List of lawsuits and controversies of Tesla, Inc.

This is a partial list of the surrounding lawsuits and controversies of Tesla, Inc, the American automotive and energy company, since 2008; as of November 2020, Tesla is party to over 1,000 lawsuits.[1] TSLAQ, a loose collective of anonymous short-sellers and skeptics of Tesla and Elon Musk, regularly discusses and shares news of these controversies on Twitter and elsewhere.[2]

On-going

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.”[3]

On March 20, 2019, a decision by the United States District Court in San Jose dismissed most claims.[4]

Securities 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.[5] The complaint asserts both derivative claims and direct claims on behalf of a purported class and seeks, among other relief, unspecified monetary damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs.

The acquisition was approved by Tesla and SolarCity's stockholders on November 17, 2016[6] and the merger closed on November 21, 2016. On October 24, the transcripts of video depositions of Elon Musk and other SolarCity board members became widely available.[7] The case was set for trial in March 2020,[8][9] but has been delayed until "concerns regarding COVID-19 have abated".[10]

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 are now pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Although the complaints vary in certain respects, they each purport to assert 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. A motion to dismiss was denied on April 15, 2020.[11]

Between October 17, 2018 and November 9, 2018, five derivative lawsuits were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery against Mr. Musk and the members of Tesla's board of directors as then constituted in relation to statements made and actions connected to the potential going private transaction. These cases have been stayed pending resolution of the stockholder class action.[8]

Litigation relating to 2018 CEO performance award

On June 4, 2018, a purported Tesla stockholder filed a putative class and derivative action in the Delaware Court of Chancery against Mr. Musk and the members of Tesla's board of directors as then constituted, alleging that such board members breached their fiduciary duties by approving the stock-based compensation plan. The complaint seeks, among other things, monetary damages and rescission or reformation of the stock-based compensation plan.[8] The trial is set for June 2021.[12]

Model Y manufacturing issues

In September 2020, Model Y owners reported finding its cooling system to be held together with a "band-aid" of tape and faux wood.[13][14]

"Whompy wheels" class action lawsuit

In November 2020, law firm McCune Wright Arevalo announced that it was representing Tesla Model S and Model X between the years 2013 and 2018 owners who experienced a suspension breakage (so-called "whompy wheels")[15] or who are concerned their suspension is liable to fail in a class action against the company. The lawsuit follows the 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 models of Tesla's that have been sold in North America and around the world.[16] 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."[17]

Bios Group lawsuit

In December 2020, Dutch taxi service Bios Group filed for over 1.3 million EU in damages against Tesla, citing defects including broken power steering and odometers.[18]

Dutch foundation formed for potential lawsuit

Over 100 dissatisfied Dutch Tesla owners have formed a foundation in order to sue Tesla over difficulty getting service for their vehicles.[18][19]

No known resolution

SEC investigations in 2016 regarding autopilot crash

The July 11, 2016 Wall Street Journal reported that "a person familiar with the matter said" Tesla was being investigated by the U.S. SEC to see if the company should have disclosed a fatal crash involving its autopilot technology before the company sold more than US$2 billion worth of shares in May 2016.[20] As of March 2020, no further information is available.

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 (0.715 kW⋅h/mi),[21][22] which was greater than the 236 watt-hours per kilometre (0.38 kW⋅h/mi) reported by the U.S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)[23] and the 181 watt-hours per kilometre (0.291 kW⋅h/mi) reported by Tesla.[24] As a result, a carbon surcharge of S$15,000 (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.[25] The Land Transport Authority justified this by stating that it had to "account for CO
2 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",[26] however Tesla countered that when the energy used to extract, refine, and distribute gasoline was taken into account, the Model S produces approximately one-third the CO
2 of an equivalent gasoline-powered vehicle.[24]

Later that month, the Land Transport Authority released a statement stating that they and the VICOM Emission Test Laboratory will be working with Tesla engineers to review the test,[27] and a Tesla statement indicated that the discussions were "positive" and that they were confident of a quick resolution.[24]

As of January 2019, Tesla is not importing cars into Singapore, and Elon Musk has stated that the Singapore government "has been unwelcome [sic]".[28]

Labor practices

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."[29][30]

According to CNBC, "the United Automobile 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."[31] 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.[31]

The Fremont plant has been unionized in the past, both when owned by General Motors (GM), and later by the NUMMI partnership of GM and Toyota. While under UAW oversight, the plant closed once in 1982 (GM) and again in 2010 (NUMMI partnership) .[32][33]

In May 2018, the United Auto Workers union filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board, seeking a federal investigation against Tesla for CEO Elon Musk's tweet apparently threatening worker stock options if they joined a union. Tesla responded that other car makers don't offer such stock options to union workers.[34][35] Minnesota Congressman Keith Ellison chastised Musk for "threats" of unlawful retaliation and presented a list of questions on union activities and worker safety records, asking for a response by June 15.[36]

Working conditions and injury policies

Employees describe working at Tesla as stressful and meaningful. In 2016, Tesla's employees averaged 30 years old, and 20% were female.[37]

On May 14, 2017, Tesla said that Total Recordable Incident Rate (TRIR, a measure of employee safety)[38] was higher for the previous years, and stated a TRIR of 4.6 for Q1 2017.[39] On May 18, 2017 The Guardian published a story about working conditions at Tesla Factory,[40] relayed by CNBC.[41]

Former and current Tesla employees publicly expressed concerns about worker treatment. Between 2014 and 2017, ambulances went to Tesla's Fremont, California factory over 100 times to provide emergency services to workers exhibiting symptoms including fainting, dizziness, abnormal breathing and chest pains resulting from the physically demanding tasks associated with their positions. At the end of that period, Tesla Factory employed over 10,000 workers.[40]

Working conditions are in part a result of the company's ambitious production figures. The 2018 goal is to manufacture 500,000 automobiles, a 495% increase from 2016.[40] Tesla has acknowledged that its recordable incident rate (TRIR), which measures work-related injuries and illnesses that have been reported to regulators, exceeded the industry average between 2013 and 2016.[39] Exact data was not released by Tesla over that period, because the company says the data is not representative of the factory's current operations.[40] In a statement, Tesla emphasized it is "building entirely new vehicles from the ground up, using entirely new technology, production, and manufacturing methods, and ramping them at high volume."[42]

Musk strongly defended Tesla's safety record and argued that the company had made significant improvement. In 2017, however, when The Guardian reached out to 15 current and/or former workers, each contradicted Musk's viewpoint. Jonathan Galescu, a production technician for the company, said, “I’ve seen people pass out, hit the floor like a pancake and smash their face open. They just send us to work around him while he’s still laying on the floor.”[40] In February 2017, Jose Moran, a Tesla worker, blogged about the company's practices of mandatory overtime, frequent worker injuries and low wages.[40] Both workers are involved with the UAW's current organizing campaign.[43][44]

Tesla's policies for dealing with injured employees were also criticized. In 2017, workers alleged that Tesla's policies got in the way of workers reporting injuries. At Tesla, workers who reported injuries were moved to lighter work and given access to supplemental insurance benefits. One injured worker reported that his pay went from $22 an hour to $10 an hour. To protect their incomes, many workers choose to work during their recovery from injury, in some cases inciting further damage and pain.[40]

In 2017, Tesla added extra shifts and safety teams to improve conditions. According to the company, "the average amount of hours worked by production team members has dropped to about 42 hours per week, and the level of overtime decreased by more than 60 percent" after improvements were made.[45] When CNBC requested comment about the issues, Tesla responded, “Tesla’s safety record is much better than the industry average, but it is not enough. Our goal is to have as close to zero injuries as humanly possible and to become the safest factory in the auto industry.”[41][39]

On May 24, 2017, California Worksafe responded to Tesla's TRIR numbers, showing higher rates (8.8) than industry average (6.7) for 2015.[46] OSHA reports that the incident rate at UAW-represented Ford plants has also exceeded the industry average in recent years.[47] In some cases, UAW-represented plants' incident rates were three or four times higher than the industry average.[47]

In April 2018, CIR's Reveal published an investigation concluding that Tesla under-counted worker injuries to make its safety record appear better. It included findings such as the factory floor not having clearly marked pedestrian lanes and instead having lanes painted different shades of gray because Elon Musk does not like the color yellow. In addition, other safety signals (such as signs and warning beeps) were lowered in order to please Musk's esthetic preferences.[48] Susan Rigmaiden, former environmental compliance manager, commented: “If someone said, ‘Elon doesn’t like something,’ you were concerned because you could lose your job.”[48] Tesla called Reveal's investigation an "ideologically motivated attack by an extremist organization working directly with union supporters to create a calculated disinformation campaign against Tesla."[49] Reveal responded by publishing the details of their investigation, which included interviews of more than three dozen current and former employees and managers as well as the review of hundreds of pages of documents.[48] Additionally, many of the interviewed safety professionals had no involvement in a unionization effort.[48]

Resolution has been proposed

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.[50] The lawsuit claimed that "buyers of the affected vehicles have become beta testers of half-baked software that renders Tesla vehicles dangerous if engaged"[51] Tesla attacked the lawsuit as a "disingenuous attempt to secure attorney's fees posing as a legitimate legal action".[52] On May 19, 2018, Tesla reached an agreement to settle the class-action lawsuit. Under the proposed agreement, class members, who paid to get the Autopilot upgrade between 2016 and 2017, will receive between $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.[53]

Resolved

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.[54] Tripp was fired after allegedly confessing.[55] 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.[55] 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.[56][57] 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.[58] Also in late June 2018, the ex-employee reacted by attempting to crowd-fund US$500,000 for his legal defense and counter-suit.[59] The court ruled in Tesla's favor on September 17, 2020.[60][61]

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".[62][63] 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.[64]

Founder dispute

The company founding was the subject of a lawsuit that was later dropped after an out-of-court settlement.[65][66] On May 26, 2009, Eberhard filed suit against Tesla and Musk for slander, libel and breach of contract.[67] 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.[68] A judge struck down Eberhard's claim that he was one of only two company founders.[69] 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."[70] Eberhard withdrew the case[71] and the parties reached a final settlement. One public provision said that the parties will consider Eberhard, Musk, Straubel, Tarpenning and Wright to be the five co-founders. Eberhard issued a statement about Musk's foundational role in the company: "As a co-founder of the company, Elon's contributions to Tesla have been extraordinary."[72]

Ecotricity

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".[73] Ecotricity replied by taking an injunction against them.[74][75] The dispute was resolved out of court.[76]

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 (89 km), 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. Paradoxically, the range of 55 mi was calculated by Tesla itself and supplied to Top Gear as an estimate of the car's range.[77] In addition, Tesla said that neither car ever dropped below 25% charge, and that the scene was staged.[78][79][80][81] 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.[82] The High Court in London rejected Tesla's libel claim.[83] The falsehood claims were later struck out.[84]

New York Times test drive

In early 2013, Tesla approached the New York Times to publish a story "Focused on future advancements in our Supercharger technology".[85] In February 2013, the Times published an account on the newly installed Supercharger network on freeway between Boston and New York City. The author describes fundamental flaws in the Model S sedan, primarily that the range was severely lowered in the below-freezing temperatures of the American Northeast. At one point the vehicle died completely and needed to be towed to a charging station.[86]

After the story was published, Tesla stock dipped 3%.[87] Three days later, Musk responded with a series of tweets, calling the article "fake",[88] and followed up with a lengthy blog post disputing several of the article's claims. He called it a "salacious story" and provided data, annotated screenshots and maps obtained from recording equipment installed in the press vehicle as evidence that the New York Times had fabricated much of the story.[85]

[...] Instead of plugging in the car, he drove in circles for over half a mile in a tiny, 100-space parking lot. When the Model S valiantly refused to die, he eventually plugged it in.

— Elon Musk, A Most Peculiar Test Drive – Tesla Blog

In a statement, the Times stood by the accuracy of the story, calling it "completely factual".[88] Author John Broder quickly issued a rebuttal in which he clarified and rejected many of the accusations made by Musk.[89]

[...] I drove around the Milford service plaza in the dark looking for the Supercharger, which is not prominently marked. I was not trying to drain the battery. (It was already on reserve power.) As soon as I found the Supercharger, I plugged the car in.

— John Broder, That Tesla Data: What It Says and What It Doesn't — The New York Times

During further investigation by the media, Musk said "the Model S battery never ran out of energy at any time, including when Broder called the flatbed truck." Auto blog Jalopnik contacted Rogers Automotive & Towing, the towing company Broder used. Their records showed that "the car's battery pack was completely drained."[90] In his follow-up blog post, Broder said "The car's display screen said the car was shutting down, and it did. The car did not have enough power to move, or even enough to release the electrically operated parking brake."

In the days that followed, NYT public editor Margaret Sullivan published an opinion piece titled "Problems With Precision and Judgment, but Not Integrity, in Tesla Test". She concludes "In the matter of the Tesla Model S and its now infamous test drive, there is still plenty to argue about and few conclusions that are unassailable."[91] No legal action was pursued.

SEC investigations in 2016 regarding GAAP reporting

A separate SEC investigation closed "without further action" in October 2016 about Tesla's use of non-GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Principles) reporting; Tesla switched to GAAP-reporting in October 2016.[92]

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.[8]

Ludicrous limited power output

Certain Tesla vehicles equipped with its Ludicrous performance mode had limited power output, as discovered by some Tesla owners in 2017. The power limits were connected to how frequently the drivers used Launch Mode; if a driver used it too much, the car's power output was restricted to prevent excessive wear and tear on components. Customers complained and the company removed the limiter.[93]

In May 2018, it was reported that Tesla had for five[94] or six[95] 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.[95][96][94]

Investigation and settlement by DOJ and SEC of Musk tweet regarding potentially going private

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.[97] 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.[98]

DOJ investigators requested company documents in September related to Musk's announcement, and the company complied with the requests.[99] 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.[99]

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 Elon Musk's prior statement that he was considering taking Tesla private. Without admitting or denying any of the SEC's allegations, and with no restriction on Mr. Musk's ability to serve as an officer or director on the board (other than as its chair), among other things, Tesla and Mr. Musk paid civil penalties of US$20 million each and agreed that an independent director will serve as chair of the board for at least three years.[8]

Securities litigation relating to production of Model 3 vehicles

On October 10, 2017, a stockholder class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against Tesla, two of its current officers, and a former officer. 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 Tesla securities from May 4, 2016 to October 6, 2017.[8] This lawsuit was dismissed in Tesla's favor in March 2019.[100]

See also

References
  1. "Tesla, Inc". www.plainsite.org. Retrieved 2020-05-19.
  2. "Must Reads: The crowd-sourced, social media swarm that is betting Tesla will crash and burn". Los Angeles Times. 2019-04-08. Retrieved 2020-09-12.
  3. Hansen, Louis (September 18, 2017). "Suit: Tesla, other automakers used illegal foreign workers to build plants". The Mercury News. Retrieved September 25, 2017.
  4. LESNIK v. EISENMANN SE, 374 F. Supp. 3d 923 (U.S. Dist. (N.D. Cal.) 2019).
  5. "Lawsuits are piling up against Tesla (TSLA) over the SolarCity (SCTY) merger, Tesla says 'without merit'". Electrek. October 10, 2016. Retrieved October 11, 2016.
  6. "Tesla Shareholders approve SolarCity merger". CNN Money. November 17, 2016. Retrieved February 1, 2017.
  7. "Tesla's Elon Musk knew SolarCity faced a 'liquidity crisis' at time of 2016 deal, legal documents show". CNBC.com. October 28, 2019. Retrieved October 28, 2019.
  8. "Tesla 10-K Files with SEC". sec.gov. February 19, 2019. Retrieved March 3, 2019. This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain.
  9. "Tesla Inc and SolarCity settle while Elon Musk faces continuing suit". Autoblog.
  10. Levy, Ari (2020-03-13). "Tesla shareholder trial delayed by judge due to coronavirus concerns". CNBC. Retrieved 2020-04-21.
  11. Dinzeo, Maria (2020-04-15). "Judge Keeps Tesla on Hook in Investor Suit Over Elon Musk Tweets". Retrieved 2020-04-22.
  12. "Tesla 2019 10-K SEC filing". www.sec.gov. Retrieved 2020-04-21. Litigation Relating to 2018 CEO Performance Award
    On June 4, 2018, a purported Tesla stockholder filed a putative class and derivative action in the Delaware Court of Chancery against Elon Musk and the members of Tesla’s board of directors as then constituted, alleging corporate waste, unjust enrichment and that such board members breached their fiduciary duties by approving the stock-based compensation plan. The complaint seeks, among other things, monetary damages and rescission or reformation of the stock-based compensation plan. On August 31, 2018, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint; plaintiff filed its opposition brief on November 1, 2018 and defendants filed a reply brief on December 13, 2018. The hearing on the motion to dismiss was held on May 9, 2019. On September 20, 2019, the Court granted the motion to dismiss as to the corporate waste claim but denied the motion as to the breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment claims. Our answer was filed on December 3, 2019, and trial is set for June 2021. We believe the claims asserted in this lawsuit are without merit and intend to defend against them vigorously.
  13. "Tesla Model Y Owners Have Found Home Depot Shit Used To Mount A Critical Part". Jalopnik. Retrieved 2020-09-09.
  14. Stumpf, Rob. "Tesla Model Y Owners Find Cooling System Cobbled Together With Home Depot-Grade Fake Wood". The Drive. Retrieved 2020-09-09.
  15. Taylor, Thom (2020-08-01). "This Is Bad: "Whompy Wheel" Syndrome Causing Teslas To Crash". MotorBiscuit. Retrieved 2020-11-18.
  16. "Tesla Model S and Model X Suspension Defects". McCune Wright Arevalo, LLP. Retrieved 2020-11-18.
  17. "Tesla, ordered to recall 30,000 cars in China, blames 'driver abuse'". Los Angeles Times. 2020-10-23. Retrieved 2020-11-18.
  18. "A Dutch taxi company is taking Tesla to court over "defective" cars". Sifted. 2020-12-04. Retrieved 2021-02-06.
  19. "Ruim 100 Nederlandse Tesla-rijders sluiten zich aan bij claim". RTL Nieuws (in Dutch). October 23, 2020. Retrieved December 5, 2020.
  20. Kiss, Jemima (July 11, 2016). "Tesla under investigation by SEC after fatal crash involving autopilot – report". The Guardian. UK. Retrieved August 4, 2016.
  21. "Be prepared for these roadblocks if you want to drive a Tesla in Singapore | Stuff". www.stuff.tv. Archived from the original on May 25, 2016. Retrieved June 1, 2016.
  22. "LTA on Tesla: CO2 emissions for electric cars start at power grid". Channel NewsAsia. Retrieved June 1, 2016.
  23. "Gas Mileage of 2014 Tesla Model S". www.fueleconomy.gov. Retrieved June 1, 2016.
  24. "Here's how clean a Model S is in Singapore (and elsewhere)". Tesla Motors. Retrieved June 1, 2016.
  25. hermes (March 4, 2016). "Electric car Tesla slapped with $15,000 tax surcharge". The Straits Times. Retrieved June 1, 2016.
  26. "LTA on Tesla: CO2 emissions for electric cars start at power grid". Channel NewsAsia. Retrieved June 1, 2016.
  27. "Singapore's LTA says the Tesla Model S it tested was a used car, hence its low efficiency". Tech in Asia. March 10, 2016. Retrieved June 1, 2016.
  28. "Netizens ask Tesla CEO Elon Musk for nth time: "Why is TESLA not in Singapore?", he responds "S'pore govt has been unwelcome" – The Independent News". January 5, 2019. Retrieved 2020-04-22.
  29. Dayen, David (April 19, 2017). "Tesla Workers File Charges With National Labor Board as Battle With Elon Musk Intensifies". Capital and Main. Retrieved April 22, 2017.
  30. Field, Kyle (April 20, 2017). "Tesla factory workers intensify unionization efforts, file charges with National Labor Board". Teslarati.com. Retrieved April 22, 2017.
  31. O'Donovan, Caroline (April 25, 2017). "Workers involved in union activities say Tesla is illegally intimidating them". CNBC. Retrieved April 26, 2017.
  32. "The End Of The Line For GM-Toyota Joint Venture". NPR.org. Retrieved November 20, 2017.
  33. Maynard, Micheline. "Building Teslas At The GM Plant That Refused To Die". Forbes. Retrieved April 7, 2018.
  34. Wiessner, Daniel (May 26, 2018). "UAW accuses Musk of threatening Tesla workers over unionization". Reuters. US. Retrieved June 4, 2018.
  35. Eidelson, Josh (May 24, 2018). "Musk Stock-Option Tweet Violated U.S. Labor Law, UAW Alleges". Bloomberg. US. Retrieved June 4, 2018.
  36. Sumagaysay, Levi (June 1, 2018). "Elon Musk and unions: Congressman asks Tesla CEO to stop 'threats'". The Mercury News. US. Retrieved June 4, 2018.
  37. Lambert, Fred (March 7, 2016). "Tesla and SpaceX standout in tech employee survey for the most stressful and lowest paying jobs, but also most meaningful". Retrieved November 3, 2017.
  38. "OSHA Recordable Incident Rate" (PDF). NMMCC.com. Retrieved November 6, 2017.
  39. "Creating the Safest Car Factory in the World". www.tesla.com. May 14, 2017. Retrieved November 3, 2017.
  40. Wong, Julia Carrie (May 18, 2017). "Tesla factory workers reveal pain, injury and stress: 'Everything feels like the future but us'". The Guardian. UK. Retrieved November 3, 2017.
  41. Ferris, Robert (May 18, 2017). "Tesla workers are passing out on the factory floor, according to a report". CNBC. Retrieved July 30, 2017.
  42. "Manufacturing "Old Timers" Offer Tesla's Elon Musk Some Sage Advice". IndustryWeek. August 1, 2017. Retrieved November 27, 2017.
  43. "NLRB Issues Complaint Against Tesla | UAW". UAW. August 31, 2017. Retrieved November 27, 2017.
  44. "Tesla Worker Jose Moran wants successful, profitable company with better conditions | UAW". UAW. February 10, 2017. Retrieved November 27, 2017.
  45. "Tesla responds: Here are "the facts" on our workplace conditions". The Mercury News. May 18, 2017. Retrieved November 27, 2017.
  46. "Analysis of Tesla Injury Rates: 2014 to 2017" , May 24, 2017
  47. "OSHA, Michigan OSHA, United Auto, Aerospace, and Agricultural Implement Workers (UAW)/Ford Motor Company/ACH-LLC (#97) | Annual Evaluations – Appendix A – (Plant Injury and Illness Rate Tables) – 2012 | Occupational Safety and Health Administration". www.osha.gov. Retrieved November 30, 2017.
  48. Evans, Will; Perry, Alyssa Jeong (April 16, 2018). "Tesla says its factory is safer. But it left injuries off the books". Reveal. US. Retrieved June 19, 2018.
  49. Weissman, Cale Guthrie (April 17, 2018). "Tesla calls journalism nonprofit an "extremist organization" after negative story". Fast Company. Retrieved June 19, 2018.
  50. Kakuk, Michael A. (April 21, 2017). "Tesla Class Action Lawsuit Says Autopilot Feature is Dangerously Defective". Top Class Actions. Retrieved April 21, 2017.
  51. Calfas, Jennifer (April 20, 2017). "Tesla Owners Filed a Lawsuit Saying the New Autopilot Is 'Demonstrably Dangerous'". Fortune. Retrieved April 21, 2017.
  52. Muoio, Danielle (April 20, 2017). "Tesla owners have filed a class-action lawsuit alleging Autopilot 2 is 'demonstrably dangerous'". Business Insider. Australia. Retrieved April 21, 2017.
  53. "Tesla agrees to settle class action over Autopilot billed as 'safer'". Reuters. 2018-05-25. Retrieved 2019-01-28.
  54. Robinson, Matt; Faux, Zeke (March 13, 2019). "When Elon Musk Tried to Destroy a Tesla Whistleblower". Bloomberg Businessweek.
  55. Alvarez, Simon (June 20, 2018). "Tesla files lawsuit against ex-employee for sabotage, misreporting to media". teslarati.com. Retrieved July 1, 2018.
  56. Klippenstein, Matthew. "Tesla Enters "Whistleblower Hell"". The Drive. Retrieved May 11, 2020.
  57. O'Kane, Sean (March 13, 2019). "Tesla allegedly hacked, spied on, and followed Gigafactory whistleblower: report". The Verge. Retrieved May 11, 2020.
  58. Krishna, Swapna (June 28, 2018). "Tesla wants former employee's data from Dropbox and Facebook". engadget.com. Retrieved July 1, 2018.
  59. Alvarez, Simon (June 29, 2018). "Ex-Tesla employee accused of sabotage is crowdfunding $500k to support legal battle". teslarati.com. Retrieved July 1, 2018.
  60. Szymkowski, Sean. "Tesla wins lawsuit against whistleblower accused of hacks". Roadshow. Retrieved September 20, 2020.
  61. "Tesla, Inc. v. Tripp :: Nevada District Court :: Federal Civil Lawsuit No. 3:18-cv-00296-MMD-CLB, Judge Miranda M. Du presiding". www.plainsite.org. Retrieved September 20, 2020.
  62. Korzeniewski, Jeremy (April 15, 2008). "Tesla files suit against Fisker Automotive". Autoblog.com. Retrieved April 12, 2015.
  63. Migliore, Greg (April 16, 2008). "Tesla sues Fisker, alleges theft of trade secrets". AutoWeek. Archived from the original on May 21, 2008. Retrieved April 16, 2008.
  64. LaMonica, Martin (November 4, 2008). "Tesla Motors loses trade secrets case against Fisker". CNET News. Retrieved September 27, 2009.
  65. Eberhard v. Musk, Case No.: CIV-484400 (Superior Court of the State of California County of San Mateo July 29, 2009) ("From defendand's filing: "During a conversation with Musk in 2003, JB Straubel ("Straubel"), who later became Tesla's Chief Technology Officer, learned of Musk's interest in the development of an all-electric automobile. Following this conversation, he introduced Musk to Tom Gage and Al Ciccone at AC Propulsion, a company that had built an all-electric concept sports car call the Tzero. Musk was enthusiastic and encouraged Gage and Ciccone to put the Tzero concept into production. Though Musk was unable to persuade AC Propulsion to mass produce the Tzero, Gage offered to give Musk's contact information to two groups who did have such an interest, one of which included Eberhard, Marc Tarpenning ("Tarpenning"), and Ian Wright ("Wright").").
  66. Fehrenbacher, Katie (June 14, 2009). "Tesla Lawsuit: The Incredible Importance of Being a Founder". Earth2tech. Retrieved August 1, 2009.
  67. Martin Eberhard lawsuit (PDF), San Mateo County, CA
  68. "Soap Opera". Tesla Motors. June 22, 2009. Archived from the original on July 25, 2009. Retrieved August 1, 2009. "Tesla Motors, Inc." consisted of Eberhard, Tarpenning and Wright, plus an unfunded business plan, and they were looking for an initial round of funding to create a more advanced prototype than the AC Propulsion Tzero. While there was a basic corporation in place, Tesla hadn't even registered or obtained the trademark to its name and had no formal offices or assets. To save legal fees, we just copied the SpaceX articles of incorporation and bylaws for Tesla and I invested $6.35M (98%) of the initial closing of $6.5M in Series A funding. Eberhard invested $75k (approximately 1%).
  69. "Superior Court of California". County of San Mateo. July 17, 2009. Archived from the original on August 4, 2009. Retrieved August 1, 2009.
  70. "Judge Strikes Claim on Who Can Be Declared a Founder of Tesla Motors [press release]". Business Wire. Retrieved August 1, 2009.
  71. Squatriglia, Chuck (August 19, 2009). "Eberhard Says 'Uncle' in Tesla Lawsuit". Wired. Autopia. Retrieved September 14, 2009.
  72. "Tesla Motors founders: Now there are five". CNET. September 21, 2009. Retrieved September 21, 2009.
  73. Rufford, Nick (March 18, 2015). "Dale Vince v Elon Musk: Electric car tsars at war over motorway charging stations". The Sunday Times. UK. Retrieved June 19, 2018.
  74. Vaughan, Adam (May 23, 2014). "Tesla Motors accused of bullying to grab key car charging sites in the UK". The Guardian. UK. Retrieved June 14, 2014.
  75. Green, Chris (June 12, 2014). "Misdirected email sparks electric car war between Tesla and Ecotricity". The Independent. UK. Retrieved June 14, 2014.
  76. Bennett, Peter (June 17, 2015). "Tesla and Ecotricity reach out of court settlement over Electric Highways dispute". Next Energy News. Archived from the original on June 18, 2015. Retrieved June 18, 2015.
  77. Vaughan, Adam (March 30, 2011). "Tesla sues Top Gear over 'faked' electric car race". The Guardian. UK. Retrieved June 19, 2018.
  78. "Tesla sues Top Gear for libel, New Stig unavailable for comment (update: BBC responds)". Engadget. March 30, 2011. Retrieved November 20, 2011.
  79. Wilman, Andy (April 2, 2011). "Tesla vs Top Gear: Andy Wilman on our current legal action". Top Gear. Transmission. Retrieved November 20, 2011.
  80. "BBC denies rigging Top Gear Tesla Roadster car race". Newsbeat. BBC. March 30, 2011. Retrieved November 20, 2011.
  81. Vaughan, Adam (March 30, 2011). "Tesla sues Top Gear over 'faked' electric car race". The Guardian. Environment. London. Retrieved November 20, 2011.
  82. celticmadliam (2012-02-12), Old Top Gear 1992 - Porsche 968 & Jaguar XJS, retrieved 2019-07-28
  83. "Tesla losing Top Gear court challenge". The Independent. October 21, 2011. Retrieved October 21, 2011.
  84. Plunkett, John (February 23, 2012). "Top Gear libel case over Tesla electric sports car struck out". The Guardian. London. Retrieved April 12, 2015.
  85. "A Most Peculiar Test Drive – Tesla Blog". Retrieved February 19, 2015.
  86. Broder, John M. (February 8, 2013). "Stalled Out on Tesla's Electric Highway – The New York Times". Retrieved February 19, 2015.
  87. Farrell, Maureen (February 11, 2013). "Tesla stock dips on poor Model S review". US: CNN. Retrieved May 27, 2016.
  88. Welch, Chris (February 11, 2013). "Tesla CEO Elon Musk accuses New York Times of lying about Model S range anxiety". The Verge. US: Vox Media. Retrieved May 27, 2016.
  89. Broder, John M. (February 14, 2013). "That Tesla Data: What It Says and What It Doesn't — The New York Times". Retrieved February 19, 2015.
  90. "Towing Company: The NYT Tesla Model S Was Dead When It Was On The Flatbed". Retrieved February 19, 2015.
  91. Sullivan, Margaret (February 18, 2013). "Problems With Precision and Judgment, but Not Integrity, in Tesla Test". The New York Times. Retrieved February 19, 2015.
  92. Shumsky, Tatyana (November 29, 2016). "SEC Criticizes Tesla Over 'Tailored' Accounting". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on November 29, 2016. Retrieved November 29, 2016. The SEC has judged the matter resolved without further action, according to an Oct. 12 letter the regulator sent to the company.
  93. Edelstein, Stephen. "Tesla Removes Ludicrous Mode Restrictions After Owner Complaints". The Drive. Retrieved September 25, 2017.
  94. "Tesla inches toward GPL compliance in low gear: Source code forcibly ejected into public".
  95. Cranz, Alex. "It Only Took Six Years, But Tesla Is No Longer Screwing Up Basic Software Licenses".
  96. "The Software Freedom Conservancy on Tesla's GPL compliance [LWN.net]". lwn.net.
  97. O'Kane, Sean (2019-08-07). "The lesson from Elon Musk's 'funding secured' mess is to never tweet". The Verge. Retrieved 2020-04-22.
  98. Logan, Bryan. "Elon Musk announces Tesla will remain a public company". Business Insider. Retrieved 2020-04-22.
  99. Harwell, Drew; Barrett, Devlin (September 18, 2018). "Tesla facing Justice Department investigation over Elon Musk tweets". The Boston Globe. Retrieved September 24, 2018.
  100. "Federal Judge Dismisses Tesla Shareholders' Lawsuit on Model 3 Production—Again". March 25, 2019. Retrieved December 17, 2019.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.