the board’s 19 seats.
“The seat cannot be held by an employee of a dealer. It must be held by the owner of a dealership. I am sure the young man is a nice guy, and I am sure he has got great intentions, but the fact is he does not qualify,” Hall said, according to the Times-Dispatch.
The Virginia Automobile Dealers Association’s objection to Arnett’s appointment was submitted to Sen. Jill Holtzman Vogel, R-Fauquier, the chairwoman of the Senate Privileges and Elections Committee. Last Tuesday, the Senate committee decided to strip Arnett of his place in the MVDB, in what could only be described as a rare instance when a gubernatorial appointment was relieved from a post, as noted in a Washington Post report. Only one member of the committee, Sen. Adam Ebbin, D-Alexandria, voted to keep Arnett on the Motor Vehicle Dealer Board.
Arnett has been a longtime employee of Tesla, starting his tenure with the Elon Musk-led electric car maker and energy firm back in 2012. In a statement to the Times-Dispatch, Arnett stated that he received a dealer-operator license three years ago. He also revealed that he had already attended an MVDB meeting earlier this month.
In a statement to the Times-Dispatch on Wednesday, Tesla senior policy manager Brooke Kintz expressed the company’s disappointment at Arnett’s removal from the state’s Motor Vehicle Dealer Board.
“Arnett would have brought an important and innovative perspective to the board and to Virginians. Former Governor McAuliffe recognized this in appointing Cody, and as the holder of a license in Virginia, Tesla has just as much of a right to participate on the MVDB as anyone else.
“The decision of a small number of legislators to overturn Cody’s appointment at the urging of VADA is highly unusual if not unprecedented. It raises basic questions of fairness and improper political influence,” Kintz said.
Tesla currently operates one store at 9850 W. Broad St. in western Henrico County, Virginia, that doubles as a showroom and service center.
Elon Musk
Tesla showcases Optimus humanoid robot at AWE 2026 in Shanghai
Tesla’s humanoid robot was presented as part of the company’s exhibit at the Shanghai electronics show.
Tesla showcased its Optimus humanoid robot at the 2026 Appliance & Electronics World Expo (AWE 2026) in Shanghai. The event opened Thursday and featured several Tesla products, including the company’s humanoid robot and the Cybertruck.
The display was reported by CNEV Post, citing information from local media outlet Cailian and on-site staff at the exhibition.
Tesla’s humanoid robot was presented as part of the company’s exhibit at the Shanghai electronics show. On-site staff reportedly stated that mass production of the robot could begin by the end of 2026.
Tesla previously indicated that it plans to manufacture its humanoid robots at scale once production begins, with its initial production line in the Fremont Factory reaching up to 1 million units annually. An Optimus production line at Gigafactory Texas is expected to produce 10 million units per year.
Tesla China previously shared a teaser image on Weibo showing a pair of highly detailed robotic hands believed to belong to Optimus. The image suggests a design with finger proportions and structures that closely resemble those of a human hand.
Robotic hands are widely considered one of the most difficult engineering challenges in humanoid robotics. For a system like Optimus to perform complex real-world tasks, from factory work to household activities, the robot would require highly advanced dexterity.
Elon Musk has previously stated that Optimus has the capability to eventually become the first real-world example of a Von Neumann machine, a self-replicating system capable of building copies of itself, even on other planets. “Optimus will be the first Von Neumann machine, capable of building civilization by itself on any viable planet,” Musk wrote in a post on X.
Elon Musk
Tesla Cybercab production line is targeting hundreds of vehicles weekly: report
According to the report, Tesla has been adding staff and installing new equipment at its Austin factory as it prepares to begin Cybercab production.
Tesla is reportedly designing its Cybercab production line to manufacture hundreds of the autonomous vehicles each week once mass production begins. The effort is underway at Gigafactory Texas in Austin as the company prepares to start building the Robotaxi at scale.
The details were reported by The Wall Street Journal, citing people reportedly familiar with the matter.
According to the report, Tesla has been adding staff and installing new equipment at its Austin factory as it prepares to begin Cybercab production.
People reportedly familiar with Tesla’s plans stated that the company has been growing its staff and bringing in new equipment to start the mass production of the Cybercab this April.
The Cybercab is Tesla’s upcoming fully autonomous two-seat vehicle designed without a steering wheel or pedals. The vehicle is intended to operate primarily as part of Tesla’s planned Robotaxi ride-hailing network.
“There’s no fallback mechanism here. Like this car either drives itself or it does not drive,” Musk stated during Tesla’s previous earnings call.
Tesla has indicated that Cybercab production could begin as soon as April, though Elon Musk has noted that early production will likely be slow before ramping over time. Musk has stated that the Cybercab’s slow ramp is due in no small part to the fact that it is a completely new vehicle platform.
Tesla’s Cybercab is designed to work with the company’s Full Self-Driving (FSD) system and support its planned autonomous ride-hailing service. The company has suggested that the vehicle could cost under $30,000, making it one of Tesla’s most affordable models if produced at scale. Musk has confirmed in a previous X post that the vehicle will indeed be offered to regular consumers at a price below $30,000.
Musk has previously stated that Tesla could eventually produce millions of Cybercabs annually if demand and production capacity scale as planned.
News
Tesla VP explains latest updates in trade secret theft case
Tesla reportedly caught Matthews copying the tech into machines that were sold to competitors, claiming they lied about doing so for three years, and continued to ship it. That is when Tesla chose to sue Matthews in July 2024 in Federal court, demanding over $1 billion in damages due to trade secret theft.
Tesla Vice President Bonne Eggleston explained the latest updates in a trade secret theft case the company has against a former manufacturing equipment supplier, Matthews International.
Back in 2024, Tesla had filed a lawsuit against Matthews International, alleging that the firm stole trade secrets about battery manufacturing and shared those details with some of Tesla’s competitors.
Early last year, a U.S. District Court Judge denied Tesla’s request to block Matthews International from selling its dry battery electrode (DBE) technology across the world. The judge, Edward Davila, said that the patent for the tech was due to Matthews’ “extensive research and development.”
The two companies’ relationship began back in 2019, as Tesla hired Matthews to help build the equipment for its 4680 battery cell. Tesla shared confidential software, designs, and know-how under strict secrecy rules.
Fast forward a few years, and Tesla reportedly caught Matthews copying the tech into machines that were sold to competitors, claiming they lied about doing so for three years, and continued to ship it. That is when Tesla chose to sue Matthews in July 2024 in Federal court, demanding over $1 billion in damages due to trade secret theft.
Now, the latest twist, as this month, a Judge issued a permanent injunction—a court order banning Matthews from using certain stolen Tesla parts or designs in their machines. Matthews is also officially “liable” for damages. The exact amount would still to be calculated later.
Bonne Eggleston, a VP for Tesla, said on X today that Matthews is a supplier who “exploited customer IP through theft or deception,” and has no place in Tesla’s ecosystem:
Buyer beware: Matthews International stole Tesla’s DBE technology and is now subject to an injunction and liable for damages.
During our work with Matthews, we caught them red-handed copying our technology—including proprietary software and sensitive mechanical designs—into… https://t.co/Toc8ilakeM
— Bonne Eggleston (@BonneEggleston) March 10, 2026
Tesla calls this a big win and warns other companies: “Buyer beware—don’t buy from thieves.”
Matthews hit back with a press release claiming victory. They say an arbitrator ruled they can keep selling their own DBE equipment to anyone and rejected Tesla’s request for a total sales ban. They call Tesla’s claims “nonsense” and insist their 20-year-old tech is independent. Both sides are spinning the same narrow ruling: Matthews can sell their version, but they’re blocked from using Tesla’s specific secrets.
What are Tesla’s Current Legal Options
The case isn’t over—it’s moving to the damages phase. Tesla can:
- Push forward in court or arbitration to calculate and collect huge financial penalties (potentially $1 billion+ if willful theft is proven).
- Enforce the permanent injunction with contempt charges, fines, or even jail time if Matthews violates it.
- Challenge Matthews’ new patents that allegedly copy Tesla’s work, asking courts to invalidate them or add Tesla as co-inventor.
- Seek extra damages, lawyer fees, and possibly punitive awards under the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act and California law.
Tesla could also refer evidence to federal prosecutors for possible criminal trade-secret charges (rare but serious). Settlement is always possible, but Tesla’s fiery public response suggests they want full accountability.
This isn’t just corporate drama. It shows why trade secrets matter even when Tesla open-sources some patents, confidential know-how shared in trust must stay protected. For the EV industry, it’s a reminder: steal from your biggest customer, and you risk losing everything.
Tesla showcases Optimus humanoid robot at AWE 2026 in Shanghai
Tesla Cybercab production line is targeting hundreds of vehicles weekly: report
