Connect with us

Published

on

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.

Continue Reading

Environment

California announces lawsuit to resist Congress’ illegal attacks on clean air

Published

on

By

California announces lawsuit to resist Congress' illegal attacks on clean air

California will go to court to protect its clean air in the face of illegal attacks by republicans in Congress, said California Governor Gavin Newsom today.

Earlier today, the US Senate voted to revoke California’s waiver to set its own clean air rules using the Congressional Review Act (CRA). The House previously voted on a similar measure earlier this month.

For more than half a century, California has asked for and been granted this waiver that allows it to set its own emissions rules. Other states can follow California’s rules (and around 11 states do so, though that amount differs for each rule), as long as they do so exactly, and as long as those rules are stronger than the national ones.

It has this unique authority because California had its own Clean Air Act before the federal Clean Air Act was passed, and because the state had a unique problem with smog at the time and needed stricter rules than the rest of the country. So a carveout was made in the federal law in recognition of this, and California has been granted this waiver over 100 times after following proper rulemaking processes, and denied zero times.

Advertisement – scroll for more content

California’s clean air laws have been effective in reducing pollution, with vehicle-based pollutants dropping by 98% in the last 50 years. But of course, there’s still more to be done, as the LA area remains one of the smoggiest in the country due to factors including geography, high car dependency, heavy shipping traffic, and a lack of public transitt.

Despite the protestations of industry at the time and since, these rules have not made it impossible for them to operate, or sell cars, or profit from selling cars, in California or any other states that follow its rules.

California’s newest set of rules is set to save Californians, and the residents of other states who follow them, hundreds of billions of dollars on health, fuel, and maintenance costs through 2050 by encouraging electrification – and of course will save thousands of lives due to pollution reductions.

Republicans targeted not just California’s regulation on light duty vehicles (ACC II), but also some other truck emissions rules (the ACT and HD low-NOx Omnibus rules), with their CRA action today.

The problem is, Congress does not have the power to revoke this waiver, because that’s not how the CRA works.

The CRA is an until-recently rarely-used Act which allows Congress to disapprove of recent rules set by a federal government agency, and bar that agency from implementing similar rules.

However, California’s waiver is not a rule from a federal government agency, it’s a waiver from the EPA to let California set its own rules. Therefore, the CRA doesn’t apply, as acknowledged by the Senate Parliamentarian, the Government Accountability Office, manymany other legal observers, and even Congress itself, where Senator Mike Lee voted to rescind the waiver, despite saying clearly that it “cannot be reviewed under the Congressional Review Act (CRA).”

It’s also outside the 60 day window allowed for review by the CRA. Stack another violation of law on top of the first one.

So, today’s action by Congress is illegal, and California is now going to court to stop it.

California announces lawsuit to protect clean air

Hot on the heels of republicans declaring their desire to raise health and fuel costs for Americans, and their opposition to clean air, California Governor Gavin Newsom came out with a response, committing to taking the issue to court, as California has done (and won) in the face of previous republican attacks on clean air.

Gov. Newsom declared his opposition to the republican plan to “Make America Smoggy Again” today, saying:

“This Senate vote is illegal. Republicans went around their own parliamentarian to defy decades of precedent. We won’t stand by as Trump Republicans make America smoggy again — undoing work that goes back to the days of Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan — all while ceding our economic future to China. We’re going to fight this unconstitutional attack on California in court.”

-California Governor Gavin Newsom

California Attorney General Rob Bonta also spoke at the press conference, saying:

“With these votes, Senate Republicans are bending the knee to President Trump once again. The weaponization of the Congressional Review Act to attack California’s waivers is just another part of the continuous, partisan campaign against California’s efforts to protect the public and the planet from harmful pollution. As we have said before, this reckless misuse of the Congressional Review Act is unlawful, and California will not stand idly by. We need to hold the line on strong emissions standards and keep the waivers in place, and we will sue to defend California’s waivers.”

In its press release, the California Governor’s Office pointed to the decades of precedent upholding California’s waiver, which is protected by the Clean Air Act. It also pointed out that the California Air Resources Board was established under Governor Ronald Reagan, and waivers were first granted by President Richard Nixon.

Both of these individuals are republicans, though from a time before the party had fallen quite so far down the rabbit hole of openly wishing harm on Americans.

California goes on to talk about how Congress’ actions make driving less affordable by raising fuel and health costs, hand over the keys to the auto industry to China by slowing down the US auto industry’s transition to EVs, and harm the climate leadership of California, the most productive state and the 4th largest economy in the world, which has grown by 78% since the year 2000 while cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 20% since then.

California did not yet file the lawsuit, merely stated its intent to do so today. But courts have ruled in favor of California many times in the past in cases related to its authority to protect its own air, most recently doing so in December.

Clean air groups also offered their support for California’s lawsuit. The Environmental Defense Fund said:

“We stand with California’s leaders in protecting the health and safety of millions of people from harmful vehicle pollution. The state’s clean air standards for new cars and trucks protect children’s lungs and the communities where they grow up from smog and soot. They help farmers, builders, and others who work outdoors breathe easier. They reduce the climate pollution that fuels deadly wildfires, droughts, and other disasters. They save hard-earned money at the pump — and they save thousands and thousands of lives”

-Vickie Patton, General Counsel, Environmental Defense Fund

While the EDF did not yet join the lawsuit (as it hasn’t been filed), a number of nonprofits joined another California lawsuit against an illegal freeze on charging funds today, so we may expect future comment from the groups involved in that lawsuit.


On another note, republicans took action to cut the rooftop solar credit today. That means you could have only until the end of this year to install rooftop solar on your home, before republicans raise the cost of doing so by an average of ~$10,000. So if you want to go solar, get started now, because these things take time and the system needs to be active before you file for the credit.

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. – ad*

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Continue Reading

Environment

Tesla Model Y compared to ‘Tesla killer’ Xiaomi YU7: it’s not even close

Published

on

By

Tesla Model Y compared to 'Tesla killer' Xiaomi YU7: it's not even close

Here we compare the specs of the new Tesla Model Y (Chinese version) to the newly unveiled Xiaomi YU7, a vehicle dubbed the ‘Tesla killer’.

For years, we laughed at people using the term ‘Tesla killer’ for new electric vehicles. To this day, even as Tesla’s sales are declining, it’s a bit dumb to use the term since no single EV is going to “kill” Tesla.

However, there’s one that is as close to do it as we have seen so far.

Earlier this year, we reported on how Xiaomi’s first electric vehicle, the SU7, had a major negative impact on Tesla’s Model 3 sales in China.

Advertisement – scroll for more content

At the time, we reported that the bigger concern for Tesla was that the Chinese electronics giant was now planning to launch a new EV, the YU7, aimed at competing against Tesla’s popular Model Y.

The Xiaomi YU7 was unveiled today, and we can now provide a side-by-side specs comparison that highlights Tesla’s problem in China.

Tesla Model Y vs Xiaomi YU7

The only thing that is missing about the YU7 as of the time of writing is the price, but it is expected to be very similar to Model Y and even likely to undercut by a bit.

Specs Tesla Model Y RWD Tesla Model Y Long Range AWD Xiaomi YU7 Standard (RWD) Xiaomi YU7 Pro (AWD) Xiaomi YU7 Max (AWD)
Launch Date January 2025 January 2025 July 2025 (expected) July 2025 (expected) July 2025 (expected)
Price (CNY) ¥263,500 ¥303,500 ~¥250,000 (est.) Not announced Not announced
Price (USD) ~$36,600 ~$42,200 ~$34,700 (est.) Not announced Not announced
Dimensions (L x W x H) 4,797 x 1,920 x 1,624 mm 4,797 x 1,920 x 1,624 mm 4,999 x 1,996 x 1,600 mm 4,999 x 1,996 x 1,600 mm 4,999 x 1,996 x 1,600 mm
Wheelbase 2,890 mm 2,890 mm 3,000 mm 3,000 mm 3,000 mm
Weight 1,921 kg 1,992 kg Not specified 2,405 kg 2,405 kg
Powertrain Single motor RWD Dual motor AWD Single motor RWD Dual motor AWD Dual motor AWD
Power Output Not specified (est. 200-250 kW) Not specified (est. 350-400 kW) 235 kW (315 hp) 508 kW (681 hp) 508 kW (681 hp)
0-100 km/h 5.9 s 4.3 s 5.8 s 4.3 s ~3.2 s
Top Speed 201 km/h 201 km/h 240 km/h 253 km/h 253 km/h
Battery Type LFP NMC LFP LFP Li-ion ternary (CATL)
Battery Capacity ~62.5 kWh ~80 kWh 96.3 kWh 96.3 kWh ~101.7 kWh
Range (CLTC) 593 km 719 km 835 km 750 km 760 km
Charging Architecture 400V 400V 800V 800V 800V
Seating Capacity 5 (7 optional) 5 (7 optional) 5 5 5
Key Features – Updated design – Rear seat touchscreen – FSD-capable – Same as RWD – Higher performance – Panoramic HUD – HyperOS – Larger cabin – Same as Standard – Higher performance – Top-tier performance – Premium interior (assumed)
Autonomous Driving FSD with AI4 computer FSD with AI4 computer Nvidia Thor chip (700 TOPS) Nvidia Thor chip (700 TOPS) Nvidia Thor chip (700 TOPS)

These specs show that the vehicles are extremely similar. The main difference is that Xiaomi packs a lot more batteries into the YU7 than Tesla puts into the Model Y, resulting in a significant difference in range.

To be fair to Tesla, it still dominates in efficiency as it does more with fewer batteries, which is an important skill to have. However, most customers don’t care about that and want a longer range. They don’t care how you make it happen.

Another big difference is the design.

As we previously reported, the Tesla Model Y design refresh looks similar to other Chinese EVs.

Based on the online reception, the Model Y is viewed as having a more tired design that is not as luxurious as the YU7.

That’s particularly true of the exteriors.

It’s a similar situation in the interior, but Xiaomi also outshines Tesla here with more technology, like display along the dash:

Both vehicles feature a large center display where most of the controls are located.

Electrek’s Take

I think Tesla is in trouble in China. The competition is impressive and there are vehicles that clearly directly target Model Y, Tesla’s bread and butter, and there’s no better example than this one.

The only thing missing is pricing, but if it’s priced as expected, which is like the SU7 to the Model 3, it will make it a no-brainer for most buyers.

Also, Xiaomi often gets mentioned as a ‘Tesla killer’ because the vehicles are not only ultra competitive with Tesla, but it is also producing them in high volumes.

SU7 outsold the Model 3 within a year of launching. The YU7 is coming to market within the next 2 months, and it should reach impressive volumes that are going to put pressure on Tesla’s Model Y sales by the end of the year.

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Continue Reading

Environment

Top $TRUMP holders head to crypto dinner with president that Democrats call ‘orgy of corruption’

Published

on

By

Top $TRUMP holders head to crypto dinner with president that Democrats call 'orgy of corruption'

Jonathan Raa | Nurphoto | Getty Images

Nick Pinto is a marketing director at his family’s law firm in New Jersey. He’s also a crypto trader who spent enough money on Donald Trump’s meme coin to win a spot at a private black-tie dinner with the president scheduled for Thursday night.

“I was kind of early in bitcoin and ethereum, so I’ve always been trading crypto,” said the 25-year-old Pinto, who claims he finished number 72 on the leaderboard for the token contest. “Once I saw the announcement that Trump was releasing a coin, I immediately started to purchase it.”

Pinto said in an interview that he spent half a million dollars on the $TRUMP meme token in order to attend the dinner, which is being held at President Trump’s private golf club in Potomac Falls, Virginia, near Washington, D.C. Pinto shared screenshots with CNBC that appear to back up his claim.

The $TRUMP coin, which has no attached asset or underlying value, was launched just ahead of the president’s inauguration in January and has drawn heavy scrutiny from Democratic lawmakers who say President Trump is profiting from his position of power.

The dinner was announced last month and promised to reward the top 220 token owners with “the most exclusive invitation in the world.” The top 25 finishers were also told they would get a private reception with the president, as well as a “special VIP tour.”

President Trump hosts meme coin megadonors amid conflict of interest claims

Democratic senators called the competition a blatant example of “‘pay to play’ corruption” — the coin jumped 50% after the dinner announcement. Earlier this week, the Senate advanced a Trump-backed crypto regulation bill called the GENIUS Act after getting enough Democratic support to clear a potential filibuster.

Guests for Thursday night’s dinner were required to complete a background check, according to a copy of the invitation viewed by CNBC. Attendees were instructed not to arrive before 5:30 p.m., with the dinner starting at 7 p.m. and expected to last three hours.

Pinto doesn’t know what his investment in $TRUMP will get him other than the dinner. He said he thinks the tokens will be usable in a digital Trump golf game that was announced in December and is expected to launch next month, according to a press release.

“There’s a few things that I want to ask him,” Pinto said. “I definitely want to find out if he’s going to want to use this coin in the game. That’s probably my top question, because not many people know about that game.”

The Trump coin team didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

Because crypto wallets are pseudonymous, most participants in the competition appeared only as three- to four-letter usernames linked to cryptographic wallet addresses. Many of the winners are tied to international exchanges, according to blockchain analytics firm Inca Digital, raising concern that non-Americans may be paying for the opportunity to try and influence the U.S. president.  

While Pinto is going public about his participation, most of the identities tied to top wallets are unknown. Blockchain data shows that a majority of the top entrants used offshore exchanges barred to U.S. residents. An analysis by Bloomberg revealed that 19 of the top 25 wallets, and more than half of the top 220, are almost certainly owned by individuals operating outside the U.S.

The competition drew an estimated $148 million in purchases from supporters around the world, a massive fundraising haul for a digital asset launched just months ago. Among those attending is Justin Sun, the Chinese-born founder of the TRON blockchain, who confirmed this week that he is the contest’s top-ranked investor.

At current prices, Sun’s stake in $TRUMP is now worth more than $20 million. Sun was also one of the first major backers of World Liberty Financial, the Trump family’s crypto venture, buying at least $75 million of its native token “WLFI.”

In 2023, U.S. regulators accused Sun of illegally selling unregistered securities and artificially inflating token prices. A month into Trump’s second White House term, a federal court filing showed the SEC was in settlement talks with Sun to resolve the civil fraud charges.

Trump hosts exclusive gala for meme coin holders as lawmakers raise ethics concerns

Final leaderboard

MemeCore, a Singapore-based crypto network that was vocal in its quest to secure a spot at the Trump dinner, landed in second place with an investment of around $19.7 million, according to a post on X that the company later deleted. MemeCore didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

Some buyers didn’t make the cut.

Freight Technologies, a Houston-based logistics company, said it spent $2 million on $TRUMP tokens as part of what it called a strategic push to “champion fair and free trade” across the U.S.-Mexico border. The company still finished in 250th place. Freight trades on the Nasdaq as a penny stock and has a market cap of about $6.5 million.

The final leaderboard was calculated using a time-weighted formula that factored in both the size and duration of each participant’s holdings. That means early buyers who held onto their tokens consistently, like Pinto, could outrank bigger last-minute spenders.

Investors in $TRUMP, like with other meme coins, have to be prepared for big ups and downs.

Immediately after its launch in January, the Trump coin spiked to a $15 billion market cap before crashing within days. It’s currently worth about $2.1 billion.

That volatility has created stark winners and losers. Blockchain data shows that more than $5.2 billion in profits flowed to the top wallets, while over 590,000 wallets — mostly small retail traders — collectively lost nearly $4 billion.

Since January, more than $324 million in trading fees have been routed to wallets tied to the project’s creators, according to Chainalysis. The token’s code automatically directs a cut of each transaction to these addresses, allowing the team to profit from ongoing activity. The blockchain analytics firm stopped tracking the president’s meme token about two weeks ago, citing a need to refocus resources on paying clients.

The Trump family has reaped enormous financial benefit. Roughly 75% of proceeds from World Liberty Financial and more than 80% of profits from the meme coin have gone directly to the Trump Organization and affiliated entities. The project has also generated hundreds of millions of dollars in trading fees.

Senator Chris Murphy, D-Conn., has introduced legislation that would ban sitting presidents from profiting off meme coins while in office.

In a press conference hours before the dinner, Murphy warned that “just because the corruption is playing out in public where everybody can see, it doesn’t mean that it isn’t rampant, rapacious corruption.” He called tonight’s event “maybe the most corrupt, of all of the corruption.”

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., went further, describing the gathering as “an orgy of corruption” and accusing Trump of using the presidency “to make himself richer through crypto.” She called for changes to the GENIUS Act that would bar any president from profiting off stablecoin ventures.

With Republicans in control of both chambers of Congress, Democrats have limited ability to force action.

In response to CNBC’s questions about the dinner, Deputy White House Press Secretary Anna Kelly said, “The president is working to secure good deals for the American people, not for himself,” adding that he “only acts in the best interests of the American public.”

Pinto, who paid $500,000 for his invitation and still holds most of his tokens, said the risk is worth it.

“I didn’t put in more than I’m willing to lose,” he said. “I’m fine if it goes to zero.”

WATCH: Bitcoin surges to new record high above $111,000: CNBC Crypto World

Bitcoin surges to new record high above $111,000: CNBC Crypto World

Continue Reading

Trending