Page 1
7/17/2025 12:00 PM
RECEIVED BY OAH
ROB BONTA
Attorney General of California AUSTIN CATTERMOLE Supervising Deputy Attorney General CHRISTOPHER BEATTY Supervising Deputy Attorney General State Bar No. 250040 GREGORY CALL Deputy Attorney General State Bar No. 227588 1515 Clay Street, 20th Floor P.O. Box 70550 Oakland, CA 94612-0550 Telephone: (510) 879-1348 Fax: (510) 622-2270 E-mail: Greg.Call@doj.ca.gov Attorneys for Department of Motor Vehicles
DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
In the Matter of the First Amended Accusation Against:
OAH No. 2023110194 Case No. 2l-02189 License No. 63277 AIMS No. 21V1L12011 TESLA INC., dba TESLA MOTORS, INC., a Vehicle Manufacturer, Respondent. OAH No. 2023110196 Case No. 21-02189 License No. 68106 consolidated with CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES’ TRIAL BRIEF In the Matter of the First Amended Accusation Against:
Hearing Date: July 21 – 25, 2025 TESLA, INC., dba TESLA MOTORS, INC., a Vehicle Dealer, Respondent DMV’S Trial Brief (OAH Nos. 2023110194 and 2023110196)
Page 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 5 I.
THE DEPARTMENT’S ACCUSATIONS ................................................................... 5 II.
APPLICABLE LAWS AND REGULATIONS ............................................................ 6 A.
False Advertising Under the CLRA .......................................................... 6 B.
False Advertising Under the Vehicle Code and Regulations ..................... 7 C.
Misleading Naming and Description of Partial Driving Automation Features ................................................................................................... 8 D.
The Primary Evidence in a False Advertising Case is the Advertising Itself ..................................................................................... 9 III.
THE DEPARTMENT’S EVIDENCE ........................................................................ 10 IV.
TESLA’S DEFENSES .................................................................................................. 10 CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................... 11
DMV’S Trial Brief (OAH Nos. 2023110194 and 2023110196)
Page 3
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page CASES Brady v. Bayer Corp.
(2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 1156 (Brady) ............................................................................... 7, 11 Brockey v. Moore
(2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 86 .................................................................................................... 9 Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n of New York
(1980) 447 U.S. 557 ............................................................................................................ 11 Chern v. Bank of America
(1976) 15 Cal.3d 866 (Chern) ......................................................................................... 7, 11 Colgan v. Leatherman Tool Grp., Inc.
(2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 663 .................................................................................................. 9 Feather River Trailer Sales, Inc. v. Sillas
(1979) 96 Cal.App.3d 234 ..................................................................................................... 8 Ford Dealers Assn. v. Dep’t of Motor Vehicles
(1982) 32 Cal.3d 347 ............................................................................................................ 8 Kasky v. Nike, Inc.
(2002) 27 Cal.4th 939 ......................................................................................................... 10 Lavie v. Procter & Gamble Co.
(2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 496 [“California courts consistently have looked at the ordinary consumer within the target population.”] ................................................................. 7 Leoni v. State Bar
(1985) 39 Cal.3d 609 .......................................................................................................... 11 Nat’l Council Against Health Fraud, Inc. v. King Bio Pharms., Inc.
(2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 1336 ................................................................................................ 9 Prata v. Superior Court
(2001) 91 Cal.App.4 ............................................................................................................. 7 Reese v. Kizer
(1988) 46 Cal.3d 996 .......................................................................................................... 10 Salazar v. Target Corp.
(2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 571 (Salazar) .............................................................................. 7, 11
DMV’S Trial Brief (OAH Nos. 2023110194 and 2023110196)
Page 4
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
(continued)
Page
Serova v. Sony Music Ent.
(2022) 13 Cal.5th 859 ......................................................................................................... 10 STATUTES California Civil Code § 1770(a)(5) ...................................................................................................................... 6, 7 California Code of Regulations, Title 13 § 228.28(b) ........................................................................................................................... 8 § 255..................................................................................................................................... 7 § 260.00 ............................................................................................................................ 6, 7 California Government Code § 11519.1(a).......................................................................................................................... 6 California Vehicle Code § 11705 ............................................................................................................................... 12 § 11705(a)(10) ...................................................................................................................... 6 § 11713 ............................................................................................................................. 7, 8 § 11713(a)............................................................................................................................. 6 § 24011.5(b) ................................................................................................................ passim § 24011.5(c)........................................................................................................................ 10 § 228.02(b) ........................................................................................................................... 8 § 38750 ................................................................................................................................ 8 § 38750(a)(2)(A)................................................................................................................. 10 CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS
California Constitution, Article III § 3.5.................................................................................................................................... 11
OTHER AUTHORITIES
Admin. Law ¶¶ 2:185-2.188 (Rutter Group 2023).................................................................................... 11
Consumer Legal Remedies Act ................................................................................................... 7
Hearing Practice §§ 1.23, 4.40 .................................................................................................. 10
Sen. Bill. No. 1398 ................................................................................................................. 8, 9
DMV’S Trial Brief (OAH Nos. 2023110194 and 2023110196)
Page 5
INTRODUCTION
The California Department of Motor Vehicles (the “Department”) is charged with
protecting the safety of all Californians by enforcing California’s false-advertising laws and
regulations as they apply to California-licensed vehicle manufacturers and dealers. In November
2023, the Department filed amended accusations (the “Accusations”) against Tesla Inc., d.b.a.
Tesla Motors, Inc. (“Tesla” or “Respondent”) alleging that Respondent had made false and
misleading statements in advertising regarding its advanced driver assistance system (“ADAS”)
features. Among other things, Respondent used the product or brand names “Autopilot” and “Full
Self-Driving Capability,” which represent or imply that vehicles equipped with these features
operate as autonomous vehicles, even though, as Respondent concedes, they do not. This practice
is false advertising under California law, and violates a new law passed in 2022, Vehicle Code
section 24011.5, subdivision (b), that prohibited manufacturers and dealers, like Tesla, from using
names and descriptions that falsely imply its vehicles are autonomous.
I.
THE DEPARTMENT’S ACCUSATIONS
The Department’s operative pleadings are the November 17, 2023, First Amended
Accusations. The Department’s Accusations allege the following:
Respondent operates in California as a licensed vehicle manufacturer and dealer.
(Accusations ¶ 2.) Respondent made or disseminated statements that are untrue or misleading,
and not based on facts, by advertising vehicles as equipped, or potentially equipped, ADAS
features. (Id. ¶ 5.) Such misleading statements include, but are not limited to, the following
product labels and descriptions available on its website on identified dates in 2021 and 2022:
A. “Autopilot”
B. “Full Self-Driving Capability”
C. The phrase: “The system is designed to be able to conduct short and long-distance trips with no action required by the person in the driver’s seat.”
D. The claims: “From Home - All you will need to do is get in and tell your car where to go. If you don’t say anything, your car will look at your calendar and take you there as the assumed destination. Your Tesla will figure out the optimal route, navigating urban streets, complex intersections and freeways. To your Destination When you arrive at your destination, simply step out at the entrance and your car will enter park seek mode, automatically search for a spot and park itself. A tap on your DMV’S Trial Brief (OAH Nos. 2023110194 and 2023110196)
Page 6
phone summons it back to you.”
(Id. ¶ 5.) These labels and descriptions represent specifically that Respondent’s vehicles will
operate as autonomous vehicles, which they could not and cannot do. (Id.) Respondent’s
advertisements are therefore a deceptive practice under Civil Code section 1770, subdivision
(a)(5); are advertisements not based on fact under Cal. Code of Regs., Title 13, section 260.00;
and are untrue or misleading statements under Vehicle Code section 11713, subdivision (a). (Id.) In addition, Respondent used the product labels “Autopilot” and “Full Self-Driving
Capability,” from January 1, 2023 to present, and that those product labels describe partial driving
automation features using language that implies, or would otherwise lead a reasonable person to
believe, that the features allow Respondent’s vehicles to function as an autonomous vehicle,
which they could not and cannot do. (Id. ¶ 6.) Respondent thereby violated Vehicle Code section
24011.5, subdivision (b) and Vehicle Code section 11713, subdivision (a). (Id.) Respondent’s acts, omissions, or conduct constitutes cause for discipline under Vehicle
Code section 11705, subdivision (a)(10). (Id. §§ 5, 6.) The Department seeks an order
suspending Respondent’s manufacturer and dealer licenses for not less than thirty (30) days, and
seeks an order that Respondent pay restitution under Government Code § 11519.1, subdivision
(a), in an amount to be determined in a subsequent hearing.
II.
APPLICABLE LAWS AND REGULATIONS
The Accusations allege that Respondent’s advertisements (1) are a deceptive practice under
the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), specifically Civil Code section 1770, subdivision
(a)(5); (2) are untrue or misleading statements under Vehicle Code section 11713, subdivision (a),
and are advertisements not based on facts under Cal. Code of Regs., Title 13, section 260.00; and
(3) violate Vehicle Code section 24011.5, subdivision (b) by using names and descriptions that
falsely imply its vehicles are autonomous.
A.
False Advertising Under the CLRA
Civil Code section 1770, subdivision (a)(5) provides that “[r]epresenting that goods or
services have . . . characteristics. . . uses [or] benefits . . . that they do not have” undertaken “by
any person in a transaction intended to result or that results in a sale of goods or services to any DMV’S Trial Brief (OAH Nos. 2023110194 and 2023110196)
Page 7
consumers” is unlawful. (Civ. Code, § 1770(a)(5).) Advertising may not use misleading terms to
attract customers even if the actual truth is later disclosed before purchase. (See Chern v. Bank of
America (1976) 15 Cal.3d 866, 876 (Chern) [holding that bank’s practice of computing interest
quoted as a “per annum” rate on the basis of a 360-day year is likely to deceive the public,
because “per annum” literally means by the year, and a year has either 365 or 366 days, and the
fact that the actual rate of interest is accurately disclosed to customers before purchase does not
excuse the prior deception].) False advertising claims under the CLRA are evaluated under the
“reasonable consumer” test. (Brady v. Bayer Corp. (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 1156, 1174 (Brady).)
To meet this test, a plaintiff must show that “members of the public are likely to be deceived by
defendant’s advertising.” (Salazar v. Target Corp. (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 571, 578 (Salazar);
Lavie v. Procter & Gamble Co. (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 496, 510 [“California courts consistently
have looked at the ordinary consumer within the target population.”].) “Members of the public are
likely to be deceived by advertising that is false and by advertising that, although true, is either
actually misleading or . . . has a capacity, likelihood, or tendency to deceive or confuse the
public.” (Id. (citations omitted); see also Prata v. Superior Court (2001) 91 Cal.App.4 th 1128,
1145 [“The fact that disclosures and the credit agreement issued by Bank One stating the ‘details’
of the program may have explained that the program was, in fact, not as advertised, does not
ameliorate the deceptive nature of this advertising.”].)
B.
Vehicle Code section 11713 provides that a manufacturer or dealer licensee shall not
advertise “a statement that is untrue or misleading.” (Veh. Code, § 11713.) The regulations
provide that “[a]ny advertised statements, representations, or offers made in connection with the
sale or attempted sale of any vehicle(s) shall be clearly set forth, and based on facts and shall be
subject to these regulations and the Vehicle Code.” (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 13 § 260.00.) The term
“advertising” is broadly defined in the regulations to include “any statement, representation, act
or announcement intentionally communicated to any member of the public by any means
whatever, whether orally, in writing or otherwise.” (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 13 § 255.) Thus, even
oral statements by a salesperson to a customer at a store, or public statements by company
False Advertising Under the Vehicle Code and Regulations
DMV’S Trial Brief (OAH Nos. 2023110194 and 2023110196)
Page 8
executives on social media, are “advertisements” subject to Section 11713. (See, e.g., Ford
Dealers Assn. v. Dep’t of Motor Vehicles (1982) 32 Cal.3d 347, 362.) Notably, the Legislature
long ago removed the element of “intent to deceive” from this statute, so that even an
“unintentional misrepresentation” is prohibited. (Feather River Trailer Sales, Inc. v. Sillas (1979)
96 Cal.App.3d 234, 247.) California DMV regulations adopted in 2018 governing “Statements
About Autonomous Technology” specifically provide that “[t]he use of terms to describe the
performance of a vehicle that is known, or by the exercise of reasonable care should be known,
will likely induce a reasonably prudent person to believe a vehicle is autonomous, as defined in
Vehicle Code section 38750 and 228.02(b) of Article 3.8, 1 constitute an advertisement that the
vehicle is autonomous for the purposes of this section and Vehicle Code section 11713.” (Cal.
Code Regs., tit. 13, § 228.28(b).)
C.
Misleading Naming and Description of Partial Driving Automation Features
In 2022 the California Legislature adopted, over Tesla’s direct opposition, a new law expressly prohibiting licensees from naming or describing partial driving automation features in ways that implies the vehicle is autonomous, when it is not:
A manufacturer or dealer shall not name any partial driving automation feature, or describe any partial driving automation feature in marketing materials, using language that implies or would otherwise lead a reasonable person to believe, that the feature allows the vehicle to function as an autonomous vehicle, as defined in Section 38750, or otherwise has functionality not included in the feature. A violation of this subdivision shall be considered a misleading advertisement for the purposes of Section 11713.
(Veh. Code, § 24011.5, subd. (b) [emphasis added].) The legislative history of Section 24011.5, subdivision (b), shows that the Legislature specifically intended to prohibit Tesla from naming its ADAS features “Autopilot” and “Full Self-Driving.” (See, e.g., Assem. Com. on Judiciary, Analysis of Sen. Bill. No. 1398, Aug. 5. 2022 (available at https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billAnalysisClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220SB1398#
Vehicle Code section 38750 states that “Autonomous vehicle” means Level 3, Level 4, or Level 5 of the Society of Automotive Engineers (“SAE”) International’s Taxonomy and Definition for Terms Related to Driving Automation Systems for On-Road Motor Vehicles, standard J3016 (“SAE J3016”). Respondent concedes that its vehicles with the advance driver assistance systems engaged are SAE Level 2, and therefore not “autonomous vehicles” under California law.
DMV’S Trial Brief (OAH Nos. 2023110194 and 2023110196)
Page 9
[noting “The National Highway Safety Traffic Administration reported 392 accidents involving
[SAE] Level 2 features between July 2021 and May 2022, including six fatalities. 125 of these
accidents occurred in California. Yet interest groups report that many consumers are unaware of
these risks and limitations of these [advanced driver assistance] features. At least some of this
confusion is likely attributable to vehicle manufacturers, such as Tesla, who consistently market
partial driving automated features as fully automated while failing to provide appropriate safety
measures to ensure drivers pay attention while semiautonomous features are engaged.”].) 2
D.
The Primary Evidence in a False Advertising Case is the Advertising Itself Under California law, “the primary evidence in a false advertising case is the
advertising itself.” (Brockey v. Moore (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 86, 100.) To prevail on a claim that
the public is likely to be misled by a representation, a plaintiff does not need to “produce a
consumer survey or similar extrinsic evidence…” (Colgan v. Leatherman Tool Grp., Inc. (2006)
135 Cal.App.4th 663, 681–82, as modified on denial of reh'g (Jan. 31, 2006), quoting Consumer
Advocates v. Echostar Satellite Corp. (2004) 113 Cal.App.4th 1351, 1362.) The deceptiveness of
the advertising claims may be established by “anecdotal evidence,” including specific instances of
consumer deception or confusion. (Nat’l Council Against Health Fraud, Inc. v. King Bio Pharms.,
Inc. (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 1336, 1348.)
The Senate Judiciary Committee Memorandum on the bill that became Vehicle Code section 24011.5 subdivision (b) noted consumer groups’ demands for regulatory action regarding “dangerously misleading and deceptive advertising and marketing practices and representations made by Tesla Motors, Inc. regarding the safety and capabilities of its Autopilot feature. At least two people are dead and one is injured in the United States as a result of Tesla deceiving and misleading consumers into believing its vehicle’s autopilot feature is safer and more capable than it is in practice . . . .” (See Sen. Com. on Judiciary, Analysis of Sen. Bill. No. 1398, March 14. 2022 (available at https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billAnalysisClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220SB1398# .) The same Senate memorandum also noted reports that “The head of the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board on Tuesday doubled down on criticisms of Tesla’s driver-assist systems following several fatal crashes in recent years, calling the company’s use of ‘Full SelfDriving’ for its latest systems ‘misleading.’” It also quoted from that same report a letter from the NTSB Chairwoman to Tesla’s CEO Elon Musk stating “It’s clear that if you’re marketing something as full self-driving and it is not full self-driving, and people are misusing the vehicles and technology, but you have a design flaw and you have to prevent that misuse . . . [a]nd part of that is how you talk about your technology. It is not full self-driving . . . . It’s misleading.” The memo also quoted from a letter from two sitting United States Senators to the Federal Trade Commission stating “Tesla’s marketing has repeatedly overstated the capabilities of its vehicles, and these statements increasingly pose a threat to motorists and other users of the road.” DMV’S Trial Brief (OAH Nos. 2023110194 and 2023110196)
Page 10
III.
THE DEPARTMENT’S EVIDENCE
The Department will call Melanie Rosario, Commander – Sergeant, DMV Valley Area
Command to testify. Sergeant Rosario will testify regarding her investigations and findings
regarding Respondent’s false and misleading statements in advertising its vehicles equipped with
ADAS features.
The Department will also call Bryant Walker Smith to testify remotely as an expert witness.
He is a professor of law at the University of South Carolina, a voting member of the Society of
Automotive Engineers’ (“SAE’s”) On-Road Automated Driving Standards Committee, and has
been involved in industry and government use of the language of driving automation for almost
years. 3 Professor Smith will testify regarding the language of driving automation.
IV.
TESLA’S DEFENSES
Respondent has indicated it intends to challenge the constitutionality of the statutes at issue.
Tesla’s facial or as-applied constitutional argument should be rejected. The California
Constitution itself declares that an administrative agency “has no power: (a) To declare a statute
unenforceable, or refuse to enforce a statute, on the basis of it being unconstitutional unless an
appellate court has made a determination that such statute is unconstitutional” or “(b) To declare a
statute unconstitutional[.]” (Cal. Const., art. III, § 3.5.) This provision, based on separation-of-
powers principles, precludes claims in administrative proceedings seeking to have a statute
declared unconstitutional. (See Cal. Admin. Hearing Practice §§ 1.23, 4.40; Asimow, et al., Cal.
Prac. Guid: Admin. Law ¶¶ 2:185-2.188 (Rutter Group 2023); Reese v. Kizer (1988) 46 Cal.3d
996, 1002 [“The purpose of the amendment [section 3.5] was to prevent agencies from using their
own interpretation of the Constitution or federal law to thwart the mandates of the Legislature.”].)
Moreover, it is well-settled law that commercial speech that is false or inherently
misleading is not entitled to First Amendment protection, and may be prohibited entirely. (Serova
v. Sony Music Ent. (2022) 13 Cal.5th 859, 873; Kasky v. Nike, Inc. (2002) 27 Cal.4th 939, 954
The SAE’s “Taxonomy and Definitions for Terms Related to Driving Automation Systems for On-Road Motor Vehicles, standard J3016 (APR2021)” has been incorporated by reference in Vehicle Code § 38750(a)(2)(A), and in Vehicle Code § 24011.5(c). DMV’S Trial Brief (OAH Nos. 2023110194 and 2023110196)
Page 11
[“Actually or inherently misleading commercial speech is treated the same as false commercial
speech, which the state may prohibit entirely.”]; Leoni v. State Bar (1985) 39 Cal.3d 609, 624,
[states can regulate “deceptive or misleading” advertising, even if not “probably false, or even
wholly false”]); Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n of New York (1980)
447 U.S. 557, 563 [“The government may ban forms of communication more likely to deceive
the public than to inform it”].)
The Department expects that Tesla will not argue that the product names and language
identified in the Accusations are factually true. Rather, Tesla will contend that its misleading
language is accompanied by explanations, disclosures, disclaimers, and warnings, communicated
to consumers on its websites, owner’s manuals, and in-car displays, which inform consumers that
its cars are not autonomous. Tesla’s argument should be rejected because, under California law,
Tesla’s marketing (even including the qualifying language Tesla will point to) remains likely to
mislead a reasonable consumer. (See Chern, supra, 15 Cal.3d at 876 [California’s consumer
protection statutes “afford[] protection against the probability or likelihood as well as the actuality
of deception or confusion.”); Salazar, supra, 83 Cal.App.5th at p. 582 [“California law thus does
not require reasonable consumers to look beyond misleading representations on the front of a
product to discover the truth from the ingredient list in small print on the back of a product. The
ingredient list must confirm the expectations raised on the front of the product, not contradict
them.” (citations omitted)].) Qualifying language does not preclude liability for “literal
falseness.” (Brady, supra, 26 Cal.App.5th at p. 1166 [“(T)here is no protection for literal
falseness.”].) Moreover, where a product name itself is inherently misleading, disclaimers or
truthful disclosures elsewhere do not preclude liability for false advertising. (Id. at 1170.)
CONCLUSION
The Department will establish that Tesla used the product or brand names “Autopilot” and
“Full Self-Driving Capability,” which represent or imply that vehicles equipped with these
features operate autonomously, which they do not. The Department will further establish that the
following claims on Tesla’s website are also misleading: “The system is designed to be able to
conduct short and long-distance trips with no action required by the person in the driver’s seat” DMV’S Trial Brief (OAH Nos. 2023110194 and 2023110196)
Page 12
and “From Home - All you will need to do is get in and tell your car where to go. If you don’t say
anything, your car will look at your calendar and take you there as the assumed destination. Your
Tesla will figure out the optimal route, navigating urban streets, complex intersections and
freeways. To your Destination - When you arrive at your destination, simply step out at the
entrance and your car will enter park seek mode, automatically search for a spot and park itself.
A tap on your phone summons it back to you.”
Accordingly, Tesla has engaged in false advertising under California law and has violated
Vehicle Code section 24011.5, subdivision (b). The Department therefore respectfully requests
that the Office of Administrative Hearings recommend that Tesla’s manufacturer’s and dealer’s
licenses be suspended for not less than thirty (30) days. (Veh. Code § 11705, sub. (a)(10).) The
Department further seeks an order that Respondent pay restitution under Government Code §
11519.1, subdivision (a), in an amount to be determined in a subsequent hearing.
Dated: July 17, 2025
Respectfully submitted,
ROB BONTA
Attorney General of California AUSTIN CATTERMOLE Supervising Deputy Attorney General
GREGORY CALL
Deputy Attorney General CHRISTOPHER BEATTY Supervising Deputy Attorney General Attorneys for Department of Motor Vehicles
OK2023900433
DMV’S Trial Brief (OAH Nos. 2023110194 and 2023110196)
Page 13
DECLARATION OF SERVICE BY E-MAIL
Case Name:
Nos.:
In the Matter of the First Amended Accusation Against: TESLA INC., dba TESLA MOTORS, INC., a Vehicle Manufacturer, OAH Nos. 2023110194 and 2023110196
I declare:
I am employed in the Office of the Attorney General, which is the office of a member of the California State Bar, at which member's direction this service is made. I am 18 years of age or older and not a party to this matter.
On July 17, 2025, I served the attached CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES’ TRIAL BRIEF by transmitting a true copy via electronic mail addressed as follows:
Ariel A. Neuman Oliver Rocos Miri E. Gold BIRD, MARELLA, RHOW, LINCENBERG, DROOKS & NESSIM, LLP E-mail Address:
aneuman@birdmarella.com orocos@birdmarella.com mgold@birdmarella.com Attys for Res. Tesla Inc. dba Tesla Motors, Inc.
David C. Marcus Matthew Benedetto Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale And Dorr LLP 350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2400 Los Angeles, California 90071 Email Address:
David.Marcus@wilmerhale.com matthew.benedetto@wilmerhale.com Attys for Res. Tesla Inc. dba Tesla Motors, Inc.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California and the United States of America the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on July 17, 2025, at Oakland, California.
Christine Soo Declarant OK2023900433
Signature
Back to 
