Sign up for our weekly email to stay on top of the latest news and insights!
A major class-action lawsuit has been filed against Tesla in the Federal Court of Australia concerning significant safety and performance issues with its Model 3 and Model Y vehicles. The legal action, involving approximately 10,000 vehicle owners, centers on allegations of a hazardous “phantom braking” defect, misleading battery range representations, and unfulfilled promises about “Full Self-Driving” (FSD) capabilities.
Key Highlights
- A class-action lawsuit, Hansen v Tesla Motors Australia & Anor, has been filed in Australia against Tesla and its U.S. parent company.
- The primary allegation is a dangerous “phantom braking” defect in Model 3 and Model Y vehicles made since May 2021, linked to the camera-only “Tesla Vision” system.
- The suit also claims Tesla misled consumers about vehicle battery range and the actual capabilities of its “Full Self-Driving” hardware.
- The U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) found a “critical safety gap” in Tesla’s Autopilot system, adding weight to the Australian claims.
The Core Allegations
The lawsuit presents a trio of interconnected claims challenging Tesla’s core promises of safety and performance.
1. Hazardous “Phantom Braking”
The most critical complaint involves the vehicle’s Automatic Emergency Braking (AEB) system engaging suddenly and forcefully without reason, often at highway speeds. This phenomenon, dubbed “phantom braking,” creates a severe risk of rear-end collisions. The issue is allegedly linked to Tesla’s 2021 transition to its camera-only “Tesla Vision” system, which removed radar sensors and may misinterpret shadows or road infrastructure as obstacles. These incidents have been reported even when Autopilot is not active, suggesting a fundamental flaw in the vehicle’s core safety system.
2. Misleading Battery Range
The lawsuit claims the affected vehicles cannot achieve their advertised driving range. Some drivers report never reaching even 75% of the promised range, an issue allegedly known by Tesla for years. The plaintiffs argue this constitutes misleading conduct and results in tangible harm, including extra charging costs and diminished resale value.
3. Unfulfilled “Full Self-Driving” Promises
Many customers paid a premium of over AUD $5,000 for the FSD feature, believing it would enable true autonomous driving through future updates. However, the lawsuit argues the vehicle hardware is incapable of supporting this technology. This claim is supported by a recent admission from Tesla CEO Elon Musk that the Hardware 3 (HW3) computer in these cars cannot achieve unsupervised self-driving.
Global Context and Legal Precedent
The Australian case is bolstered by significant regulatory action in the United States. An investigation by the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) into hundreds of crashes concluded that Tesla’s Autopilot system had a “critical safety gap” leading to “foreseeable misuse and avoidable crashes.” This led to a recall of over 2 million vehicles in the U.S.
The Australian lawsuit is financially backed by Woodsford, a global litigation funder, on a “no win, no pay” basis, indicating a high degree of confidence in the case’s merit. The outcome of this landmark case could set a powerful precedent for how product liability laws are applied to AI-driven systems, potentially forcing greater transparency and accountability from tech manufacturers worldwide.
Subscribe Today!
Sign up for our weekly eNewsletter and get a free copy of our quarterly digital magazine.
