Tesla prevails in first Autopilot wrongful-death suit
A jury has found Tesla not at fault in a lawsuit over a 2019 wrongful death which alleged that Autopilot caused a crash, killing one passenger and seriously injuring two.
In question was the death of 37-year-old Micah Lee, who was driving a Model 3 in 2019 in Menifee, CA (in the Inland Empire to the east of Los Angeles), and hit a palm tree at approximately 65 miles per hour, causing his death and the injury of two passengers, including an 8-year-old boy. The lawsuit was brought by the passengers.
The lawsuit alleged that Tesla knowingly marketed unsafe experimental software to the public, and that safety defects within the system led to the crash (in particular, a specific steering issue that was known by Tesla). Tesla responded that the driver had consumed alcohol (the driver’s blood alcohol level was at .05%, below California’s .08% legal limit) and that the driver is still responsible for driving when Autopilot is turned on.
A survivor in the vehicle at the time of the accident claimed that Autopilot was turned on at the time of the crash.
Tesla disputed this, saying it was unclear whether Autopilot was turned on – a difference from its typical modus operandi, which involves pulling vehicle logs and stating definitively whether and when Autopilot was on or off. Though these claims have sometimes been lodged when Autopilot was disengaged moments before a crash, when avoidance was no longer possible for the driver.
After four days of deliberations, the jury decided in Tesla’s favor, with a 9-3 decision that Tesla was not culpable.
While Tesla has won an autopilot injury lawsuit before, in April of this year, this is the first resolved lawsuit that has involved a death. That last lawsuit used the same reasoning – that drivers are still responsible for what happens behind the wheel while Autopilot or Full Self-Driving are engaged (despite the name of the latter system suggesting otherwise). Full Self-Driving was not publicly available at the time of Lee’s crash, though he had purchased the system for $6,000 expecting it to be available in the future.
Both of Tesla’s autonomous systems are “level 2” on the SAE’s driving automation scale, like most other new autonomous driving systems on the market these days. Although Autopilot is intended for highway use, Tesla’s FSD system can be activated in more situations than most cars. But there is no point at which the car assumed responsibility for driving – that responsibility always lies with the driver.
Since the trial began last month, Tesla CEO Elon Musk made a notable comment during his disastrous presence on Tesla’s Q3 conference call. He was asked whether and when Tesla would accept legal liability for autonomous drive systems, as Mercedes has just started doing with its Level 3 DRIVE PILOT system, the first of its kind in the US (read about our test drive of it in LA). Musk responded saying:
Well, there’s a lot of people that assume we have legal liability judging by the lawsuits. We’re certainly not being let that off the hook on that front, whether we’d like to or wouldn’t like to.
Elon Musk, CEO, Tesla
Later in the answer, Musk called Tesla’s AI systems “baby AGI.” AGI is an acronym for “artificial general intelligence,” which is a theorized technology for when computers become good enough at all tasks to be able to replace a human in basically any situation, not just in specialized situations. In short, it’s not what Tesla has and has nothing to do with the question.
Tesla is indeed currently facing several lawsuits over injuries and deaths that have happened in its vehicles, many alleging that Autopilot or FSD are responsible. In one, Tesla tried to argue in court that Musk’s recorded statements on self-driving “might have been deep fakes.”
We also learned recently, at the release of Musk’s biography, that he wanted to use Tesla’s in-car camera to spy on drivers and win autopilot lawsuits. Though that was apparently not necessary in this case.
Electrek’s Take
Questions like the one asked in this trial are interesting and difficult to answer, because they combine the concepts of legal liability, versus marketing materials, versus public perception.
Tesla is quite clear in official communications, like in operating manuals, in the car’s software itself, and so on, that drivers are still responsible for the vehicle when using Autopilot. Drivers accept agreements as such when first turning on the system.
Or at least, I think they do, since the first time I accepted it was so long ago. And that is the rub. People are also used to accepting long agreements whenever they turn on any system or use any piece of technology, and nobody reads those. Sometimes, these terms even include legally unenforceable provisions, depending on the venue in question.
And then, in terms of public perception, marketing, and in how Tesla has deliberately named the system, there is a view that Tesla’s cars really can drive themselves. Here’s Tesla explicitly saying “the car is driving itself” in 2016.
We here at Electrek, and our readership, know the difference between all of these concepts. We know that “Full Self-Driving” was (supposedly) named that way so that people can buy it ahead of time and eventually get access to the system when it finally reaches full self-driving capability (which should happen, uh, “next year”… in any given year). We know that “Autopilot” is meant to be a reference to how it works in airplanes, where a pilot is still required in the seat to take care of tasks other than cruising steadily. We know that Tesla only has a level 2 system, and that drivers still accept legal responsibility.
But when the general public gets a hold of technology, they tend to do things that you didn’t expect. That’s why caution is generally favorable when releasing experimental things to the public (and, early on, Tesla used to do this – giving early access to new Autopilot/FSD features to trusted beta testers, before wide release).
Despite being told before activating the software, and reminded often while the software is on, that the driver must keep their hands on the wheel, we all know that drivers don’t do that. That drivers pay less attention when the system is activated than when it isn’t. Studies have shown this, as well.
And so, while the jury found (probably correctly) that Tesla is not liable here, and while this is perhaps a good reminder to all Tesla drivers to keep paying attention to the road while you have Autopilot/FSD on, you are still driving, so act like it, we still think there is room for discussion about Tesla doing a better job of ensuring attention (for example, it just rolled out a driver attention monitoring feature using the cabin camera, six years after it started including those cameras in the Model 3).
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
Robinhood stock hit an all-time high Friday as the financial services platform continued to rip higher this year, along with bitcoin and other crypto stocks.
Robinhood, up more than 160% in 2025, hit an intraday high above $101 before pulling back and closing slightly lower.
The reversal came after a Bloomberg report that JPMorgan plans to start charging fintechs for access to customer bank data, a move that could raise costs across the industry.
For fintech firms that rely on thin margins to offer free or low-cost services to customers, even slight disruptions to their cost structure can have major ripple effects. PayPal and Affirm both ended the day nearly 6% lower following the report.
Despite its stellar year, the online broker is facing several headwinds, with a regulatory probe in Florida, pushback over new staking fees and growing friction with one of the world’s most high-profile artificial intelligence companies.
Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier opened a formal investigation into Robinhood Crypto on Thursday, alleging the platform misled users by claiming to offer the lowest-cost crypto trading.
“Robinhood has long claimed to be the best bargain, but we believe those representations were deceptive,” Uthmeier said in a statement.
The probe centers on Robinhood’s use of payment for order flow — a common practice where market makers pay to execute trades — which the AG said can result in worse pricing for customers.
Robinhood Crypto General Counsel Lucas Moskowitz told CNBC its disclosures are “best-in-class” and that it delivers the lowest average cost.
“We disclose pricing information to customers during the lifecycle of a trade that clearly outlines the spread or the fees associated with the transaction, and the revenue Robinhood receives,” added Moskowitz.
Robinhood is also facing opposition to a new 25% cut of staking rewards for U.S. users, set to begin October 1. In Europe, the platform will take a smaller 15% cut.
Staking allows crypto holders to earn yield by locking up their tokens to help secure blockchain networks like ethereum, but platforms often take a percentage of those rewards as commission.
Robinhood’s 25% cut puts it in line with Coinbase, which charges between 25.25% and 35% depending on the token. The cut is notably higher than Gemini’s flat 15% fee.
It marks a shift for the company, which had previously steered clear of staking amid regulatory uncertainty.
Under President Joe Biden‘s administration, the Securities and Exchange Commission cracked down on U.S. platforms offering staking services, arguing they constituted unregistered securities.
With President Donald Trump in the White House, the agency has reversed course on several crypto enforcement actions, dropping cases against major players like Coinbase and Binance and signaling a more permissive stance.
Even as enforcement actions ease, Robinhood is under fresh scrutiny for its tokenized stock push, which is a growing part of its international strategy.
The company now offers blockchain-based assets in Europe that give users synthetic exposure to private firms like OpenAI and SpaceX through special purpose vehicles, or SPVs.
An SPV is a separate entity that acquires shares in a company. Users then buy tokens of the SPV and don’t have shareholder privileges or voting rights directly in the company.
OpenAI has publicly objected, warning the tokens do not represent real equity and were issued without its approval. In an interview with CNBC International, CEO Vlad Tenev acknowledged the tokens aren’t technically equity shares, but said that misses the broader point.
“What’s important is that retail customers have an opportunity to get exposure to this asset,” he said, pointing to the disruptive nature of AI and the historically limited access to pre-IPO companies.
“It is true that these are not technically equity,” Tenev added, noting that institutional investors often gain similar exposure through structured financial instruments.
The Bank of Lithuania — Robinhood’s lead regulator in the EU — told CNBC on Monday that it is “awaiting clarifications” following OpenAI’s statement.
“Only after receiving and evaluating this information will we be able to assess the legality and compliance of these specific instruments,” a spokesperson said, adding that information for investors must be “clear, fair, and non-misleading.”
Tenev responded that Robinhood is “happy to continue to answer questions from our regulators,” and said the company built its tokenized stock program to withstand scrutiny.
“Since this is a new thing, regulators are going to want to look at it,” he said. “And we expect to be scrutinized as a large, innovative player in this space.”
SEC Chair Paul Atkins recently called the model “an innovation” on CNBC’s Squawk Box, offering some validation as Robinhood leans further into its synthetic equity strategy — even as legal clarity remains in flux across jurisdictions.
Despite the regulatory noise, many investors remain focused on Robinhood’s upside, and particularly the political tailwinds.
The company is positioning itself as a key beneficiary of Trump’s newly signed megabill, which includes $1,000 government-seeded investment accounts for newborns. Robinhood said it’s already prototyping an app for the ‘Trump Accounts‘ initiative.
WATCH: Watch CNBC’s full interview with Robinhood CEO Vlad Tenev
Korean auto giants Hyundai and Kia think lower-priced EVs will help minimize the blow from the new US auto tariffs. Hyundai is set to unveil a new entry-level electric car soon, which will be sold alongside the Kia EV2. Will it be the IONIQ 2?
Hyundai and Kia shift to lower-priced EVs
Hyundai and Kia already offer some of the most affordable and efficient electric vehicles on the market, with models like the IONIQ 5 and EV6.
In Europe, Korea, Japan, and other overseas markets, Hyundai sells the Inster EV (sold as the Casper Electric in Korea), an electric city car. The Inster EV starts at about $27,000 (€23,900), but Hyundai will soon offer another lower-priced EV, similar to the upcoming Kia EV2.
The Inster EV is seeing strong initial demand in Europe and Japan. According to a local report (via Newsis), demand for the Casper Electric is so high that buyers are waiting over a year for delivery.
Hyundai is doubling down with plans to introduce an even more affordable EV, rumored to be the IONIQ 2. Xavier Martinet, CEO of Hyundai Motor Europe, said during a recent interview that “The new electric vehicle will be unveiled in the next few months.”
The new EV is expected to be a compact SUV, which will likely resemble the upcoming Kia EV2. Kia will launch the EV2 in Europe and other global regions in 2026.
Hyundai is keeping most details under wraps, but the expected IONIQ 2 is likely to sit below the Kona Electric as a smaller city EV.
More affordable electric cars are on the way
Although nothing is confirmed, it’s expected to be priced at around €30,000 ($35,000), or slightly less than the Kia EV3.
The Kia EV3 starts at €35,990 in Europe and £33,005 in the UK, or about $42,000. Through the first half of the year, Kia’s compact electric SUV is the UK’s most popular EV.
Like the Hyundai IONIQ models and Kia’s other electric vehicles, the EV3 is based on the E-GMP platform. It’s available with two battery packs: 58.3 kWh or 81.48 kWh, providing a WLTP range of up to 430 km (270 miles) and 599 km (375 miles), respectively.
Hyundai is expected to reveal the new EV at the IAA Mobility show in Munich in September. Meanwhile, Kia is working on a smaller electric car to sit below the EV2 that could start at under €25,000 ($30,000).
According to the report, Hyundai and Kia are doubling down on lower-priced EVs to balance potential losses from the new US auto tariffs.
Despite opening its new EV manufacturing plant in Georgia to boost local production, Hyundai is still expected to expand sales in other regions. An industry insider explained, “Considering the risk of US tariffs, Hyundai’s move to target the European market with small electric vehicles is a natural strategy.”
Although Hyundai is expanding in other markets, it remains a leading EV brand in the US. The IONIQ 5 remains a top-selling EV with over 19,000 units sold through June.
After delivering the first IONIQ 9 models in May, Hyundai reported that over 1,000 models had been sold through the end of June, its three-row electric SUV.
While the $7,500 EV tax credit is still here, Hyundai is offering generous savings with leases for the 2025 IONIQ 5 starting as low as $179 per month. The three-row IONIQ 9 starts at just $419 per month. And Hyundai is even throwing in a free ChargePoint Home Flex Level 2 charger if you buy or lease either model.
Unfortunately, we likely won’t see the entry-level EV2 or IONIQ 2 in the US. However, Kia is set to launch its first electric sedan, the EV4, in early 2026.
Ready to take advantage of the savings while they are still here? You can use our links below to find deals on Hyundai and Kia EV models in your area.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
As EVBox shuts down its Everon business across Europe and North America, EV charging provider Blink Charging is stepping up to offer support to customers caught in the transition.
EVBox’s software arm Everon recently announced it’s winding down operations alongside EVBox’s AC charger business. That’s left a lot of charging station hosts and drivers wondering what comes next. Now, EVBox Everon is pointing its customers toward Blink as a recommended alternative.
Blink says it’s ready to help, whether that means keeping existing chargers up and running or replacing aging gear with new Blink chargers.
“EVBox has played a significant role in the growth of EV charging infrastructure across the UK and Mainland Europe, and we recognize the trust hosts have placed in its solutions,” said Alex Calnan, Blink Charging’s managing director of Europe. “With the recent announcement of Everon’s withdrawal from the EV charging market, it’s natural to have questions about what this means for operations. At Blink, we want to assure Everon customers that we are here to help them navigate this transition.”
Blink says it’s able to offer advice, replacements, and ongoing network management to make the changeover as smooth as possible.
Everon users who switch to Blink will get access to the Blink Network portal via the Blink Charging app. That opens up real-time insight into charger usage and lets hosts set pricing, manage users, and download performance reports.
“At Blink, our charging technology is future-ready,” added Calnan. “With advancements like vehicle-to-grid technology on the horizon, our chargers are built to support the future of electric vehicles and charging habits.”
The company says its chargers are in stock and ready to ship now for any Everon customers looking to make the jump.
In October 2024, France’s Engie announced it would liquidate the entire EVBox group, which it said posted total losses of €800 million since Engie took over in 2017. EVBox is closing its operations in the Netherlands, Germany, and the US.
The 30% federal solar tax credit is ending this year. If you’ve ever considered going solar, now’s the time to act. To make sure you find a trusted, reliable solar installer near you that offers competitive pricing, check out EnergySage, a free service that makes it easy for you to go solar. It has hundreds of pre-vetted solar installers competing for your business, ensuring you get high-quality solutions and save 20-30% compared to going it alone. Plus, it’s free to use, and you won’t get sales calls until you select an installer and share your phone number with them.
Your personalized solar quotes are easy to compare online and you’ll get access to unbiased Energy Advisors to help you every step of the way. Get started here.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
-
Sports3 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports1 year agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports2 years agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports2 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Sports2 years agoButton battles heat exhaustion in NASCAR debut
-
Environment2 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment2 years agoGame-changing Lectric XPedition launched as affordable electric cargo bike