News
Tesla taxi service in Netherlands wins fight for free, unlimited Supercharger use
A taxi driver in the Netherlands who pilots one of Tesla’s all-electric vehicles scored a significant victory on Friday over the commercial use of Tesla’s charging stations including its high-powered Supercharger network.
A civil service judge from the Court of Amsterdam ruled in favor of a claimant who filed suit against Tesla Motors Netherlands BV, stating that the self-employed taxi driver for Schipoltaxi must be allowed the free and unlimited use of Tesla’s chargers, including usage of the often congested Supercharger station at the company’s Amsterdam location.
“Car manufacturer Tesla must allow a taxi driver unlimited and free of charge to use his super-fast charging stations, also at the Amsterdam Zuidoost location,” reads the ruling.
According to the (translated) court statement, the claimant purchased a Tesla Model S with 85 kWh battery in 2014, with the mutual understanding between Tesla and the buyer that the vehicle would be used as a taxi service. The claimant states, “At the time of the conclusion of our (purchase) agreement, it was expressly agreed at the time that I would be allowed to use all supercharges from Tesla in the world free of charge and without any restrictions. At the time of the conclusion of our agreement, it was entirely clear to Tesla that the vehicle purchased by me would be used as a taxi.”
The claimant brought forth a passage from Tesla’s website, which at the time indicated that buyers of a Model S or Model X before January 31, 2018, would have free, unlimited Supercharging that’s also transferable when the vehicle was sold. In their suit against the California-based electric carmaker, the claimant cited an email that was sent by Tesla that would go against the company’s messaging of free and unlimited use of Supercharging.
As read in the court statement:
In an e-mail dated 11 January 2018, Tesla informed a number of taxi drivers, including [the plaintiff], among other things:
” Increasingly, we are seeing a commercial use of the Supercharger (one of the charging stations for the Tesla, where electricity can be charged at high speed, viz.) In Amsterdam Zuidoost. This Supercharger is located at the same location as Tesla’s headquarters for Europe, also service center as well as sales location. This increasingly leads to queues for the Supercharger during peak hours and an unclear, and sometimes even dangerous (traffic) situation, for customers, employees, suppliers and other visitors. In view of (traffic) safety at this location, we reserve the right to change the access for taxis to this Supercharger in Amsterdam-Zuidoost after 31 January 2018, especially during peak hours, from 7:00 to 22 :00h, to limit. “
On the same day, [the plaintiff] protested against it by e-mail. This e-mail states, among other things:
” At the time of the conclusion of our (purchase) agreement, it was expressly agreed at the time that I would be allowed to use all supercharges from Tesla in the world free of charge and without any restrictions. At the time of the conclusion of our agreement, it was entirely clear to Tesla that the vehicle purchased by me would be used as a taxi .”
The latest ruling in favor of the Tesla taxi driver brings to light a hot topic of whether individuals and companies that have purchased a single or fleet of Tesla Model S and X, under Tesla’s narrative that buyers will have “free for life” Supercharging, can, in fact, use the vehicle(s) for commercial purposes. For the many taxi and livery services that have founded their business models largely around the financial upside of having free fuel, their livelihood depends on it. The vast majority would argue that they’re providing Tesla with free advertising to every passenger they transport, by showcasing the vehicle and benefits of driving electric to a potentially new customer.
Other Tesla taxi services like Southern California-based Tesloop, which has risen to popularity among its passengers including celebrity clientele, yet unpopular among some local Tesla owners who claim that the company is occupying much-needed Tesla Supercharger stalls, tout the benefits of being able to drive a vehicle for nearly a half million miles while having virtually no maintenance costs.
While the court ruling in the Netherlands may appear in favor of the Tesla taxi driver, you as a buyer or owner, be it for personal or commercial use, are encouraged to look at Tesla’s Supercharger policy through a wider lens. Play a part in the company’s mission to accelerate the advent of sustainable transport by bringing compelling mass market electric cars to market.
Elon Musk flew under the radar with his recent purchase of a $1 billion energy company, according to Federal Trade Commission (FTC) documents.
Transaction number 202612350 listed Tesla and SpaceX frontman Elon Musk as the acquiring party and CF APR Super Holdings LLC as the seller, with New APR Energy, LLC as the acquired entity. The deal, which closed without public announcement, came to light on May 14.
BREAKING: Elon Musk acquires Jacksonville power company APR Energy in a deal valued at more than $1,000,000,000.00.
— Polymarket Money (@PolymarketMoney) July 15, 2026
Analysts inferred the deal’s scale from minority stakeholder disclosures, including one report of a 5 percent interest sold for approximately $50.4 million. Fortress Investment Group had purchased APR’s assets in late 2024, rebranded the operation as New APR Energy, and subsequently transferred ownership to Musk.
APR Energy specializes in rapidly deployable power infrastructure. The company maintains one of the world’s largest fleets of mobile gas and diesel turbines, with more than 1.1 gigawatts of generation capacity. Its modular units, which are often trailer-mounted, enable turnkey installations ranging from 20 MW to over 500 MW.
APR provides full engineering, procurement, construction, operation, and maintenance services for behind-the-meter power plants, serving everything from data centers, utilities, and industrial clients.
The firm has expanded aggressively to meet surging demand, recently adding turbines and deploying over 100 MW for a major AI hyperscaler. Its solutions bridge critical gaps where grid interconnections face delays of two to five years, according to Yahoo.
The acquisition means something more for Musk. As he continues to expand projects in artificial intelligence, especially xAI, his AI venture, there is a greater need to supply energy-intensive supercomputing clusters, including the Colossus project, with what they need: reliable and high-capacity power.
Ownership of APR provides immediate access to flexible generation assets that can be deployed adjacent to data centers, reducing dependence on a strained infrastructure. It also complements Tesla’s energy storage business, so Musk will be able to pull from his own entities to address the rapid scaling demands of AI training and compute.
Tesla had a petition protesting a recall to fix a potential issue with 2017-2023 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles’ headlights was denied, as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) disagreed with the company’s opinion of things.
The recall covers approximately 19,917 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles built from 2017 to 2023. Tesla initially submitted a noncompliance report for the headlights on these vehicles on March 15, 2024. Tesla then petitioned for an exemption from the fix, which violated FMVSS No. 108 (40 CFR 571.108), arguing that the “noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
🚨 Tesla was denied a petition by the NHTSA to avoid a recall of 19,900 2017-2023 Model 3 and Model Y vehicles.
The NHTSA found that the vehicles’ headlights may exceed maximum lighting levels. Tesla argued it was inconsequential and did not require a recall. pic.twitter.com/m8Jmm1teLL
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 16, 2026
The NHTSA disagreed, stating that Tesla’s conclusion that the headlights do not increase any risk was not an opinion it shared. The agency said it disagreed with Tesla’s assumption that glare is not increased to surrounding traffic. This issue could be highlighted even more in certain weather conditions.
Tesla will be required to remedy the issue, the NHTSA ruled:
“In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that Tesla has not met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 108 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Tesla’s petition is hereby denied, and Tesla is consequently obligated to provide notification of and free remedy for that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.”
The issue here appears to be the angle of the headlights and the brightness they emit during operation. The NHTSA report states that:
“Tesla’s headlamp supplier, Marelli Automotive Lighting, tested 25 right-hand and 25 left-hand lamps, and for this sample, found the maximum photometric intensity measured in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone was between 136.2 cd and 230.1 cd for the right-hand lamps and between 117.5 cd and 160.3 cd for the left-hand lamps. According to Tesla, these tests revealed that the photometric intensity of the right-hand and left-hand headlamp lower beam on the subject vehicles may measure as much as 230.1 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone, exceeding the maximum photometric intensity by 105.1 cd. Additionally, Tesla states that a left-hand lamp tested by a Transport Canada recognized laboratory measured a maximum of 171.27 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone. Despite these measurements exceeding the allowed photometric maximum of 125 cd, Tesla believes that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.”
Tesla also argued at some points that the headlights had not been deemed responsible for any complaints, accidents, or injuries related to the noncompliance.
Lifestyle
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
The NTSB confirmed the driver, not Tesla’s FSD, caused the fatal Texas house crash.
The National Transportation Safety Board released preliminary findings Wednesday confirming that a Tesla driver, not the vehicle’s software, caused a fatal crash in Katy, Texas in June. The driver, 44-year-old Michael Butler, had engaged Full Self-Driving Supervised mode on Rose Hollow Lane, a residential street with a 30 mph speed limit, before manually overriding the system by pressing the accelerator pedal all the way to 100%. Data recovered from the 2025 Tesla Model 3 showed the vehicle was traveling over 70 miles per hour when it struck a home and killed 76-year-old Martha Avila, who was inside. Weather was clear, the road was dry, and it was daylight.
Texas man charged in fatal Tesla crash where he blamed Autopilot
Butler told authorities he had passed out at the wheel. But security camera footage obtained by the NTSB told a different story, and showed the car accelerating through an intersection before leaving the road entirely. Police also found that Butler’s phone had Google searches including the terms “Tesla FSD not aggressive enough 2026” and “Tesla FSD too timid,” raising serious questions about how he was using the system before the crash. Butler has since been charged with manslaughter. The victim’s family has filed a lawsuit against both Butler and Tesla, alleging negligence.
The NTSB findings aligned directly with what Tesla VP of AI Software Ashok Elluswamy had already stated publicly on X in the weeks after the crash, writing that “the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100%.” The data confirmed his account.
Yup. In this case, the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100% of the accel pedal in this residential area. They reached a speed of 73 mph during the crash, and had the accelerator pressed even after the crash.
— Ashok Elluswamy (@aelluswamy) June 22, 2026
Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future
Tesla has to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says
