News
Tesla-inspired Xpeng Motors unveils Model 3 competitor despite Autopilot lawsuit
China’s Xpeng Motors recently unveiled its answer to the Tesla Model 3, the P7 sedan. The vehicle is impressive, packing up to 440 miles of range per charge under NEDC standards at a price that undercuts more established rivals. But the company’s competition with Tesla goes beyond the pavement and well into the courtroom.
Xpeng issued a press release on April 27 announcing the official launch of its second production model vehicle. The P7 is currently available for order in China in three versions: a 4WD High Performance trim that can hit 0-100 km/h in 4.3 seconds, an RWD Super Long Range variant that goes 440 miles under the NEDC cycle, and the entry level RWD Long Range. The all-electric sedan uses 12 ultrasonic sensors, five millimeter-wave radars, and 14 cameras to operate its autonomous driving system, which is known as XPILOT3.0. After subsidies, the car will cost between $32,462 and $49,404.
“Today is a milestone in the 5-year history of Xpeng Motors,” Chairman and CEO He Xiaopeng said. “The P7’s launch solidifies Xpeng Motors’ leading position in China’s smart EV market. Our ability to launch the P7 in the challenging conditions of the COVID-19 crisis is a testament to the strength of our young company.”
However, Xpeng’s presence in the world of electric vehicles goes much further than the launch of its new car. The company is currently in a legal battle with Tesla, who is suing a company engineer for allegedly stealing Autopilot’s source code prior to starting his employment at the Chinese automaker.
-
- Credit: Xpeng Motors
-
- Credit: Xpeng Motors
-
- Credit: Xpeng Motors
-
- Credit: Xpeng Motors
Tesla accused Guangzhi Cao of downloading Autopilot’s source code to his personal computer and transferring it via Apple Airdrop before selling it to Xpeng for financial gain. Airdrop is a complicated method to trace because it uses Transport Layer Security (TLS) encryption. Cao, for his part, maintains that he did download some of Autopilot’s source code to his personal computer, but he argued that he deleted it before leaving Tesla to join Xpeng.
Unfortunately for the Chinese EV startup, Tesla’s Autopilot source lawsuit is turning ugly. The most recent developments in the lawsuit state that Xpeng is claiming Tesla’s requests are “stereotypical” after the company demanded information from an ex-employee of Apple. Just like Cao, the ex-Apple employee left his job for Xpeng and was criminally charged with providing information to the Chinese automaker, Automotive News stated.
“Tesla’s latest demands crossed the line, seeking to rummage through our IP on Tesla’s terms — and smearing us along the way with misrepresentations and innuendo,” a spokesperson from Xpeng’s U.S. affiliate, XMotors, said. “Tesla’s overreach and distortions confirm this is just a fishing expedition meant to bully and disrupt a young competitor.”
Interestingly enough, Xpeng executives have been vocal supporters of Tesla in the past. President and Vice Chairman of Xpeng, Brian Gu, has passed along compliments to Tesla, comparing them to technology giant Apple. “Tesla reminds me of Apple. It educated the high-end market for China, but it also spurred a lot of competitive, diverse brands like Xiaomi and Huawei to come up with really cool and affordable products,” Gu said.
Additionally, CEO He Xiaopeng stated that the company probably would not exist if Tesla didn’t release 200 patents to the public a few years ago. One of the reasons Xpeng was founded was because Elon Musk made Tesla’s patents available. It was so exciting,” he said. However, these patents did not include any Autopilot coding, which is instrumental in Tesla’s lead in the autonomous vehicle industry.
Xpeng’s full press release is available here.
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
Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli responded to rumors of an imminent bankruptcy that was reportedly being mulled after a report stated the automaker was working with the firm AlixPartners to iron out its next steps.
The company felt a massive loss on Wall Street yesterday, as the report essentially pushed the stock down as much as 55 percent on Tuesday.
The report, published initially by Eletric-Vehicles.com, claimed Lucid was essentially in dire straits and was told by AlixPartners, a commonly used restructuring advisor, to either take shares private or file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.
Lucid’s head of Communications, Nick Twork, immediately challenged the report and stated the company “has sufficient liquidity to carry its operations well into next year.”
Now, the company’s CEO is chiming in as well, stating that the report is “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Napoli said:
“Lucid is not considering bankruptcy or a transaction to take the company private. Those reports are false. The Board did not explore either scenario. Period.
As disclosed in our most recent quarterly filing, Lucid has sufficient liquidity to fund its operations well into next year.
We work with outside advisors to improve operational performance and execution. They are not advising Lucid on a take-private transaction or bankruptcy, and any suggestion that they have recommended either course of action to management or the Board is false.
My priority is clear: turn this company around. That is where the leadership team and I are focused.
I look forward to providing a full update during our quarterly earnings call on August 4th.”
🚨 Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli calls rumors of financial issues “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Read his full remarks here: https://t.co/t3Pg1NHvzy pic.twitter.com/LvHUPhO4Qf
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 15, 2026
It seems pretty clear that Lucid is confident things will be okay, and, to be honest, they should not have much to worry about, especially considering the company has been backed by the Saudi Public Investment Fund (PIF) for years. It has solid financial backing, and its sales, while weak, are pretty much right on par with a company of this age.
Lucid also sent a Cease & Desist letter to the publication for their report.
Lucid shares have rebounded nicely and are up nearly 21 percent at the time of publication. As soon as the company dispelled the rumors of bankruptcy yesterday, the stock began to climb back toward more reasonable levels.
Tesla has once again demonstrated strong customer focus by swiftly addressing and fully refunding a bizarre Supercharger pricing glitch that affected drivers in Atlantic Canada.
The issue surfaced earlier this month when the Tesla app began displaying dramatically inflated per-minute charging rates at stations in Prince Edward Island and parts of New Brunswick.
One widely shared screenshot from a Charlottetown, PEI Supercharger showed rates reaching ridiculous levels: $6.00 per minute for the 180-250 kW tier, along with $3.57/min for 100-180 kW and $2.29/min for 60-100 kW.
Correct pricing will be going live at midnight tonight. All fees since July 2nd 2026 will be waived.
— Tesla Charging (@TeslaCharging) July 13, 2026
These figures were several times higher than normal Supercharger pricing in the region.
To put the error in perspective, charging at the highest incorrect rate would have been shockingly expensive.
At 250 kW, a common charging speed at Superchargers, a vehicle pulls roughly 4.17 kWh per minute. Under the glitch, a driver spending just 10 minutes at peak power would face a $60 bill. A typical 20- to 30-minute session to add meaningful range could have cost $120 to $180 or more, before any congestion fees.
Tesla gets another layer of gamification with Free Supercharging on the line
By comparison, standard Canadian Supercharger rates usually fall between $0.25 and $0.60 per kWh, making a similar session cost roughly $15–$40. The erroneous per-minute structure, combined with the inflated numbers, turned what should be a convenient stop into a potential financial shock.
The glitch appears to have started sometime around early July, and quickly drew attention on social media as owners questioned whether Tesla had implemented steep hidden increases. Some drivers even reported seeing $0 charges in their history, indicating broader billing confusion.
Tesla’s official Charging account on X stated that correct pricing would roll out at midnight on July 13, so the fix is already in effect. More importantly, the company announced it would waive all fees for every Supercharger session since July 2. This blanket waiver covers the entire affected period without requiring users to file individual claims, with automated refunds expected soon. The decision affects stations in PEI and nearby areas in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.
It’s a classy move, and rather than issuing partial credits or forcing owners to submit support tickets, Tesla simply absorbed the cost of the system error and made drivers whole. In an industry where hidden fees and bill disputes are common, Tesla’s proactive, no-questions-asked approach reinforces owner trust and highlights the company’s commitment to service excellence.
The incident, while disruptive for a short time, ultimately showcases Tesla’s ability to own mistakes and prioritize customer satisfaction. Atlantic Canada Tesla owners can now charge with confidence again, knowing the company has their back when technology glitches occur.
In an era of complex EV billing, such transparency and generosity are refreshing and set a positive example for the industry.
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
Elon Musk’s Texas ranch to showcase the lifelong work that changed the world
