Tesla, Inc. TSLA

Sort: Most Popular  ·  Most Recent

1. Dismissed (Without Prejudice)Parsa et al v. Google L.L.C. et al
   California Southern District Court  Case No. 3:19-cv-02407-CAB-AHG

   Artificial IntelligenceConspiracy TheoristsHuman RightsInternational Human RightsReligious PersecutionTechnology Liability

   Cyrus A. Parsa, founder of The AI Organization, filed this lawsuit in December 2019 in the Southern District of California against Google, Facebook, DeepMind, Alphabet, Neuralink, Tesla, and individual defendants including Larry Page, Sergey Brin, Sundar Pichai, Mark Zuckerberg, and Elon Musk. The complaint alleged that the defendants' development of artificial intelligence technology enabled human rights abuses against Falun Dafa practitioners, Uyghurs, Christians, Tibetans, and others in China and around the world, framing the AI companies as complicit in surveillance, torture, organ harvesting, and persecution. Parsa filed an amended complaint in February 2020 adding additional claims. Judge Cathy Bencivengo issued an order to show cause in May 2020 why the case should not be dismissed, and on June 1, 2020 entered a dismissal without prejudice, noting that Parsa had filed the complaint but had not effected proper service on the defendants and the case could not proceed as filed.

2. Dismissed (Settled)Abraham Rothman, et al. v. Tesla Motors, Inc.
   Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles  Case No. 20BBCV00876

   Consumer ProtectionElectric VehiclesLemon LawProduct DefectSaturday Night LiveSong-Beverly ActTeslaTesla Model XWarranty

   Actress Kristen Wiig and her partner Abraham Rothman filed this lawsuit in December 2020 in Los Angeles Superior Court against Tesla Motors, Inc. under California's Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act — commonly known as the lemon law. They alleged that a 2020 Tesla Model X they leased in March 2020 for over $106,000 exhibited persistent defects from nearly the moment they took delivery, including malfunctioning windows, a defective suspension, and camera system failures. Despite multiple repair attempts at authorized Tesla service centers, the problems were not resolved, and the plaintiffs revoked acceptance of the vehicle in writing in June 2020. The complaint alleged that Tesla failed to repair the vehicle within a reasonable number of attempts and refused to provide the remedies the plaintiffs were entitled to upon revocation of acceptance. The case was filed with a jury demand and sought damages, restitution, and civil penalties. A notice of settlement of the entire case was filed in April 2021, less than five months after the complaint was filed, and the court scheduled an order to show cause regarding dismissal.

3. Pending (On Appeal)In Re Tesla Motors, Inc. Stockholder Litigation
   Court of Chancery of Delaware  Case No. 12711-VCS

   Breach of Fiduciary DutyConflicted TransactionCorporate GovernanceELON MUSKEntire FairnessFraudMergers and AcquisitionsShareholder Derivative SuitSolarCityTeslaTesla Securities ActionsTesla Solar

   This consolidated stockholder derivative action, filed in September 2016 in the Delaware Court of Chancery, challenged Tesla Motors' $2.6 billion acquisition of SolarCity Corporation as a conflicted transaction that amounted to a bailout of a struggling company at Tesla shareholders' expense. The central allegation was that Elon Musk, who held a significant stake in both Tesla and SolarCity and whose cousins Lyndon and Peter Rive ran SolarCity, orchestrated the merger to rescue SolarCity from financial distress while using Tesla as the vehicle to do so. Plaintiffs alleged that Musk and the Tesla board members who approved the deal breached their fiduciary duties to Tesla shareholders. The litigation proceeded through years of discovery and motion practice before proceeding to a ten-day trial before Vice Chancellor Joseph R. Slights III in July 2021. The trial featured extensive testimony and expert analysis on whether SolarCity was financially distressed at the time of the acquisition, whether the deal price was fair, and whether Tesla's board acted independently given Musk's influence over it. Key witnesses included financial experts debating the valuation of SolarCity and the terms of the transaction. Vice Chancellor Slights issued his post-trial decision in April 2022, ruling that while Musk was a conflicted controlling stockholder, the acquisition was entirely fair to Tesla shareholders and judgment was entered in favor of the defendants. Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Delaware Supreme Court in May 2022.

4. Dismissed (Mixed)Greenspan v. Qazi et al
   California Northern District Court  Case No. 3:20-cv-03426-JD

   BillionairesCalifornia Anti-SLAPP StatuteCopyrightDefamationDisinformationELON MUSKFair UseFraud-On-The-Market TheoryInternet HarassmentOnline HarassmentPro Se LitigationSecurities FraudShort SellingSocial MediaTeslaTesla Full Self-DrivingTesla Securities Actions

   PlainSite founder Aaron Greenspan filed this lawsuit in May 2020 in the Northern District of California against Omar Qazi, a prominent Tesla advocate known on social media as "WHAAAT," along with Qazi's company Smick Enterprises, Tesla, Inc., and Elon Musk. The complaint, which Greenspan amended four times over the course of the litigation, asserted a range of federal and state claims. Greenspan alleged that Qazi engaged in a systematic campaign of online harassment and stalking directed at Greenspan in retaliation for his critical reporting on Tesla; that Qazi infringed Greenspan's copyright by using excerpts from Greenspan's autobiography and photographs on social media; and that Tesla and Musk made material misrepresentations to investors in violation of federal securities laws. Judge James Donato allowed Greenspan multiple opportunities to amend his complaint, but ultimately dismissed all federal claims with prejudice in May 2022. On the copyright claims, the court found that Qazi's use of Greenspan's material constituted fair use under the criticism and commentary doctrine. On the securities fraud claims, the court found that Greenspan had not adequately alleged the required elements. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law defamation and stalking claims, dismissing those without prejudice — leaving Greenspan free to pursue those claims in state court, which he did. After judgment was entered, Greenspan filed a motion for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b), submitting what he characterized as newly discovered evidence of Tesla's alleged internal fraud, including internal spreadsheets and FOIA responses. The court denied that motion in June 2022, finding nothing in the new material warranted reconsideration. Qazi's request for attorneys' fees was also denied, with the parties bearing their own costs.

5. Pending (On Appeal)Richard J. Tornetta v. Elon Musk
   Court of Chancery of Delaware  Case No. 2018-0408-KSJM

   BillionairesBreach of Fiduciary DutyControlling StockholderCorporate GovernanceDelaware Court of ChanceryELON MUSKEntire FairnessExecutive CompensationShareholder RightsStock OptionsTeslaTesla Redomestication

   Tesla shareholder Richard Tornetta filed this derivative lawsuit in June 2018 in the Delaware Court of Chancery challenging the massive compensation package granted to Elon Musk by the Tesla board in January 2018. The plan consisted of 12 tranches of stock options — each representing 1% of Tesla's outstanding shares — that vested upon the achievement of paired market capitalization and operational milestones over a ten-year period. Tesla itself disclosed that the plan's estimated fair value was .6 billion, and analysts projected it could eventually be worth over billion if the company continued to grow. Tornetta alleged that Musk, as Tesla's controlling stockholder and chairman, had improperly influenced the compensation committee and the full board, and that the package was not the product of a fair, arm's-length process. In January 2024, Chancellor Kathaleen McCormick issued a landmark decision voiding the compensation package in its entirety. The court found that Musk was a controlling stockholder at the time the plan was approved, that the process by which it was negotiated and approved was deeply flawed and conflicted, and that the defendants had failed to demonstrate that the plan was entirely fair to Tesla shareholders. The decision drew international attention for its size and its implications for corporate governance of founder-controlled companies. Following the ruling, Tesla's board put the compensation package to a shareholder ratification vote in June 2024, which passed with majority support. Proceedings continued in the Court of Chancery through late 2024 as the court considered whether the post-litigation shareholder vote could cure the defects identified in the January 2024 ruling.

6. Dismissed (Settled)Tesla, Inc. v. Tripp
   Nevada District Court  Case No. 3:18-cv-00296-MMD-CLB

   Corporate EspionageGigafactoryManufacturing FraudTeslaTesla Worker RightsTrade Secret TheftWhistleblowers

   Tesla, Inc. filed this lawsuit in June 2018 in the District of Nevada against Martin Tripp, a former process technician at its Gigafactory in Sparks, Nevada. Tesla alleged that Tripp had stolen gigabytes of confidential manufacturing data and trade secrets — including information about battery production rates, scrap rates, and vehicle manufacturing processes — and leaked them to outside parties, including a journalist at Business Insider who published a story about Tesla's production problems. Tesla claimed Tripp had also written software to automatically export data from its systems and was working with short-sellers. Tripp countered that he was a whistleblower who had reported legitimate safety concerns about Tesla's manufacturing practices, including claims that battery cells with punctures and other defects were being installed in vehicles. He maintained publicly that Tesla was defrauding investors and customers and continued to make pointed public statements about Musk even after leaving the company, which led Tesla to seek an emergency court order after Tripp was accused of threatening behavior. The case proceeded through multiple years of contentious litigation, with Tripp eventually representing himself pro se from Hungary, where he had relocated. He repeatedly disputed Tesla's characterization of his motives and accused Musk and Tesla of retaliating against him for whistleblowing. The case was ultimately resolved by settlement, with Tripp agreeing to pay Tesla $400,000 — though enforcement of that amount against a defendant living abroad was widely questioned.

7. Pending (Pre-Trial)The Police and Fire Retirement System of the City of Detroit v. Elon Musk, et al.
   Court of Chancery of Delaware  Case No. 2020-0477-KSJM

   Breach of Fiduciary DutyCorporate GovernanceDelaware Court of ChanceryDirector CompensationELON MUSKExecutive CompensationShareholder Derivative SuitTeslaTesla Corruption

   The Police and Fire Retirement System of the City of Detroit filed this stockholder derivative action in June 2020 in the Delaware Court of Chancery on behalf of Tesla, Inc., alleging that the company's board of directors awarded themselves excessive and unfair compensation from 2017 through 2020. The complaint alleged that the stock option grants issued to Tesla's non-employee directors dwarfed median director compensation at other large-cap companies by more than 3,000%, and that the grants were not the product of a fair, arm's-length process because Elon Musk, as Tesla's controlling stockholder, dominated the compensation committee. The case proceeded through extensive discovery, which was contentious — the plaintiff filed multiple motions to compel after defendants withheld documents, some of which were eventually produced only after being obtained first from third parties. Internal consulting materials from Aon, which had advised Tesla's board, were among the contested documents. Chancellor Kathaleen McCormick presided over the case. The litigation was still active as of January 2025, when the court held oral argument on a motion for summary judgment or dispositive ruling. The case is separate from but thematically related to the Tornetta v. Musk litigation challenging Musk's own compensation package.

8. DecidedTesla, Inc. v. Hothi
   Superior Court of California, County of Alameda  Case No. RG19015770

   Free SpeechRestraining OrderSLAPPSocial Media CriticismTeslaWhistleblowersWorkplace Violence

   Tesla, Inc. filed this petition in April 2019 in Alameda County Superior Court seeking a workplace violence restraining order on behalf of one of its employees, Matt Cross, against Randeep Hothi, a 32-year-old Fremont resident who was a prominent critic of Tesla and Elon Musk on social media. Tesla alleged that Hothi had engaged in conduct that placed Cross in reasonable fear of violence, including following Tesla employees, surveilling Tesla facilities, and behaving in a manner that Tesla characterized as threatening. Hothi, who ran a Twitter account frequently posting skeptical analysis of Tesla's claims and operations, disputed that his conduct constituted workplace violence or that it targeted any individual employee. The case drew significant attention from Tesla critics who argued it represented an attempt by the company to use the legal system to silence a prominent vocal critic under the guise of employee protection. The court granted Tesla's petition for the restraining order. Hothi subsequently moved for attorney's fees, arguing the petition had been brought without merit and as a form of harassment. Judge Jeffrey Brand denied that motion in October 2019, finding the fee award was not warranted under the applicable standard.

9. Dismissed (Settled)Martin Eberhard v. Elon Musk et al
   Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo  Case No. CIV484400

   BillionairesBreach of ContractDefamationElectric VehiclesELON MUSKFounder DisputeSlanderTeslaWage Claim

   Martin Eberhard, co-founder of Tesla Motors and its first CEO, filed this lawsuit against Elon Musk and Tesla Motors in May 2009 in San Mateo County Superior Court. Eberhard alleged that after he was pushed out of Tesla in 2007, Musk and the company launched a coordinated campaign to defame him by publicly blaming him for Tesla's early production delays and financial difficulties, spreading false narratives about his management of the company, and attempting to rewrite the company's origin story to diminish his role as a co-founder. The complaint asserted eleven causes of action including libel, slander, breach of contract, specific performance, unpaid wages, and conversion. Eberhard had originally co-founded the company with Marc Tarpenning in 2003 and served as CEO through 2007, overseeing the development of the original Tesla Roadster. After his departure — which he alleged was effectively a forced ouster — Musk had assumed a more prominent public role and, Eberhard claimed, began making statements that falsely cast Eberhard as responsible for the company's technical and financial problems. The parties reached a confidential settlement in September 2009, less than four months after the complaint was filed. As part of the resolution, both sides agreed to treat each other with respect and to acknowledge each other's contributions to Tesla's founding.

10. DecidedIn re Tesla Inc. Securities Litigation
    California Northern District Court  Case No. 3:18-cv-04865-EMC

    BillionairesClass ActionELON MUSKFraud-On-The-Market TheoryFunding SecuredIll-Advised TweetsJury TrialLoss CausationMarket ManipulationSecurities FraudSocial MediaTeslaTesla Securities Actions

    This consolidated securities class action was filed in August 2018 in the Northern District of California arising from the same August 7, 2018 tweet by Elon Musk claiming he was "considering taking Tesla private at $420. Funding secured." Lead plaintiff investors alleged that Musk's tweet was materially false and misleading and caused Tesla's stock to trade at artificially inflated prices, injuring investors who purchased shares while the misrepresentation was in the market. The class period ran from the date of the tweet through August 17, 2018. Unlike the SEC's parallel enforcement action, which settled quickly, the investor class action proceeded to a full trial. Judge Edward M. Chen oversaw the case, which went to trial in January 2023. The trial featured dueling expert testimony on market efficiency, loss causation, and the materiality of the alleged misrepresentation. Alex Spiro of Quinn Emanuel represented Musk and Tesla. The jury deliberated and returned a verdict in favor of Musk and Tesla, finding that the defendants had not made a false statement of material fact — effectively concluding that Musk had a reasonable basis for the "funding secured" claim at the time he made it.

11. Dismissed (Voluntary)MUSK, AN INDIVIDUAL v. GREENSPAN, AN INDIVIDUAL, et al.
    Superior Court of California, County of Alameda  Case No. 23CV028370

    DefamationELON MUSKElon Musk Attacks on Free SpeechEquitable IndemnificationHardcore Litigation DepartmentLibelMalicious ProsecutionMedia CriticismPress FreedomSLAPPTesla

    Elon Musk, through counsel from Singer Cashman LLP and Tesla's in-house attorneys, filed this lawsuit in February 2023 in Alameda County Superior Court against Aaron Greenspan — the founder of PlainSite — and other defendants. The case arose from statements Greenspan had made about Musk and Tesla in connection with his ongoing investigation into the company's business practices and his public criticism of Musk. Greenspan had been a frequent and prominent critic of Tesla and Musk through PlainSite and on social media, publishing research that raised questions about Tesla's financial disclosures, production statistics, and Musk's public statements. Musk's claims appear to have sounded in defamation or similar tort theories, asserting that Greenspan's statements were false and actionable. The case was notable for the same reason as Musk's earlier litigation against Vernon Unsworth — using civil litigation as a tool against critics. Greenspan, no stranger to litigation, had himself sued Musk and Tesla in a separate federal action (Greenspan v. Qazi et al.) that was dismissed in 2022. The case drew attention given Musk's use of Tesla's own legal department to prosecute what appeared to be a personal dispute with a journalist and researcher.

12. WANG, JING vs. TESLA, INC.
    Supreme Court of the State of New York, Nassau County  Case No. 0613320/2018

    Automobile DefectElectric VehiclePersonal injuryProduct LiabilitySelf-Driving CarsTesla AutopilotTesla Model XTesla Sudden Unintended AccelerationWrongful Death

    Jing Wang and Wai-Leung Chan filed suit in October 2018 in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Nassau County, against Tesla Inc. and John and Jane Does. The case with 21 entries indicates active litigation over several years. The claims likely arise from a Tesla vehicle accident or product defect, given the naming of John and Jane Does who may represent Tesla employees or related parties involved in an incident.

13. Di-az v. Tesla, Inc.
    California Northern District Court  Case No. 3:17-cv-06748

    Civil RightsEmployment DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentRacial HarassmentStaffing Agency LiabilityTesla Worker RightsTitle VII

    Demetric Di-az, Owen Diaz, and Lamar Patterson, three Black men who worked as elevator operators at Tesla's Fremont, California factory through a staffing agency, filed this racial harassment lawsuit in November 2017 in the Northern District of California before Judge William Orrick. The plaintiffs alleged they were subjected to a relentlessly hostile work environment at the Tesla factory characterized by widespread use of racial epithets — particularly the N-word — racist caricatures in the bathrooms, racially offensive graffiti, and other degrading conduct that Tesla failed to investigate or remedy despite repeated complaints. The case went to trial. In October 2021, a jury awarded Owen Diaz $137 million — including $130 million in punitive damages — in one of the largest individual employment discrimination verdicts ever. Judge Orrick reduced the total to approximately $15 million. A second trial on damages was held in 2023, with the jury returning a verdict of approximately $3.2 million for Diaz. The case became a prominent test of corporate accountability for factory-floor racial discrimination.

14. Pending (On Appeal)Hansen v. Musk et al
    Nevada District Court  Case No. 3:19-cv-00413-LRH-CSD

    CopperDodd-Frank ActEmploymentRetaliationSecurities FraudTeslaTesla CorruptionTesla Worker RightsWhistleblowerWhistleblowers

    Karl Hansen, a former security employee at Tesla's Fremont factory, filed this whistleblower and employment retaliation lawsuit in July 2019 in the District of Nevada against Elon Musk, Tesla Motors Inc., Tesla Inc., and U.S. Securities Associates Inc. — the security contractor Tesla used at its facility — before Judge Larry Hicks. Hansen alleged that he reported suspected securities fraud and drug trafficking activities at Tesla to federal authorities, and that Tesla and Musk then retaliated against him in violation of the Dodd-Frank Act's whistleblower protection provisions. After the district court ruled against Hansen, he appealed to the Ninth Circuit. On December 10, 2024, the Ninth Circuit issued a published opinion in case number 23-15296 affirming the district court. Hansen petitioned the Supreme Court for certiorari in petition No. 24-1109, which was denied on April 25, 2025. The Supreme Court's denial leaves the Ninth Circuit's decision as final.

15. Nikola Corporation v. Tesla Incorporated
    California Northern District Court  Case No. 3:18-cv-07460-JD

    Clean EnergyDesign PatentElectric VehiclePatent InfringementTechnologyTruck

    Nikola Corporation, the electric and hydrogen fuel-cell truck startup, filed this patent infringement lawsuit in May 2018 in the Northern District of California against Tesla Incorporated before Judge James Donato, alleging that Tesla's Semi truck infringed Nikola's design patents covering the distinctive appearance of its semi-truck concepts. Nikola asserted both utility and design patents. Tesla answered and counterclaimed. The court issued a significant order to show cause in October 2021 regarding the case's status, and Nikola filed a response in October 2021. A motion for reconsideration was filed by Nikola in December 2021. The case continued into 2022. The litigation was notable given that Nikola itself was subsequently charged by the SEC and DOJ for fraud related to Nikola's founder Trevor Milton's false statements about the company's technology.

16. Tesla, Inc. v. Pascale, et al
    Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara  Case No. 20CV368472

    Automotive IndustryElectric VehicleElon Musk Companies Alleging Trade Secret TheftEmployee MisconductMisappropriationNon-CompeteTechnologyTesla Worker RightsTrade SecretTrade Secrets

    Tesla Inc. filed this trade secret and employee misconduct action in July 2020 in Santa Clara County Superior Court against Tami Pascale, Kim Wong, Jessica Siron, Carrington Bradley, Vince Pascale, and related defendants, as well as Rivian Automotive Inc. and Rivian Automotive LLC. Tesla's complaint, filed by Charis Lex PC, alleged that former Tesla employees misappropriated confidential trade secrets and proprietary information related to Tesla's manufacturing processes and took them to Rivian, Tesla's electric vehicle competitor. Rivian was represented by Latham & Watkins LLP and filed a notice and proposed order in August 2020. With 562 docket entries spanning years, this is an intensely litigated case involving detailed discovery about what each former employee took and whether Rivian benefited from it. The case reflects the fierce competition for talent and intellectual property in the electric vehicle industry.

17. Harcourt v. Tesla, Inc.
    Superior Court of California, County of Alameda  Case No. HG19019709

    Automobile DefectElectric VehiclePersonal injuryProduct LiabilityTesla Model XTesla Sudden Unintended Acceleration

    Harcourt filed a personal injury or products liability lawsuit against Tesla Inc. in a federal court. The case's single visible docket entry and the Tesla defendant are consistent with a personal injury claim arising from a Tesla vehicle, whether an automotive accident, alleged defect, or product failure. The case appears to have been resolved quickly or at an early stage.

18. Alexandro Filippini et al v. Tesla Inc
    Superior Court of California, County of Santa Barbara  Case No. 20CV01141

    Automobile DefectElectric VehiclePersonal injuryProduct LiabilityTesla AutopilotTesla Full Self-DrivingTesla Model SWrongful Death

    Alexandro Filippini and Iaian Filippini filed a personal injury lawsuit in February 2020 in Santa Barbara County Superior Court against Tesla Inc., represented by the Law Offices of Adam Zolonz in Los Angeles. The complaint, bearing case number 20CV01141, alleged personal injury claims arising from a Tesla vehicle incident. The plaintiffs alleged that Tesla's vehicle caused injuries to one or both of them. With 119 docket entries spanning from 2020 onward, the litigation proceeded through extensive discovery and motion practice over multiple years, reflecting a contested personal injury case against the electric vehicle manufacturer involving factual disputes about the vehicle's operation and the nature of the injuries.

19. Sz Huang et al v. Tesla Inc. dba Tesla Motors, Inc. et al
    Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara  Case No. 19CV346663

    Automobile DefectAutopilotHighway SafetyPersonal injuryProduct LiabilityTeslaTesla AutopilotTesla Model XWalter HuangWrongful Death

    Sz Hua Huang, along with the decedent's minor children Trinity and Tristan Huang and other family members, filed this wrongful death and personal injury action in April 2019 in Santa Clara County Superior Court against Tesla Inc. and the California Department of Transportation. The complaint was filed by the Minami Tamaki LLP and Michael Kelly's firm, alleging that Wei Lun Huang was killed when his Tesla Model X, operating on Tesla's Autopilot system, crashed into a concrete highway divider on U.S. Highway 101 in Mountain View, California on March 23, 2018 — a crash that received extensive national attention. Guardians ad litem were appointed for the minor children. The complaint named both Tesla for the defective Autopilot system and Caltrans for the deteriorated condition of the crash attenuator that the vehicle struck. With 207 docket entries, the case involved extensive discovery and expert proceedings regarding the Autopilot technology and highway design.

20. RemandedGreenspan v. Musk et al
    California Northern District Court  Case No. 3:24-cv-04647-MMC

    California Anti-SLAPP StatuteCivil RightsDefamationElonElon Musk Attacks on Free SpeechElon Musk's Illegal Vote Buying LotteryFirst AmendmentHarassmentSocial MediaTeslaTesla Securities Actions

    Aaron Greenspan, the founder of PlainSite.org, filed this lawsuit pro se in state court in 2024 against Elon Musk, Tesla Inc., X Corp., Jared Birchall (Musk's personal assistant and corporate representative), Omar Qazi (a Tesla promoter who ran the SMICK Enterprises social media account), and several of Musk's attorneys including Alex Spiro of Quinn Emanuel and Adam Cashman and Allison Huebert of Singer Cashman LLP. The case was removed to the Northern District of California and assigned to Judge Maxine Chesney. Greenspan alleged that Musk and his associates engaged in a coordinated harassment and defamation campaign against him, including directing Qazi to make false statements about Greenspan on social media. Quinn Emanuel represented Tesla, Excession LLC, and Musk's revocable trust. Qazi appeared pro se. The district court ruled against Greenspan, and he filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit in March 2026 from Covina, California. Qazi filed an opposition to Greenspan's motion for extension of time in February 2026.