Fisker Automotive
On April 14, 2008, Tesla sued Fisker Automotive, alleging that Henrik Fisker "stole design ideas and confidential information related to the design of hybrid and electric cars" and was using that information to develop the Fisker Karma. Tesla had hired Fisker Coachbuild to design the WhiteStar sedan, but rejected the design that Musk considered "substandard".[58][59] On November 3, 2008, Fisker Automotive Inc. issued a press release indicating that an arbitrator had issued an interim award finding in Fisker's favor on all claims.[60]
Top Gear review
Tesla unsuccessfully sued British television show Top Gear for its 2008 review of the Tesla Roadster (2008) in which Jeremy Clarkson could be seen driving one around the Top Gear test track, complaining about a range of only 55 mi, before showing workers pushing it into the garage, supposedly out of charge. Tesla filed a lawsuit against the BBC for libel and malicious falsehood, claiming that two cars were provided and that at any point, at least one was ready to drive. The Top Gear producers claimed that the range of 55 mi was calculated by Tesla itself and supplied to Top Gear as an estimate of the car's range when driven hard on a track.[61] In addition, Tesla said that neither car ever dropped below 25% charge, and that the scene was staged.[62][63][64][65] However, Top Gear frequently stages scenes for comedic effect, for example by showing Jeremy Clarkson having to refuel the Jaguar XJS three times during the review of it.[66] The High Court in London rejected Tesla's libel claim.[67] The falsehood claims were later struck out.[68]
Founder dispute
The company founding was the subject of a lawsuit that was later dropped after an out-of-court settlement.[69][70] On May 26, 2009, Eberhard filed suit against Tesla and Musk for slander, libel and breach of contract.[71] Musk wrote a lengthy blog post that included original source documents, including emails between senior executives and other artifacts attempting to demonstrate that Eberhard was fired by Tesla's unanimous board of directors.[72] A judge struck down Eberhard's claim that he was one of only two company founders.[73] Tesla said in a statement that the ruling is "consistent with Tesla's belief in a team of founders, including the company's current CEO and Product Architect Elon Musk, and Chief Technology Officer JB Straubel, who were both fundamental to the creation of Tesla from inception."[74]
Ecotricity agreement
In early 2014, Tesla reportedly tried to break the exclusivity agreement their charging partner in the UK had for locations along the UK's highways and tried to "blacken Ecotricity's name with politicians and the media".[77] Ecotricity replied by taking an injunction against them.[78][79] The dispute was resolved out of court.[80]
Securities litigation relating to SolarCity's financial statements and guidance
On March 28, 2014, a purported stockholder class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against SolarCity and two of its officers. The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws and seeks unspecified compensatory damages and other relief on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of SolarCity's securities from March 6, 2013, to March 18, 2014. On March 8, 2018, the Court upheld the District Court ruling of dismissal and judgment in Tesla's favor. The case is concluded.[13]
Tesla was also party to a lawsuit filed in July 2018, alleging that SolarCity improperly fired three employees who blew the whistle on fraudulent sales records at the company.[81] On June 5, 2020, the lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice.[82]
Illegal workers suit
The Mercury News in 2016 investigated the use of foreign construction workers to build Tesla's paint shop at Tesla Factory. A whistleblower federal lawsuit was filed, which was unsealed in the summer of 2017. The suit alleged that Tesla and other major automakers such as Mercedes-Benz, BMW and Volkswagen, illegally used foreign construction workers to build their U.S. factories. Court documents and the journalistic investigation showed that at least 140 foreign workers worked on the factory expansion, some of whom had questionable work visas, for as little as five dollars per hour. The workers came mainly from Eastern Europe on "suspect visas hired through subcontractors."[83]
On March 20, 2019, a decision by the United States District Court in San Jose dismissed most claims.[84] The parties entered into a confidential settlement on January 17, 2020, and as of August 2022, the court retained jurisdiction to enforce compliance of the terms.[85]
Singapore tax surcharge
In early March 2016, a report by Stuff magazine said that test performed by VICOM, Ltd on behalf of Singapore's Land Transport Authority had found a 2014 Tesla Model S to be consuming 444 Wh/km,[86][87] which was greater than the 0.38 kWh/mi reported by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)[88] and the 181 Wh/km reported by Tesla.[89] As a result, a carbon surcharge of sgd15,000 (US$10,900 at March 2016 exchange rate) was imposed on the Model S, making Singapore the only country in the world to impose an environmental surcharge on a fully electric car.[90] The Land Transport Authority justified this by stating that it had to "account for emissions during the electricity generation process" and therefore "a grid emission factor of 0.5g/watt-hour was also applied to the electric energy consumption",[91]
Workplace harassment
One female engineer at Tesla filed a lawsuit in 2016 describing a culture of "pervasive harassment".[96] The lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice in 2019.[97]
Corporate litigation relating to the SolarCity acquisition
Between September 1, 2016, and October 5, 2016, seven lawsuits were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware challenging Tesla's acquisition of SolarCity. In October 2016, the Court consolidated the actions and appointed a lead plaintiff. The plaintiffs alleged, among other things, that the Tesla board of directors as then constituted breached their fiduciary duties in approving the acquisition and that certain individuals would be unjustly enriched by the acquisition.[98] The complaint asserts both derivative claims and direct claims on behalf of a purported class and seeks, among other relief, $13 billion from Elon Musk.[99]
The acquisition was approved by Tesla and SolarCity's stockholders on November 17, 2016[100] and the merger closed on November 21, 2016. On October 24, 2019, the transcripts of video depositions of Elon Musk and other SolarCity board members became widely available.[101]
SEC investigations in 2016 regarding GAAP reporting
An SEC investigation in October 2016 about Tesla's use of non-GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Principles) reporting closed "without further action"; Tesla switched to GAAP-reporting in October 2016.[106]
Autopilot 2 class-action lawsuit
On April 19, 2017, Tesla owners filed a class-action lawsuit due to Tesla exaggerating the capabilities of its Autopilot 2 to consumers.[107] The lawsuit claimed that "buyers of the affected vehicles have become beta testers of half-baked software that renders Tesla vehicles dangerous if engaged".[108] Tesla attacked the lawsuit as a "disingenuous attempt to secure attorney's fees posing as a legitimate legal action".[109]
On May 19, 2018, Tesla reached an agreement to settle the class-action lawsuit. Under the agreement, class members, who paid to get the Autopilot upgrade between 2016 and 2017, will receive between US$20 and $280 in compensation. Tesla has agreed to place more than $5 million into a settlement fund, which will also cover attorney fees. The proposed settlement does not mention the safety allegations but focuses on the delay in making the promised features available to consumers.[110] The agreement was approved in November 2018.[111]
Union busting attempts
On April 19, 2017, Tesla factory workers filed unfair labor practice charges with the National Labor Relations Board, alleging that Tesla uses "illegal surveillance, coercion, intimidation and prevention of worker communications [...] in an effort to prevent or otherwise hinder unionization of the Fremont factory."[112][113]
According to CNBC, "the United Auto Workers (UAW) union filed four separate charges with the National Labor Relations Board alleging that [Tesla] has illegally surveilled and coerced workers attempting to distribute information about the union drive."[114] On February 10, 2017, three Tesla employees allegedly were passing out literature to initiate organizing union efforts. The literature pointed to working conditions, the company's confidentiality agreement and employee rights under the National Labor Relations Act. The UAW's charges allege that Tesla illegally told employees that they could not pass out any literature unless it was approved by the company.[114]
Securities litigation relating to production of Model 3 vehicles
In 2017, a lawsuit alleged Tesla made materially false and misleading statements regarding its preparedness to produce Model 3 vehicles.[13] The U.S. Department of Justice also began an investigation in 2018 into whether Tesla misled investors and misstated production figures about its Model 3 car.[125] The lawsuit was dismissed in Tesla's favor in March 2019.[126]
Reselling "lemon" cars
In February 2018, Tesla was accused of reselling defective "lemon" cars in the U.S.; Tesla denied the claim.[127] On December 11, 2018, the case was ordered to arbitration.[128] In March 2022, the case was dismissed by the court.[129] In Norway in 2018, Tesla buyers have gone to court with the claim that they had been sold cars with defects, and Tesla bought back the car.[130]
Software copyright infringement
In May 2018, it was reported that Tesla had for five[131] or six[132] years been using other people's copyrighted software unlawfully, specifically engaging in GPL violations. The Software Freedom Conservancy reportedly alerted Tesla to the issue repeatedly, but only in 2018 did Tesla begin to remedy its non-compliance with the software's license terms.[132][133][131]
Martin Tripp leak and hacking
In June 2018, Tesla employee Martin Tripp leaked information that Tesla was scrapping or reworking up to 40% of its raw materials at the Nevada Gigafactory.[134] Tripp was fired after allegedly confessing.[135] On June 20, 2018, Tesla filed a civil lawsuit in Nevada against Tripp, accusing him of hacking the automaker and supplying sensitive information to unnamed third parties.[135] Tripp then filed a lawsuit against Tesla and claimed Tesla's Security team gave police a false tip that he was planning a mass shooting at the Nevada factory.[136][137] By June 27, 2018, Tesla had been granted subpoenas compelling several companies that may be storing data for the former employee, including Apple, Microsoft, Google, Facebook and Dropbox to surrender any such data.[138]
Whistleblower allegations and retaliation
In June 2018, former Tesla high-level safety official Carlos Ramirez sued the company for failing to treat injured workers and misclassifying worker injuries to avoid reporting them to authorities.[142][143] Ramirez alleged that he was fired by Tesla in retaliation for raising concerns about these practices.[143] In October 2018, the case was ordered to arbitration, and the case was closed in August 2021.[144][145]
In August 2018, former Tesla employee Karl Hansen filed a whistleblower complaint with the SEC alleging that Tesla failed to disclose an alleged drug trafficking ring at the Nevada Gigafactory "involving the sale of significant quantities of cocaine and possibly crystal methamphetamine" for a Mexican drug cartel.[146]
Investigation and settlement by DOJ and SEC of Musk "funding secured" tweet
In September 2018, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) began investigating Tesla based on a tweet sent out by Elon Musk. In the tweet, Musk stated that he was "considering taking Tesla private", and that he had "funding secured" to complete the deal.[155] Musk's announcement came as a surprise to shareholders, and consequently the company's stock price rose by almost 11 percent; 17 days later, Musk said the proposal was dead.[156]
DOJ investigators requested company documents in September related to Musk's announcement, and the company complied with the requests.[157] The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) launched its own investigation into Tesla and Musk as well. The volatile stock price movement resulted in multiple shareholder lawsuits.[157]
On October 16, 2018, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York entered a final judgment approving the terms of a settlement filed with the Court on September 29, 2018, in connection with the actions taken by the SEC relating to Musk's prior statement that he was considering taking Tesla private.
Shareholder lawsuit regarding Musk "funding secured" tweet
Between August 10, 2018, and September 6, 2018, nine purported stockholder class actions were filed against Tesla and Elon Musk in connection with Elon Musk's August 7, 2018, Twitter post that he was considering taking Tesla private. All of the suits were consolidated into a class-action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.[158] The lawsuit asserted claims for violations of federal securities laws related to Mr. Musk's statement and seek unspecified compensatory damages and other relief on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of Tesla's securities. In February 2023, the jury found Musk and Tesla not liable.[12]
Employee theft of Autopilot source code
In 2019 Tesla filed a lawsuit against a named employee alleging that the employee who had worked for Tesla for two years had copied the source code of the Tesla Autopilot before joining a competing startup. In April 2021 Tesla settled the lawsuit for an undisclosed payment from the former employee.[159]
Autopilot fatality suits
In May 2019, a civil lawsuit was filed regarding the death of Apple engineer Walter Huang while driving using Autopilot in 2018.[160] The case was settled in April 2024 before it went to trial.[161] It is the first time Tesla has settled a case involving Autopilot.[162]
Battery throttling lawsuits
In August 2019, a class action lawsuit was filed in Northern California, claiming that a 2019 over-the-air software update throttled the Model S battery life, some by as much as 40 miles.[163] On December 7, 2020, Tesla settled the suit for $1.5 million.[164]
In April 2021, a Norwegian judge found Tesla guilty of throttling charging speed in a similar suit, after they failed to respond to the lawsuit. The 30 customers who were part of the lawsuit were awarded 136,000 Norwegian kroner each ($16,000).[165][166]
On June 17, 2020, a Detroit pension fund filed a derivative action against the Tesla board members.[167][168] The lawsuit claims the board members have consistently awarded themselves unfair and excessive compensation from 2017 to 2020.[168] In July 2023, the directors denied wrongdoing and settled the lawsuit by agreeing to return $735 million to the company, besides consenting to forgo compensation for the years 2021 through 2023.[169]
Berry discrimination case
In July 2021, former employee Melvin Berry was awarded $1 million in his discrimination case in arbitration against Tesla. Supervisors had referred to Berry using a racial slur, and retaliated against him when he complained.[170][171]
Full-Self Driving claim
In August 2021, a Tesla owner filed a complaint that Tesla "fraudulently concealed its engineering failures" in regards to its beta Full Self-Driving software and falsely represented the capabilities of the product.[172] As of September 2022, the case is closed.[173]
Diaz discrimination case
In October 2021 a jury verdict in the Owen Diaz vs. Tesla trial awarded the plaintiff $137 million in damages after he faced racial harassment at Tesla's Fremont facility during 2015–2016.[174][175]
In April 2022, federal judge William Orrick upheld the jury finding of Tesla's liability but reduced the award to $15 million. Tesla had sought to limit the amount to $600,000.[176]
In April 2023, a jury in the newest retrial reduced the total award to $175,000 in damages for emotional distress, and $3 million in punitive damages.[177]
Solar roof hikes class-action
In 2021, Tesla Solar Roof customers who had signed contracts with the company sued after they were later presented with price hikes and delays. Following the court's consolidation of the individual cases, Tesla created a program offering to return the prices to their original amounts to those affected.[178][179] In 2023, Tesla settled the lawsuit for $6 million.[180]
Individual racism lawsuit
In February 2022, litigation was filed by Kaylen Barker alleging racial-based harassment from her Tesla factory coworkers.[36] In May 2022, Barker requested dismissal of the case, which was granted.[181]
"Whompy wheels" lawsuit
In February 2022, a lawsuit was filed against Tesla regarding a fatality involving suspension breakage (so-called "whompy wheels").[182][183] The lawsuit follows a Tesla recall in China due to breakages of front and rear suspension linkages and ball joints, noting that the same components are used in all Tesla models sold worldwide.[184] Tesla had recently claimed in a letter to the NHTSA that "the root cause of the issue is driver abuse... uniquely severe in the China market."[185] In March 2022, the case was dismissed.[186]
Dogecoin racketeering lawsuit
In June 2022, Musk, Tesla, and other companies led by him were listed as defendants in a class action lawsuit claiming they participated in a pyramid scheme around the price of Dogecoin. Damages were listed at $258 billion.[187][188] In an amended complaint in June 2023, the plaintiffs additionally accused Musk of insider trading, when he sold Dogecoin worth $124million in April shortly after he temporarily replaced the Twitter logo with the Shiba Inu graphic associated with Dogecoin, which caused a 30percent increase in the cryptocurrency.[189] Judge Alvin Hellerstein dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice in August 2024, writing that no reasonable investor could depend on Musk's tweets to file a securities fraud claim, adding that it was "not possible to understand" the insider trading and market manipulation allegations.[190][191]
"Right to repair" lawsuits
In March 2023, a class action antitrust lawsuit was filed against Tesla by Virginia M. Lambrix in San Francisco, California, alleging that the company unlawfully monopolized the market for maintenance and repair of its vehicles in violation of the Sherman Act and California antitrust law, as a result of which owners were "forced to pay supracompetitive prices and suffer exorbitant wait times" for maintenance services and repair parts.[192][193] The lawsuit was later combined with four other similar suits.[194][195]
While six out of eight alleged antitrust violations were dismissed, in June 2024 US District Judge Trina Thompson allowed two claims to proceed, including alleged violations of California's Cartwright Act and Unfair Competition Law (UCL), with the court finding evidence of a repairs monopoly in Tesla's designing of its vehicles to require diagnostic and software updates that only the company could provide, and evidence of a parts monopoly in Tesla's restricting original equipment manufacturers from selling "to anyone other than Tesla."[194]
Privacy intrusion allegations
In April 2023, a Tesla owner filed a lawsuit following reports that Tesla employees shared "highly invasive videos and images recorded by customers' car cameras" with one another.[196] In October 2023, the case was ordered to arbitration and closed.[197][198]
Misrepresented EV range suit
In August 2023, three Tesla drivers filed a class action lawsuit against Tesla, claiming that the company "grossly overvalued how far the cars could travel on a single battery charge."[199] In March 2024, the case was sent to arbitration.[200]
Hazardous waste disposal lawsuit
In January 2024, Tesla agreed to pay $1.3 million in civil penalties and $200,000 to reimburse investigation costs for the alleged illegal disposal of hazardous waste in 25 counties in California. Tesla also agreed to train its employees on hazardous waste disposal and to have 10 percent of Tesla's facilities audited for waste disposal for the next 5 years.[201][202]
Chinese customer lawsuits
Tesla has successfully sued a number of customers in China who criticized the car brand, including after crashes. Tesla has won 90% of cases they have brought against Tesla customers in China. Customers have alleged that Tesla received preferential treatment from the Chinese judicial system which is not impartial and is controlled by the Chinese Communist Party.[203]
