Tesla Full Self-Driving class action certified to proceed in California

Tesla faces certified class action

According to Reuters, U.S. District Judge Rita Lin has certified a class action for California drivers who purchased Tesla’s Full Self-Driving package between October 20, 2016, and July 31, 2024, ruling that Tesla’s consistent hardware-ready FSD claims across its website and Elon Musk’s statements created sufficient commonality. She excluded those who purchased Enhanced Autopilot.

Judge Rita Lin said Tesla promoted “hardware-ready” full self-driving claims in its Autopilot/FSD materials beginning in October 2016 and continuing into mid-2024, and that those uniform claims supported certifying a class of purchasers.

Judge Rita Lin’s key ruling

Reuters also mentioned that Judge Lin emphasized Tesla’s direct-to-consumer model, relying on its website, public statements, and Musk’s remarks rather than traditional ads, making it plausible that many purchasers encountered the same FSD claims, justifying class certification.

Lin concluded that thousands of California customers likely encountered Tesla’s assurances of hardware-ready self-driving. This, she said, justified certifying a class, as the alleged misrepresentations were consistent and central to consumer understanding of the product.

Tesla’s defense and position

Tesla has denied any wrongdoing, arguing that its messaging always acknowledged self-driving technology required validation and regulatory approval. Lawyers for the company insist there is no common proof that every customer saw or relied on the contested statements.

Still, the court rejected this reasoning, pointing to the uniformity of Tesla’s messaging. Lin concluded that the widespread and repeated claims about full self-driving hardware were prominent enough to form a common experience among customers.

Enhanced autopilot excluded

Not all Tesla software buyers are included in the class action. Judge Lin specifically excluded customers who purchased the Enhanced Autopilot package. She said this option did not promise full autonomy and therefore made Tesla’s broader claims immaterial.

Her distinction underscores that only the Full Self-Driving package was marketed as containing hardware for full autonomy. That narrowing ensures the lawsuit remains focused on customers who directly paid for the disputed product.

Who qualifies to join the case

Reported by Drive Tesla Canada, the certified classes cover California drivers who bought Tesla’s Full Self-Driving package between May 19, 2017, and July 31, 2024 (and who opted out of Tesla’s arbitration agreement), and a separate class for purchasers from October 20, 2016, to May 19, 2017

These customers share a claim that Tesla’s statements about its vehicles’ autonomous potential shaped their purchasing decisions. By grouping the cases, plaintiffs may recover damages more efficiently, as opposed to filing separate and expensive individual lawsuits.

Regulatory scrutiny intensifies

Beyond this lawsuit, Tesla faces increased attention from regulators over its driver assistance systems. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration opened a defect probe in 2021 following crashes involving Tesla vehicles and emergency responders.

The agency is separately reviewing Tesla’s 2023 software update, which was presented as a recall fix. Federal officials are assessing whether this over-the-air remedy adequately addressed the risks linked to Autopilot crashes and potential misuse.

Recent Florida jury verdict

According to Reuters, a Miami federal jury awarded $129 million in compensatory and $200 million in punitive damages ($329 million total) over a 2019 crash involving Autopilot.

With Tesla found 33% liable for compensatory damages and responsible for all punitive damages, the company’s total share is about $243 million. Tesla has moved to challenge the verdict.

The Miami fatal accident

In the April 25, 2019, incident, driver George McGee drove a 2019 Model S into an intersection at about 62 mph and collided with a parked Chevrolet Tahoe on the shoulder, where Naibel Benavides Leon and Dillon Angulo were standing. Benavides Leon died, and Angulo was seriously injured. The jury found McGee partly at fault but also held Tesla partially liable.

Attorneys argued McGee’s reliance stemmed from misleading safety claims by Musk, some made nearly a decade earlier. Tesla countered that the driver alone bore responsibility, but the jury still held the company partly liable for consumer expectations.

California DMV lawsuit

The California DMV’s 2022 false-advertising case against Tesla advanced to a multi-day hearing in July 2025. The DMV is seeking to suspend Tesla’s CA licenses for at least 30 days; a decision has not yet been issued.

The lawsuit adds state-level scrutiny to Tesla’s federal challenges. Regulators argue Tesla’s claims overstated system performance and created consumer confusion, directly impacting how drivers used the cars on public roads.

Shareholder lawsuit in Texas

Tesla shareholders have also taken Musk to court, claiming he misled investors about the readiness of the company’s robotaxi program in Austin. The lawsuit, filed in Texas, argues that inflated promises boosted stock value under false pretenses.

Defendants include Musk and Tesla’s chief financial officers, both current and former. Investors allege that overstated technology progress concealed risks of dangerous vehicle operation, undermining the company’s business prospects and financial stability.

Robotaxi program under pressure

In June 2025, Tesla began a limited, invitation-only robotaxi test in Austin. Early rider videos shared by major outlets showed brief wrong-lane entries, speeding, and abrupt braking, prompting regulatory attention.

These setbacks have shaken investor confidence. Experts say the program illustrates the gap between Musk’s ambitious vision and the current limitations of Tesla’s software-based self-driving approach, which lacks the more complex hardware used by rivals.

Musk’s leadership challenges

Elon Musk’s leadership has faced turbulence amid legal setbacks and falling sales. Musk’s focus: Multiple outlets have reported that Musk said he would refocus more on Tesla and reduce the time he spends on political activities, a move framed by some analysts as aimed at rebuilding investor and consumer confidence.

Despite his history of delivering disruptive technologies in space and electrification, Musk’s credibility has come under fire. Critics argue that repeated overstatements have hurt Tesla’s brand reputation, leaving the company vulnerable to lawsuits and market pressure.

Financial impact on Tesla

In Q2 2025, Tesla’s automotive revenue fell 16% year-over-year to about $16.6B, and net income declined 16% YoY.

Shareholder unrest continues as investors demand clarity on the future of Tesla’s autonomous vehicles. With mounting legal fees and potential settlements, analysts warn that financial risks could grow if more claims succeed in court.

Comparing rivals’ approaches

Tesla’s Full Self-Driving technology is considered Level 2 automation, where human drivers must remain engaged. Waymo currently operates paid, fully driverless robotaxi services for the public in Phoenix, San Francisco, and Los Angeles, while Cruise remains suspended in California after 2023 regulatory action.

By skipping expensive hardware, Musk hopes to accelerate scalability. However, experts argue this shortcut limits Tesla’s safety benchmarks and delays its ability to match rivals in real-world autonomous performance. Regulatory approval remains another significant obstacle.

Expert perspectives on liability

Autonomous driving expert Raj Rajkumar of Carnegie Mellon University cautions that Tesla could face major financial trouble if courts continue holding it liable for accidents. He noted that overreliance on imperfect artificial intelligence creates inherent dangers.

Analysts say Tesla’s decision to rely solely on cameras and software, without lidar or radar, leaves its system vulnerable. Other companies like Waymo and Cruise use multiple redundant sensors to ensure greater safety and performance consistency.

Remember the rides that defined the ’90s? These 16 cars bring all the nostalgia—without the sky-high price tags.

Future of Tesla self-driving

The class action lawsuit and recent verdicts mark pivotal tests for Tesla’s future. Whether the company can defend its marketing or improve its technology will influence its ability to maintain leadership in autonomous vehicles.

For Musk, the stakes extend beyond finances. His credibility with consumers, regulators, and investors depends on turning ambitious promises into tangible results. Tesla’s vision of robotaxis and safe autonomy remains possible, but the legal landscape now looms larger than ever.

Thinking about getting a Porsche? Before you dive in, here are 10 key facts every buyer should know.

Shocked that Tesla’s Full Self-Driving lawsuit just cleared a major hurdle? Tell us which detail stood out most—or share what you think this means for drivers.

Read more from this brand:

• How robotaxis could change the future of car ownership
• Exploring the off-road potential of electric pickups
• The growing appeal of restoring vintage pickup trucks

Don’t forget to follow us for more exclusive content right here on MSN.

If you liked this article, you’ll LOVE our free email newsletter.

This slideshow was made with AI assistance and human editing.