News
Opinion: Tesla has a service problem, and it needs to get addressed as soon as possible
Just recently, Tesla CEO Elon Musk was reminded of the fact that the company needs to expand its network of physical service centers. This is a point that needs to be highlighted these days, especially as Tesla’s vehicle production and deliveries reach new records. With Tesla poised to start producing vehicles by the millions in the near future, it is time for the company to acknowledge its service issues and ensure that its service network expansion sees the same level of dedication as its Supercharger Network ramp.
Tesla may be evolving into a robotics and AI company, but at the end of the day, it is also an electric car maker. And while EVs require far less service than their combustion engine-powered counterparts, they still need service and maintenance from time to time. This is especially true in cases of physical repairs such as the replacement of upper control arms, which are better suited for actual service centers.
It should be noted that while Tesla’s mobile service team is excellent and universally appreciated, they cannot address every single concern and repair. This could become a pain point for owners today, especially those who require repairs and maintenance that could not be accomplished by the mobile service team. Some Tesla owners have shared on social media that at times, they could end up traveling for hours just to get to the nearest service center. This system creates a negative ownership experience that could be detrimental to Tesla in the long run.
“Good Service” is Better Than “No Service” — At Least for Now
The company, after all, is producing vehicles at a scale that would have scared the pants off EV skeptics just a handful of years ago. Tesla will likely produce and deliver over a million vehicles per year within the next year or two, and by that time, the repair and maintenance needs of customers would likely be more substantial. A good portion of the company’s fleet would also be comprised of older vehicles then, some of which would likely require more maintenance and repairs.
The issue of the company’s lack of service centers has been brought up in past earnings calls, and most of the time, Tesla’s executives would respond by pointing to the growth of the company’s mobile service network, which could address an increasing number of repairs and issues from the comfort of owners’ homes or workplaces. Tesla also adopts the idea of the “best service” being “no service” at all. These goals would likely be attained in the future — especially as its factories become more automated and batteries become more advanced — but for now, Tesla has to focus on ensuring that existing customers, both new and old, are supported in the near-term.
Granted, the margin of error for physical service centers is substantial. There is a big human factor that determines if customers are provided a negative or positive experience during a service center visit, after all. This was highlighted recently by @JeffTutorials, the Model 3 owner Elon Musk recently responded to on Twitter, who reported that his experience with the company’s Princeton, NJ Tesla Service Center was nothing short of horrible due to the site’s staff. Such negative experiences could be prevented, however, provided that Tesla adopts strict policies for its service employees.
A $360 Billion Upside
Ultimately, there seems to be little downside to Tesla ramping its service centers at a similar pace as its Supercharger Network, which is already one of, if not the, best rapid charging system in the world. Apart from improving its customers’ overall ownership experience, expanding its service network would also allow Tesla to tap into a large, lucrative market. In Europe, for example, Tesla could breach the company car segment, which is worth $360 billion annually. Company cars are huge in Europe, with 60% of all new vehicle sales being made through corporate channels.
SAP SE, a German software maker and one of Europe’s largest tech companies, noted back in May that its employees are actually very interested in Tesla’s electric cars. And while it provides vehicles to its workers, SAP SE simply cannot commit to Teslas just yet because of the company’s poor service center network in the region. The same was true for chemicals giant BASF SE, which noted that it could not offer Teslas as a company car option for its 50,000 German employees until service centers are expanded.
It’s important to note is that improving service is not an “either/or” situation. Yes, mobile service could be ramped to address an increasing number of issues, but the company could also expand its physical service centers at the same time, and just as aggressively. Fortunately, Tesla does seem to have this in its plans, as confirmed by Elon Musk on Twitter. And if Tesla is indeed expediting its service center openings, then the company would effectively address one of its customers’ most persistent pain points.
Plus, in the long-term, wouldn’t service centers be a good site for Tesla Bots to practice their physical work capabilities?
Don’t hesitate to contact us with account tips. Just send a message to tips@teslarati.com to give us a heads up.
Investor's Corner
Tesla and SpaceX take “Terafab” Trademark fight to Federal Court
Tesla and SpaceX sue a small Illinois firm after cease and desist letters over Terafab.
Tesla and SpaceX are asking a federal judge to rule that their planned Terafab chip factory does not infringe a small Illinois company’s trademark, a request that arrives only after months of quiet negotiation broke down this summer.
The dispute traces to May 18, when Tesla filed three U.S. trademark applications for “Terafab” and “Tesla Terafab,” covering semiconductor chips and related chip making services. TERA-print LLC, a nanotechnology company that has held a federal trademark for “Tera-Fab” since 2021, responded five days later with a cease and desist letter. According to the lawsuit, first reported by Reuters, TERA-print argued that Tesla and SpaceX’s use of “Terafab” would confuse consumers familiar with its own trademark, which covers a desktop photolithography printer sold to researchers for sensor and bioengineering work.
What stands out in the filing is the timing of TERA-print’s own paperwork. One day before sending that cease and desist letter, on May 22, TERA-print applied to expand its existing registration to cover semiconductor materials, silicon chips, nanoelectronic devices and AI design services, categories it had not previously claimed. Tesla and SpaceX call that filing opportunistic in their complaint, noting it arrived two months after Tesla’s public Terafab announcement and just days after Tesla’s own trademark applications went in.
Elon Musk launches TERAFAB: The $25B Tesla-SpaceXAI chip factory that will rewire the AI industry
By June 10, TERA-print was threatening to sue for federal trademark infringement, false designation of origin and unfair competition, the complaint states. Rather than wait to be sued, Tesla, SpaceX and SpaceXAI met with TERA-print six separate times between June and August trying to resolve the dispute directly. Those talks collapsed, and the companies filed for declaratory judgment this week in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, asking a judge to find that “Terafab” does not infringe TERA-print’s mark before TERA-print can file a claim of its own.
TERA-print isn’t backing down. The company told PCMag it discussed a settlement with Tesla as recently as September 2 and feels misled by what it called Tesla’s professed interest in settling. Its CTO, Andrey Ivankin, said TERA-print holds a Defense Department contract to fabricate semiconductors and partially owns Mattiq Inc., an AI company built on TERA-print’s products, and that the company will vigorously defend its rights.
Tesla and SpaceX argue the overlap is superficial. Terafab is planned as a $16.8 billion complex spanning roughly 100 million square feet at the Grimes County site SpaceX confirmed last month, built to produce chips for Optimus robots, Tesla’s AI computing needs and SpaceX’s orbital data center ambitions, a scale and purpose the companies say no reasonable consumer would confuse with a tabletop lab printer. TERA-print’s product line has stayed focused on lithography tools for biological and sensor research since it registered its mark in 2021.
The trademark fight is the second legal dispute tied to the Terafab project in the past week, following a separate SpaceX suit aimed at keeping company records about the facility out of public view, as KBTX reported. Whether construction proceeds under the Terafab name now depends on a federal judge in Austin.
News
NHTSA just escalated its Tesla Cybercab investigation in a big way
NHTSA escalated its Cybercab audit into a sworn Special Order with a September 30 deadline.
Federal regulators have moved from asking Tesla questions about its Cybercab to demanding sworn answers. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issued a Special Order that requires a Tesla officer to sign an affidavit attesting to the completeness of the company’s responses, with a deadline of September 30.
The order builds on Audit Query AQ26002, which NHTSA opened on September 3, the same day Tesla began commercial Cybercab service in Austin. Teslarati covered that initial inquiry when it surfaced, noting the agency wanted to understand how Tesla certified a vehicle with no permanently attached steering wheel, pedals, or mirrors as compliant with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. A Special Order is a different tool and converts a fact finding review into a legally enforceable demand, the same mechanism NHTSA used against Tesla in 2023 during its Autopilot investigation.
Several of the 21 requests target a specific gap in Cybercab’s design. One asks whether Tesla used temporarily attached human controls at any point to help certify the vehicle, and if so, which standards depended on that equipment being present. Another quotes an existing rule directly: “The service brakes shall be activated by means of a foot control.” Cybercab has no foot pedal. NHTSA wants a detailed explanation of how the vehicle satisfies that requirement, and how it complies without the kind of exemption granted to Zoox in July under Part 555, the regulatory pathway built for steering wheel free vehicles.
The order does not claim Cybercab is unsafe or that Tesla broke a rule. It requires Tesla to explain, under oath, the reasoning behind decisions the company already made when it self-certified the vehicle. That distinction matters, but so does the exposure. Motor1’s reporting, summarized here, put potential civil penalty exposure as high as $139 million if NHTSA later finds the certification was flawed, on top of whatever criminal risk comes with a false sworn statement.
Tesla has not said publicly how it plans to respond. Cybercab is still carrying passengers in Austin through the Robotaxi app while the September 30 deadline approaches, and the company has continued expanding the vehicle’s footprint even as the regulatory question remains open. The Special Order does not pause any of that and just sets a date by which Tesla has to put its certification logic on the record, with a company officer’s name attached to it.
In a new interview on Wednesday, Tesla uber bull Ron Baron said that anyone looking to buy the company’s stock should do so as soon as they can.
Baron, founder and CEO of Baron Capital and one of Tesla’s most persistent institutional bulls, used a CNBC Squawk Box appearance on Wednesday to deliver a familiar message with fresh urgency: In his opinion, Tesla stock is a buy:
“The time to buy the stock is now. FSD is catching on, and it’s going to be bigger and bigger. 55% of new buyers are buying it (Teslas) with FSD. It’s going to be everywhere. It’s safer.”
The Baron Capital frontman’s case is built around Full Self-Driving. Tesla reported 1.48 million active FSD subscriptions in the second quarter, up 56 percent year over year, and company officials have said roughly 55 percent of new North American deliveries left with a subscription enabled.
Baron framed that attach rate as proof the product is moving from enthusiast extra to default expectation, and as a reason software, not just vehicle volume, should drive the next phase of value.
His conviction on Tesla shares is not theoretical, as Baron Capital made its first Tesla investment in 2014, after years of meetings that began around the 2010 IPO roadshow. The firm later built a large SpaceX position starting in 2017.
Ron Baron today in new interview on Tesla:
“The time to buy the stock is now. FSD is catching on, and it’s going to be bigger and bigger. 55% of new buyers are buying it (Teslas) with FSD. It’s going to be everywhere. It’s safer.” pic.twitter.com/Rv5PB0bVZ2
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) September 16, 2026
Baron said those Musk-led bets have generated about $30 billion of the $71 billion in profits Baron Capital has produced for clients. He put the firm’s current exposure at roughly $25 billion in SpaceX and $5 billion in Tesla. Personally, he described SpaceX as his largest holding, at about $5 billion, with about $1.5 billion in Tesla and additional Tesla exposure through the firm’s funds.
That concentration is also a statement of loyalty. Asked about talk of a SpaceX-Tesla combination, Baron said he had already walked Elon Musk through arguments for and against a deal, then declined to repeat them on air. His public position was simpler: “Whatever you decide is better is what I’m going to support,” he said to Musk.
Baron also said that he picked up the farewell edition of the Model S after Tesla decided to sunset the vehicle earlier this year, calling it his favorite car he’s ever driven.
Tesla and SpaceX take “Terafab” Trademark fight to Federal Court
NHTSA just escalated its Tesla Cybercab investigation in a big way
