News
Hydrogen Cars Were Supposed to Be the Future. Now Owners Are Suing Toyota
Several Mirai drivers have found themselves still paying for cars they don’t even drive anymore.
The promise of a hydrogen-fueled future has turned into a nightmare for hundreds of car owners in California. Drivers who purchased Toyota’s flagship fuel cell vehicle, the Mirai, are now suing the automaker and other key players, alleging they were misled about the viability of the hydrogen fueling network. With infrastructure collapsing and hydrogen prices surging, several Mirai drivers have found themselves still paying for cars they don’t even drive anymore.
The legal backlash comes as Toyota and other early champions of hydrogen-powered mobility face growing criticism over whether they pushed a technology too soon into an unprepared market.
A green gamble gone wrong
Sam D’Anna had barely driven his $75,000 Toyota Mirai in July 2022 when he realized something was wrong. His Mirai’s hydrogen tank was nearly empty. A dealership staffer at Roseville Toyota ran over to inform him that the nearest fueling station, in Citrus Heights, was offline. The next closest one was in West Sacramento, nearly 25 miles away. That should not be a problem for the Mirai due to its 402-mile EPA-estimated range, but since the car was almost empty, his range indicator showed only 22 miles.
“I’ve already signed,” D’Anna told the Sacramento Bee. He ended up driving off the lot with the air conditioning turned off to conserve fuel. “This is bad. My heart was dropping into my stomach.”
D’Anna is now one of the plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit against Toyota, hydrogen station operator FirstElement Fuel, the Hydrogen Fuel Cell Partnership, and California Governor Gavin Newsom.
The complaint, filed in Los Angeles Superior Court, accuses the defendants of fraud, negligence, and violations of consumer protection laws, among others. It alleges that Toyota knowingly sold vehicles reliant on a fueling ecosystem that was more than subpar, trapping buyers in loans for cars they can barely use.
D’Anna’s Mirai now sits unused under a tarp at his father’s house in El Dorado County. He still pays nearly $1,100 a month on the car, on top of a $1,200 monthly payment for a Ford F-150 hybrid he purchased in 2023 as a replacement.
Infrastructure that never materialized
At its peak, California’s hydrogen vision appeared ambitious but achievable. The state pledged tens of millions of dollars to build a network of fueling stations. Automakers like Toyota, Hyundai, and Honda introduced sleek zero-emission vehicles powered by compressed hydrogen gas.
The pitch was compelling. Drivers could refuel in a few minutes and emit only water vapor, a seemingly reasonable if not preferable alternative to electric vehicles, which were still gaining traction.
But the real-world rollout failed to keep pace with the marketing. California currently has about 50 hydrogen fueling stations, as per data from the Hydrogen Fuel Cell Partnership. And in 2024, Shell exited the market and shuttered multiple locations.
Even when hydrogen stations are available, they are often plagued by maintenance issues and inconsistent supply. Hydrogen prices have tripled too, and what once cost $70 to fill now runs closer to $200, the Bee noted.
In a statement to Teslarati, Patrick Peterson, auto expert at GoodCar.com, said, “Toyota and Hyundai were among the first to push hydrogen forward, and their vehicles are genuinely impressive. But the issue isn’t the tech, it’s everything around it. The infrastructure just isn’t ready. Most drivers aren’t willing to gamble on whether they’ll find a working hydrogen station or deal with issues like frozen fuel nozzles.”
Peterson said hydrogen’s biggest flaw is its lack of consistency. “EVs, for all their early bumps, have earned consumer trust. You’ve got widespread charging access, predictable performance, and fewer question marks. Hydrogen hasn’t hit that point yet. One bad fill-up can sour someone’s view of the entire platform.”
The price of faith in an idea
Ricky Yap of West Sacramento bought his 2016 Toyota Mirai in 2020 from Roseville Toyota. The vehicle, priced at $16,000, came with a prepaid fuel card worth the same amount. Initially, the fueling experience was “a bit cumbersome and confusing but not so bad,” Yap told the Bee. Then things got a lot worse.
Shell’s closure of hydrogen stations led to long lines at the only remaining site in Sacramento. Hydrogen prices soared, and fueling, thanks to long lines at the station, ended up taking as long as four hours. Yap eventually stopped using the car altogether. He canceled the insurance and registered it as a non-operational vehicle.
“I used it very seldom just because of the fact I don’t like the stress,” he said. “I don’t want to pay insurance on a car that I can’t use every day.”
The lawsuit claims that Toyota and its partners misled consumers about the viability of the hydrogen ecosystem. Many owners were driven by environmental motivations, enticed by generous incentives and Toyota’s reputation. But the resale value of hydrogen cars has collapsed.
One plaintiff, Parita Shah, a physician assistant from Sacramento County, told the Bee that her dealership offered her only $2,000 for her $36,000 Mirai after stations near her home shut down just months after purchase.
Consumers’ legal action turns up the pressure
In July 2025, frustrated Mirai owners organized a demonstration in Los Angeles to draw attention to what they called a broken promise. Protesters held signs reading “Mirai is a Lie,” “Toyota Made a Big Mistake,” and “Mirai Left Me Dry.”
Jason Ingber, attorney for D’Anna, Yap, and several other Mirai owners, spoke at the event. He accused the automaker of knowingly selling a product into a failing infrastructure.
“These are brands they thought they could rely on, and they go in, and they’re told ‘This is the next best thing!’ and it turns out, it’s not,” Ingber told KTLA 5.
Ingber also shared a comment to Teslarati: “Toyota is still selling this car. It makes no damn sense. No fuel for drivers. The car doesn’t work as advertised,” he said.
Automakers offer limited relief
Toyota has acknowledged the fueling issues and confirmed that it stopped selling new Mirais in the Sacramento area over a year ago. In a statement to the Bee, the company said it is “working with affected Mirai customers to identify ways to help them on a case-by-case basis.”
Rental cars and service credits are among the remedies offered, but plaintiffs argued that these are not sustainable solutions. Shah stated that the rental process is quite cumbersome. In her case, she has been relying on a series of short-term rental cars provided by Toyota, which she must exchange every 25 days. She continues to make $326 monthly payments on he Mirai, which she cannot use.
Hyundai, whose Nexo SUV also relies on hydrogen fuel, has offered similar 21-day rental options. The company also issued a recall for about 1,600 Nexo SUVs in late 2024 due to possible hydrogen leaks and potential fires, warning owners to park their cars outside until repairs were made.
A shrinking market
Since 2012, just under 18,000 hydrogen-powered vehicles have been sold in California. Toyota accounts for the vast majority of them, but the pace of adoption has slowed dramatically. For comparison, California now has millions of battery electric and hybrid vehicles on the road.
Policies have also seen a notable shift. California initially committed about $20 million annually to develop hydrogen fueling infrastructure. That number has since dropped to $15 million, and it’s no longer limited to light-duty stations.
Josh Newman, a former state senator and current Mirai owner, told the Bee that government support has fallen short. “I blame the state. We were supposed to have 200 stations up and running for light-duty hydrogen vehicles by 2025,” he said.
In a statement to Teslarati, Alex Black, Chief Marketing Officer at EpicVIN, said the problem now extends beyond infrastructure. “Yes, hydrogen cars do have an image problem right now,” he said.
“Many just do not have confidence in the technology, largely because they have not seen very many out there, there are not many places to fill them up, and have heard about previous recall problems or problems. That tends to stick with them.”
Black added that public sentiment plays a powerful role. “When public sentiment turns, all activity comes to an end: reduced demand, reduced investment, and fewer stations are built. It’s a vicious circle.”
A clean tech cautionary tale
Toyota’s investment in hydrogen was bold and well-intentioned. The technology offers apparent advantages, especially for long-haul or commercial use cases where quick refueling and long range are critical. But for personal mobility, hydrogen’s future remains uncertain, if not questionable, today.
The technology may still find its place in transportation. But for now, at least, consumer trust in hydrogen vehicles has been undermined, and infrastructure is still unreliable for those who have opted to become early adopters of the technology. For those who bought into the vision early, the experience has turned into a cautionary tale.
“People want something they can rely upon,” said Black in his statement to Teslarati. “And they want it to be easy. Hydrogen is not quite there yet.”
For Mirai owners still making monthly payments on cars they cannot drive, the idea of a hydrogen powered future is very sobering.
News
Tesla Full Self-Driving v14.2.2.5 might be the most confusing release ever
With each Full Self-Driving release, I am realistic. I know some things are going to get better, and I know some things will regress slightly. However, these instances of improvements are relatively mild, as are the regressions. Yet, this version has shown me that it contains extremes of both.
Tesla Full Self-Driving v14.2.2.5 hit my car back on Valentine’s Day, February 14, and since I’ve had it, it has become, in my opinion, the most confusing release I’ve ever had.
With each Full Self-Driving release, I am realistic. I know some things are going to get better, and I know some things will regress slightly. However, these instances of improvements are relatively mild, as are the regressions. Yet, this version has shown me that it contains extremes of both.
It has been about three weeks of driving on v14.2.2.5; I’ve used it for nearly every mile traveled since it hit my car. I’ve taken short trips of 10 minutes or less, I’ve taken medium trips of an hour or less, and I’ve taken longer trips that are over 100 miles per leg and are over two hours of driving time one way.
These are my thoughts on it thus far:
Speed Profiles Are a Mixed Bag
Speed Profiles are something Tesla seems to tinker with quite frequently, and each version tends to show a drastic difference in how each one behaves compared to the previous version.
I do a vast majority of my FSD travel using Standard and Hurry modes, although in bad weather, I will scale it back to Chill, and when it’s a congested city on a weekend or during rush hour, I’ll throw it into Mad Max so it takes what it needs.
Early on, Speed Profiles really felt great. This is one of those really subjective parts of the FSD where someone might think one mode travels too quickly, whereas another person might see the identical performance as too slow or just right.
To me, I would like to see more consistency from release to release on them, but overall, things are pretty good. There are no real complaints on my end, as I had with previous releases.
In a past release, Mad Max traveled under the speed limit quite frequently, and I only had that experience because Hurry was acting the same way. I’ve had no instances of that with v14.2.2.5.
Strange Turn Signal Behavior
This is the first Full Self-Driving version where I’ve had so many weird things happen with the turn signals.
Two things come to mind: Using a turn signal on a sharp turn, and ignoring the navigation while putting the wrong turn signal on. I’ve encountered both things on v14.2.2.5.
On my way to the Supercharger, I take a road that has one semi-sharp right-hand turn with a driveway entrance right at the beginning of the turn.
Only recently, with the introduction of v14.2.2.5, have I had FSD put on the right turn signal when going around this turn. It’s obviously a minor issue, but it still happens, and it’s not standard practice:
How can we get Full Self-Driving to stop these turn signals?
There’s no need to use one here; the straight path is a driveway, not a public road. The right turn signal here is unnecessary pic.twitter.com/7uLDHnqCfv
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) February 28, 2026
When sharing this on X, I had Tesla fans (the ones who refuse to acknowledge that the company can make mistakes) tell me that it’s a “valid” behavior that would be taught to anyone who has been “professionally trained” to drive.
Apparently, if you complain about this turn signal, you are also claiming you know more than Tesla engineers…okay.
Nobody in their right mind has ever gone around a sharp turn when driving their car and put on a signal when continuing on the same road. You would put a left turn signal on to indicate you were turning into that driveway if that’s what your intention was.
Like I said, it’s a totally minor issue. However, it’s not really needed, and nor is it normal. If I were in the car with someone who was taking a simple turn on a road they were traveling, and they signaled because the turn was sharp, I’d be scratching my head.
I’ve also had three separate instances of the car completely ignoring the navigation and putting on a signal that is opposite to what the routing says. Really quite strange.
Parking Performance is Still Underwhelming
Parking has been a complaint of mine with FSD for a long time, so much so that it is pretty rare that I allow the vehicle to park itself. More often than not, it is because I want to pick a spot that is relatively isolated.
However, in the times I allow it to pull into a spot, it still does some pretty head-scratching things.
Recently, it tried to back into a spot that was ~60% covered in plowed snow. The snow was piled about six feet high in a Target parking lot.
A few days later, it tried backing into a spot where someone failed the universal litmus test of returning their shopping cart. Both choices were baffling and required me to manually move the car to a different portion of the lot.
I used Autopark on both occasions, and it did a great job of getting into the spot. I notice that the parking performance when I manually choose the spot is much better than when the car does the entire parking process, meaning choosing the spot and parking in it.
It’s Doing Things (For Me) It’s Never Done Before
Two things that FSD has never done before, at least for me, are slow down in School Zones and avoid deer. The first is something I usually take over manually, and the second I surprisingly have not had to deal with yet.
I had my Tesla slow down at a school zone yesterday for the first time, traveling at 20 MPH and not 15 MPH as the sign suggested, but at the speed of other cars in the School Zone. This was impressive and the first time I experienced it.
I would like to see this more consistently, and I think School Zones should be one of those areas where, no matter what, FSD will only travel the speed limit.
Last night, FSD v14.2.2.5 recognized a deer in a roadside field and slowed down for it:
🚨 Cruising home on a rainy, foggy evening and my Tesla on Full Self-Driving begins to slow down suddenly
FSD just wanted Mr. Deer to make it home to his deer family ❤️ pic.twitter.com/cAeqVDgXo5
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) March 4, 2026
Navigation Still SUCKS
Navigation will be a complaint until Tesla proves it can fix it. For now, it’s just terrible.
It still has not figured out how to leave my neighborhood. I give it the opportunity to prove me wrong each time I leave my house, and it just can’t do it.
It always tries to go out of the primary entrance/exit of the neighborhood when the route needs to take me left, even though that exit is a right turn only. I always leave a voice prompt for Tesla about it.
It still picks incredibly baffling routes for simple navigation. It’s the one thing I still really want Tesla to fix.
Investor's Corner
Tesla gets tip of the hat from major Wall Street firm on self-driving prowess
“Tesla is at the forefront of autonomous driving, supported by a camera-only approach that is technically harder but much cheaper than the multi-sensor systems widely used in the industry. This strategy should allow Tesla to scale more profitably compared to Robotaxi competitors, helped by a growing data engine from its existing fleet,” BoA wrote.
Tesla received a tip of the hat from major Wall Street firm Bank of America on Wednesday, as it reinitiated coverage on Tesla shares with a bullish stance that comes with a ‘Buy’ rating and a $460 price target.
In a new note that marks a sharp reversal from its neutral position earlier in 2025, the bank declared Tesla’s Full Self-Driving (FSD) technology the “leading consumer autonomy solution.”
Analysts highlighted Tesla’s camera-only architecture, known as Tesla Vision, as a strategic masterstroke. While technically more challenging than the multi-sensor setups favored by rivals, the vision-based approach is dramatically cheaper to produce and maintain.
This cost edge, combined with Tesla’s rapidly expanding real-world data engine, positions the company to scale robotaxis far more profitably than competitors, BofA argues in the new note:
“Tesla is at the forefront of autonomous driving, supported by a camera-only approach that is technically harder but much cheaper than the multi-sensor systems widely used in the industry. This strategy should allow Tesla to scale more profitably compared to Robotaxi competitors, helped by a growing data engine from its existing fleet.”
The bank now attributes roughly 52% of Tesla’s total valuation to its Robotaxi ambitions. It also flagged meaningful upside from the Optimus humanoid robot program and the fast-growing energy storage business, suggesting the auto segment’s recent headwinds, including expired incentives, are being eclipsed by these higher-margin opportunities.
Tesla’s own data underscores exactly why Wall Street is waking up to FSD’s potential. According to Tesla’s official safety reporting page, the FSD Supervised fleet has now surpassed 8.4 billion cumulative miles driven.
Tesla FSD (Supervised) fleet passes 8.4 billion cumulative miles
That total ballooned from just 6 million miles in 2021 to 80 million in 2022, 670 million in 2023, 2.25 billion in 2024, and a staggering 4.25 billion in 2025 alone. In the first 50 days of 2026, owners added another 1 billion miles — averaging more than 20 million miles per day.
This avalanche of real-world, camera-captured footage, much of it on complex city streets, gives Tesla an unmatched training dataset. Every mile feeds its neural networks, accelerating improvement cycles that lidar-dependent rivals simply cannot match at scale.
Tesla owners themselves will tell you the suite gets better with every release, bringing new features and improvements to its self-driving project.
The $460 target implies roughly 15 percent upside from recent trading levels around $400. While regulatory and safety hurdles remain, BofA’s endorsement signals growing institutional conviction that Tesla’s data advantage is not hype; it’s a tangible moat already delivering billions of miles of proof.
News
Tesla to discuss expansion of Samsung AI6 production plans: report
Tesla has reportedly requested an additional 24,000 wafers per month, which would bring total production capacity to around 40,000 wafers if finalized.
Tesla is reportedly discussing an expansion of its next-generation AI chip supply deal with Samsung Electronics.
As per a report from Korean industry outlet The Elec, Tesla purchasing executives are reportedly scheduled to meet Samsung officials this week to negotiate additional production volume for the company’s upcoming AI6 chip.
Industry sources cited in the report stated that Tesla is pushing to increase the production volume of its AI6 chip, which will be manufactured using Samsung’s 2-nanometer process.
Tesla previously signed a long-term foundry agreement with Samsung covering AI6 production through December 31, 2033. The deal was reportedly valued at about 22.8 trillion won (roughly $16–17 billion).
Under the existing agreement, Tesla secured approximately 16,000 wafers per month from the facility. The company has reportedly requested an additional 24,000 wafers per month, which would bring total production capacity to around 40,000 wafers if finalized.
Tesla purchasing executives are expected to discuss detailed supply terms during their visit to Samsung this week.
The AI6 chip is expected to support several Tesla technologies. Industry sources stated that the chip could be used for the company’s Full Self-Driving system, the Optimus humanoid robot, and Tesla’s internal AI data centers.
The report also indicated that AI6 clusters could replace the role previously planned for Tesla’s Dojo AI supercomputer. Instead of a single system, multiple AI6 chips would be combined into server-level clusters.
Tesla’s semiconductor collaboration with Samsung dates back several years. Samsung participated in the design of Tesla’s HW3 (AI3) chip and manufactured it using a 14-nanometer process. The HW4 chip currently used in Tesla vehicles was also produced by Samsung using a 5-nanometer node.
Tesla previously planned to split production of its AI5 chip between Samsung and TSMC. However, the company reportedly chose Samsung as the primary partner for the newer AI6 chip.
Tesla Full Self-Driving v14.2.2.5 might be the most confusing release ever
Tesla gets tip of the hat from major Wall Street firm on self-driving prowess
