Tesla, Volvo, Cadillac, Lexus, and Navya are five car companies under investigation by the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) for crashes that occurred while Advanced Driver Assistance Systems were activated, the agency said.
The NHTSA released a list of 36 total accidents that occurred in the United States, dating back as far as June 2016. Of the 36 accidents, 30 of them involve Tesla vehicles. Not all of the Teslas listed were utilizing Autopilot, however. Three of the Teslas listed have their cases described as “Electric Vehicle – Not in Autopilot,” according to the list that the NHTSA provided to Teslarati. Additionally, one incident hasn’t been confirmed of whether a Tesla Model S utilized Autopilot during the time of its crash. Five accidents are listed as “More Over Law Special Study,” while one is listed as “Heavy Truck Underride.”
The NHTSA did not provide a statement.
Tesla’s Autopilot systems, despite being proven through statistics to make vehicles nearly 10 times less likely to be involved in an accident compared to a human driver, are still widely considered controversial by many who have not experienced the system. Autopilot is not fully autonomous, and Tesla has never claimed that its vehicles should be operated without the driver paying attention to road conditions or surroundings. However, the company has implemented several safety features to ensure that drivers are paying attention during the use of Autopilot or the Full Self-Driving suite.
On the list are several notable accidents that are recent. One involves the Model S crash in Texas that killed two after catching fire. The NHTSA already performed a preliminary investigation on the accident and determined that Autosteer could not have be engaged where the accident took place.
The NHTSA said:
“The vehicle was equipped with Autopilot, Tesla’s advanced driver assistance system. Using Autopilot requires both the Traffic-Aware Cruise Control and the Autosteer systems to be engaged. 2 NTSB tests of an exemplar car at the crash location showed that Traffic-Aware Cruise Control could be engaged but that Autosteer was not available on that part of the road.”
-
Another accident, which was listed as “Heavy Truck Underride,” involved a Model Y in Detroit. Despite the local Police department stating that reckless driving was the likely cause of the crash, the NHTSA is still investigating the accident.
Tesla Model Y crash in Detroit likely caused by reckless driving, not Autopilot: police
Volvo is among the other manufacturers on the list, with a March 2017 and a March 2018 accident involving its XC90. The 2017 accident resulted in minor injuries, while the 2018 incident was fatal to the passenger. The XC90 was utilizing ADAS during both accidents, the NHTSA chart says. The Lexus RH450H, the Cadillac CT6 (listed twice), and the Navya Arma were also all listed with ADAS case types, but all of these vehicles had no injuries due to the accidents.
Update: Volvo reached out to Teslarati and indicated that both of their investigations were from Uber test vehicle incidents. The company told us:
“It’s important to note that, to the best of our knowledge, both lines in the NHTSA chart marked as ”XC90” are Uber test vehicle incidents. At the time of the fatal incident, Volvo’s automatic emergency braking system was deactivated for Uber’s testing purposes.”
In a new note to investors on Tuesday, Morgan Stanley analyst Andrew Percoco said that Tesla has one big financial question to answer for investors regarding its Robotaxi rollout, Full Self-Driving software, and Optimus.
Percoco said in the note that, for the most part, investors are still very positive about the direction the company is headed. However, there are some things the firm would like to see, and they have to do with financials.
Tesla (TSLA) Q2 2026 earnings results: miss on EPS, beat on revenue
Tesla bulls are more than convinced that the company’s Full Self-Driving software is proof it can develop physical AI. Financially, however, there are still some questions, especially on elevated spending, which CEO Elon Musk said would occur as the company works to roll out Robotaxi faster and continue developing its Optimus robot.
The latter two are where Tesla will have to prove progress to investors, as Percoco writes that both projects “will require clearer evidence that Robotaxi is scaling and more tangible Optimus proof points to support the ROI on elevated capex.”
Percoco said the second quarter earnings call did not change his long-term thesis of where Tesla is positioned in the AI race, which is out in front. However, there are concerns that weaker gross margins and higher R&D spend will stress financials, and that has “sharpened our (and investors’) focus on measurable progress across Robotaxi and Optimus.”
Additionally, Robotaxi still needs to be proven with more operation in existing cities while maintaining safety but improving how many rides it gives in any given time, he said. For Optimus, Percoco wrote that he is “still looking for evidence beyond commentary around SOP.”
-
Morgan Stanley put Percoco in charge of covering Tesla after long-time analyst Adam Jonas transitioned to the automotive side.
Currently, Morgan Stanley has a $415 price target on Tesla and a ‘Hold’ rating on the stock. It is trading at around $330 at the time of publication, which was 2:30 P.M. on the East Coast.
SpaceX’s massive investment in AI will make it a big winner, Argus Research said after the company’s successful earnings call last week.
The firm also upgraded shares to a Buy from Hold and set a $160 price target.
SpaceX (NASDAQ: SPCX) is currently recovering from its heavy AI infrastructure investments, as it spent nearly $16 billion in Q2 alone. The company did this primarily by monetizing high-demand GPU compute capacity at a much faster pace than traditional data center economics would suggest.
Company CFO Bret Johnsen said that SpaceX would be able to pay back anything on new deployments within a year.
There are plenty of ways the company can do this:
Leasing excess compute capacity through contracts
SpaceX has already built Colossus and Colossus II, largely for its own model training. However, much of that capacity is already rented out to third parties. It already has major deals with Anthropic, Google, and Reflection AI. These partnerships are adding billions per month to SpaceX’s spreadsheet.
-
High utilization driven by industry-wide scarcity
The demand for advanced AI training and inference capacity continues to exceed what is available for use. SpaceX can fill new racks quickly after they come online, so the capital deployed converts into revenue with minimal idle time.
Additionally, management and outside observers have described the new compute capital as behaving more like a cost-of-goods-sold than traditional multi-year capex, especially because of this rapid monetization pattern.
Capacity has already scaled from ~0.4 GW a year to 1.4 GW annually by the end of Q2. There are targets of more than 2 GW by year-end.
High incremental margins on the rental business once capacity is online
GPU cloud providers often operate at strong gross margins. SpaceX can monetize capacity that was already partially built or can be added efficiently. This means that incremental EBITDA margins on the rental revenue are usually high. This accelerates cash recovery relative to the gross capital outlay.
Parallel monetization of its own AI software and applications
Beyond pure infrastructure rental, SpaceX also generates revenue from Grok through subscriptions and usage, from X through ads, data, and other related services, enterprise APIs, and the planned integration of the Cursor coding tools acquisition.
These application layers ride on the same compute infrastructure and provide additional high-margin streams that could offset build-out costs. AI-segment revenue overall rose sharply to about $2.6 billion in Q2, according to Motley Fool. This was driven primarily by the infrastructure contracts, but the software side is also partially responsible.
Efficient, large-scale deployment and vertical integration advantages
SpaceX has emphasized the rapid construction of power and cooling infrastructure and favorable cost-per-megawatt economics relative to industry benchmarks in some disclosures.
-
Combined with its ability to scale capacity aggressively and the fact that many contracts start generating revenue within months of capacity coming online, the effective payback compresses dramatically compared with more conventional multi-year data-center projects.
SpaceX’s dominant near-term recovery path will turn the AI clusters into a hyperscale-style compute rental business for other leading AI companies while still using a portion for internal models.
Tesla headlights have caused a recall of over 20,000 of the company’s two most popular vehicles, the Model 3 and Model Y, due to the low-beam bulb exceeding the maximum allowed intensity according to federal standards.
Tesla initiated the recall with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) this morning, stating that the low-beam output “exceeds the maximum allowed intensity in the outer upper-right and outer upper-left areas of the 10U and 90U zone, as prescribed in FMVSS No. 108.”
Tesla sourced the impacted headlights from Marelli Automotive Lighting, a Mexico-based company. The recall impacts 2020-2023 Model Y vehicles and 2017-2023 Model 3 vehicles. It is estimated that every VIN in this recall is impacted by the defect.
🚨 Tesla is recalling 20,349 2020-23 Model Y vehicles and 2017-23 Model 3 vehicles due to an excessively bright headlamp low beam.
Currently, there is no remedy plan in place, as it is still being developed. pic.twitter.com/y34cIO2U0B
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) August 11, 2026
Typically, Tesla would remedy recalls of this nature through an Over-the-Air software update, which has been a major focus of criticism by the company and its supporters because the NHTSA still refers to it as a “recall,” even though it requires no action by the vehicle owner. The fix is shipped over the internet and downloaded to the car.
-
However, there appears to be a potentially different solution for this problem. Tesla has not developed a remedy for this issue, so it could potentially be on the way. The big issue appears to be the fact that these recalled lamps are out of production, and this is an old body style for both vehicles. The headlights and front-end designs are completely different.
Tesla switched to another supplier when the affected headlight design was discontinued. It plans to begin notifying owners of their remedy options by September 15.
Tesla filed a petition protesting the recall to fix the vehicles’ headlight issue, but the NHTSA denied it. Now, Tesla will come up with a solution to fix it.
Tesla has one big financial question to answer for investors: Morgan Stanley
SpaceX AI investment gamble will make it a big winner, firm says
