Back in May 2021, homeowners Matthew Amans and Babak Malek filed a Tesla Solar Roof lawsuit over what they argued was a “bait and switch” strategy from the electric vehicle maker. Both homeowners had ordered Solar Roofs for their homes but were eventually hit by the company’s price increases in April 2021.
Amans had signed his Solar Roof contract in June 2020, and he was provided a job cost estimate of $30,872, a price that reportedly jumped to $99,241 after the price increase in April 2021. Malek, on the other hand, had an original Solar Roof contract with a stated price of $27,601.20 in January 2021, but this was increased to over $50,500 after the April 2021 price adjustments.
While Tesla later reverted the homeowners’ Solar Roof costs to their original price, Amans and Malek opted to file a class action lawsuit against the company. The homeowners alleged that Tesla had committed fraud and a contract breach. They also alleged claims under California’s Unfair Competition Law, the California Legal Remedies Act, California Business & Professions Code Section 7160, and the Truth in Lending Act.
Tesla had sought to dismiss the case, providing oral arguments earlier this month. In a recent order, US District Judge Vince Chhabria noted that he is granting — in part — and denying — in part — Tesla’s motion to dismiss the Solar Roof lawsuit, according to a Law360 report. The Judge did this by allowing the homeowners’ breach of contract claim to proceed, but nixing Amans and Malek’s claims under the UCL, CLRA, and California Business & Professions Code Section 7160.
“Tesla similarly argues that the claims by Amans are moot because it has offered to install his roof at the original price. Voluntary cessation of a defendant’s challenged conduct does not moot a case unless it is absolutely clear the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur.
“Tesla cannot bear that ‘heavy burden’ here. In particular, Tesla stands by its purported contractual right to increase the price of the roof, and Malek has plausibly alleged he was overcharged despite Tesla’s promises,” Judge Chhabria wrote.
The Judge, however, gave the homeowners a chance to amend their complaints, though he previously noted that he found Amans and Malek’s fraud allegations to be “pretty sparse.” Malek’s Truth in Lending Act claim was also dismissed with prejudice.
Tesla’s legal team and representatives from the homeowners have not issued a comment about Judge Chhabria’s order as of writing.
Judge Chhabria’s order can be viewed below.
Https Ecf Cand Uscourts Gov Doc1 035122162848 by Simon Alvarez on Scribd
Don’t hesitate to contact us with news tips. Just send a message to simon@teslarati.com to give us a heads up.
Energy
Tesla starts hiring efforts for Texas Megafactory
Tesla’s Brookshire site is expected to produce 10,000 Megapacks annually, equal to 40 gigawatt hours of energy storage.
Tesla has officially begun hiring for its new $200 million Megafactory in Brookshire, Texas, a manufacturing hub expected to employ 1,500 people by 2028. The facility, which will build Tesla’s grid-scale Megapack batteries, is part of the company’s growing energy storage footprint.
Tesla’s hiring efforts for the Texas Megafactory are hinted at by the job openings currently active on the company’s Careers website.
Tesla’s Texas Megafactory
Tesla’s Brookshire site is expected to produce 10,000 Megapacks annually, equal to 40 gigawatt hours of energy storage, similar to the Lathrop Megafactory in California. Tesla’s Careers website currently lists over 30 job openings for the site, from engineers, welders, and project managers. Each of the openings is listed for Brookshire, Texas.
The company has leased two buildings in Empire West Business Park, with over $194 million in combined property and equipment investment. Tesla’s agreement with Waller County includes a 60% property tax abatement, contingent on meeting employment benchmarks: 375 jobs by 2026, 750 by 2027, and 1,500 by 2028, as noted in a report from the Houston Business Journal. Tesla is required to employ at least 1,500 workers in the facility through the rest of the 10-year abatement period.
Tesla’s clean energy boom
City officials have stated that Tesla’s arrival marks a turning point for the Texas city, as it highlights a shift from logistics to advanced clean energy manufacturing. Ramiro Bautista from Brookshire’s economic development office, highlighted this in a comment to the Journal.
“(Tesla) has great-paying jobs. Not just that, but the advanced manufacturing (and) clean energy is coming to the area,” he said. “So it’s not just your normal logistics manufacturing. This is advanced manufacturing coming to this area, and this brings a different type of job and investment into the local economy.”
Energy
Tesla and Samsung SDI in talks over new US battery storage deal: report
The update was related by industry sources and initially reported by South Korean news outlets.
Recent reports have suggested that Tesla and Samsung SDI are in talks over a potential partnership to supply batteries for large-scale energy storage systems (ESS).
The update was related by industry sources and initially reported by South Korean news outlets.
ESS batteries to be built at Samsung’s Indiana plant
As noted in a report from Korea JoongAng Daily, the demand for energy storage systems has been growing rapidly in North America, thanks in no small part to the surge in AI investments across numerous companies. With this in mind, Tesla has reportedly approached Samsung SDI about a potential battery supply deal.
The deal is reportedly worth over 3 trillion Korean won (approximately $2.11 billion) and will span three years, according to The Korea Global Economic Daily. A battery supply deal with Samsung SDI could make sense for Tesla as the company already has a grid-scale battery, the Megapack, which is perfect for industrial use. Samsung SDI could simply supply cells for the EV maker.
Production of the batteries would reportedly take place at Samsung SDI’s joint venture factory with Stellantis in Indiana, which is currently under construction. Samsung SDI recently announced plans to use part of that plant’s EV lines to produce cells for ESS, with a targeted capacity of 30 GWh by the end of next year.
Tesla and Samsung’s partnership
At present, only a handful of manufacturers, including Korea’s LG Energy Solution, Samsung SDI, SK On, and Japan’s Panasonic, are capable of producing energy storage-scale batteries domestically in the United States. A Samsung SDI official issued a comment about the matter, stating, “Nothing has been finalized regarding cooperation with Tesla.”
The possible energy storage system deal adds another layer to Tesla’s growing collaboration with Samsung, which is already in line as a partner in the upcoming production of Tesla’s AI5 and AI6 chips. Early sample manufacturing of the AI6 is expected to begin in South Korea, with mass production slated for Samsung’s Texas-based Taylor foundry when it starts operations.
The AI6 chip will power Tesla’s next wave of high-volume projects, including the Optimus humanoid robot and the autonomous Cybercab service. Musk has called the partnership with Samsung a “real collaboration,” adding that he personally plans to “walk the line” at the Taylor facility to speed up progress.
Energy
Tesla VP hints at Solar Roof comeback with Giga New York push
The comments hint at possible renewed life for the Solar Roof program, which has seen years of slow growth since its 2016 unveiling.
Tesla’s long-awaited and way underrated Solar Roof may finally be getting its moment. During the company’s Q3 2025 earnings call, Vice President of Energy Engineering Michael Snyder revealed that production of a new residential solar panel has started at Tesla’s Buffalo, New York facility, with shipments to customers beginning in the first quarter of 2026.
The comments hint at possible renewed life for the Solar Roof program, which has seen years of slow growth since its 2016 unveiling.
Tesla Energy’s strong demand
Responding to an investor question about Tesla’s energy backlog, Snyder said demand for Megapack and Powerwall continues to be “really strong” into next year. He also noted positive customer feedback for the company’s new Megablock product, which is expected to start shipping from Houston in 2026.
“We’re seeing remarkable growth in the demand for AI and data center applications as hyperscalers and utilities have seen the versatility of the Megapack product. It increases reliability and relieves grid constraints,” he said.
Snyder also highlighted a “surge in residential solar demand in the US,” attributing the spike to recent policy changes that incentivize home installations. Tesla expects this trend to continue into 2026, helped by the rollout of a new solar lease product that makes adoption more affordable for homeowners.
Possible Solar Roof revival?
Perhaps the most intriguing part of Snyder’s remarks, however, was Tesla’s move to begin production of its “residential solar panel” in Buffalo, New York. He described the new panels as having “industry-leading aesthetics” and shape performance, language Tesla has used to market its Solar Roof tiles in the past.
“We also began production of our Tesla residential solar panel in our Buffalo factory, and we will be shipping that to customers starting Q1. The panel has industry-leading aesthetics and shape performance and demonstrates our continued commitment to US manufacturing,” Snyder said during the Q3 2025 earnings call.
Snyder did not explicitly name the product, though his reference to aesthetics has fueled speculation that Tesla may finally be preparing a large-scale and serious rollout of its Solar Roof line.
Originally unveiled in 2016, the Solar Roof was intended to transform rooftops into clean energy generators without compromising on design. However, despite early enthusiasm, production and installation volumes have remained limited for years. In 2023, a report from Wood Mackenzie claimed that there were only 3,000 operational Solar Roof installations across the United States at the time, far below forecasts. In response, the official Tesla Energy account on X stated that the report was “incorrect by a large margin.”
