News
Consumer Reports urges Tesla to disable Autopilot steering
Consumer Reports has publicly called on Tesla to disable the automatic steering portion of Autopilot in the wake of the fatal accident that took the like of Joshua Brown. Tesla’s Autopilot allows the vehicle to automatically steer, accelerate and brake when navigating highways with lane markings. It should be deactivated “until it can be reprogrammed to require drivers to keep their hands on the steering wheel,” says the consumer watchdog organization.
The editors of Consumer Reports say the name Autopilot is “misleading and potentially dangerous.” They want Tesla to block its automatic steering technology, overhaul it, and rename it. Laura MacCleery, vice president of consumer policy and mobilization for Consumer Reports, said in a statement that self-driving systems “could make our roads safer” eventually, “but today, we’re deeply concerned that consumers are being sold a pile of promises about unproven technology.”
That’s quite a reversal for an organization that tested a Tesla with Autopilot last October and reported that is “worked quite well,” given its limitations.
Tesla and Elon Musk are sticking to their guns. “Tesla is constantly introducing enhancements proven over millions of miles of internal testing to ensure that drivers supported by Autopilot remain safer than those operating without assistance,” Tesla said in a statement on July 14. “We will continue to develop, validate, and release those enhancements as the technology grows. While we appreciate well meaning advice from any individual or group, we make our decisions on the basis of real world data, not speculation by media.”
At issue are the length of time the car will continue to drive in semi-autonomous mode even when the system detects no hand on the wheel and how the system alerts drivers that it is time for them to resume direct control of the car. In a recent crash involving a Model X driving on a twisty road in Montana, the company says there was no hand on the wheel for more than 2 minutes. The car was traveling at 60 miles an hour, which means it went more than 2 miles with no human input. The driver says he was unaware the car was directing him to take control because his native language is Mandarin, not English.
Also, some drivers report they were unaware the system had handed back control to them, leaving them responsible for driving the car. Ambiguity is not in anyone’s best interests when it comes to driving a motor vehicle.
“Tesla Autopilot functions like the systems that airplane pilots use when conditions are clear,” Tesla said. “The driver is still responsible for, and ultimately in control of, the car. This is enforced with onboard monitoring and alerts. To further ensure drivers remain aware of what the car does and does not see, Tesla Autopilot also provides intuitive access to the information the car is using to inform its actions.” Some drivers feel that “intuitive access” is less successful that it could be. That’s an area that Tesla could address fairly easily by making warnings clearer and less ambiguous.
Consumer Reports’ suggestion seems more than a little over the top. Still, Tesla has to tread carefully here. Rumor and innuendo can have a strongly negative effect on consumer opinions. Some people may remember the maelstrom surrounding the Audi 5000 sudden unintended acceleration situation that happened some time ago. 60 Minutes got involved and people started calling it a “death car.” Audi sales plummeted and it almost went out of business.
There are hundreds of thousands of motor vehicle accidents every year on America’s roads. Few ever garner any media attention. Why is this one crash causing such a commotion? “If it bleeds, it leads,” is a popular expression it the news business and the media have been quick to make a cause célèbre out of Brown’s death.
Elon is not easily dissuaded from his chosen course. But there is ample evidence to suggest that human drivers are not as alert and tech savvy as perhaps the company assumes they are. The trick is to satisfy any safety concerns without stripping the Autopilot system of its life saving features. Ultimately, the question comes down to whether the death of one driver should be an excuse for failing to protect hundreds if not thousands of other drivers from injury or death.
Elon Musk flew under the radar with his recent purchase of a $1 billion energy company, according to Federal Trade Commission (FTC) documents.
Transaction number 202612350 listed Tesla and SpaceX frontman Elon Musk as the acquiring party and CF APR Super Holdings LLC as the seller, with New APR Energy, LLC as the acquired entity. The deal, which closed without public announcement, came to light on May 14.
BREAKING: Elon Musk acquires Jacksonville power company APR Energy in a deal valued at more than $1,000,000,000.00.
— Polymarket Money (@PolymarketMoney) July 15, 2026
Analysts inferred the deal’s scale from minority stakeholder disclosures, including one report of a 5 percent interest sold for approximately $50.4 million. Fortress Investment Group had purchased APR’s assets in late 2024, rebranded the operation as New APR Energy, and subsequently transferred ownership to Musk.
APR Energy specializes in rapidly deployable power infrastructure. The company maintains one of the world’s largest fleets of mobile gas and diesel turbines, with more than 1.1 gigawatts of generation capacity. Its modular units, which are often trailer-mounted, enable turnkey installations ranging from 20 MW to over 500 MW.
APR provides full engineering, procurement, construction, operation, and maintenance services for behind-the-meter power plants, serving everything from data centers, utilities, and industrial clients.
The firm has expanded aggressively to meet surging demand, recently adding turbines and deploying over 100 MW for a major AI hyperscaler. Its solutions bridge critical gaps where grid interconnections face delays of two to five years, according to Yahoo.
The acquisition means something more for Musk. As he continues to expand projects in artificial intelligence, especially xAI, his AI venture, there is a greater need to supply energy-intensive supercomputing clusters, including the Colossus project, with what they need: reliable and high-capacity power.
Ownership of APR provides immediate access to flexible generation assets that can be deployed adjacent to data centers, reducing dependence on a strained infrastructure. It also complements Tesla’s energy storage business, so Musk will be able to pull from his own entities to address the rapid scaling demands of AI training and compute.
Tesla had a petition protesting a recall to fix a potential issue with 2017-2023 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles’ headlights was denied, as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) disagreed with the company’s opinion of things.
The recall covers approximately 19,917 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles built from 2017 to 2023. Tesla initially submitted a noncompliance report for the headlights on these vehicles on March 15, 2024. Tesla then petitioned for an exemption from the fix, which violated FMVSS No. 108 (40 CFR 571.108), arguing that the “noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
🚨 Tesla was denied a petition by the NHTSA to avoid a recall of 19,900 2017-2023 Model 3 and Model Y vehicles.
The NHTSA found that the vehicles’ headlights may exceed maximum lighting levels. Tesla argued it was inconsequential and did not require a recall. pic.twitter.com/m8Jmm1teLL
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 16, 2026
The NHTSA disagreed, stating that Tesla’s conclusion that the headlights do not increase any risk was not an opinion it shared. The agency said it disagreed with Tesla’s assumption that glare is not increased to surrounding traffic. This issue could be highlighted even more in certain weather conditions.
Tesla will be required to remedy the issue, the NHTSA ruled:
“In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that Tesla has not met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 108 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Tesla’s petition is hereby denied, and Tesla is consequently obligated to provide notification of and free remedy for that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.”
The issue here appears to be the angle of the headlights and the brightness they emit during operation. The NHTSA report states that:
“Tesla’s headlamp supplier, Marelli Automotive Lighting, tested 25 right-hand and 25 left-hand lamps, and for this sample, found the maximum photometric intensity measured in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone was between 136.2 cd and 230.1 cd for the right-hand lamps and between 117.5 cd and 160.3 cd for the left-hand lamps. According to Tesla, these tests revealed that the photometric intensity of the right-hand and left-hand headlamp lower beam on the subject vehicles may measure as much as 230.1 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone, exceeding the maximum photometric intensity by 105.1 cd. Additionally, Tesla states that a left-hand lamp tested by a Transport Canada recognized laboratory measured a maximum of 171.27 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone. Despite these measurements exceeding the allowed photometric maximum of 125 cd, Tesla believes that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.”
Tesla also argued at some points that the headlights had not been deemed responsible for any complaints, accidents, or injuries related to the noncompliance.
Lifestyle
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
The NTSB confirmed the driver, not Tesla’s FSD, caused the fatal Texas house crash.
The National Transportation Safety Board released preliminary findings Wednesday confirming that a Tesla driver, not the vehicle’s software, caused a fatal crash in Katy, Texas in June. The driver, 44-year-old Michael Butler, had engaged Full Self-Driving Supervised mode on Rose Hollow Lane, a residential street with a 30 mph speed limit, before manually overriding the system by pressing the accelerator pedal all the way to 100%. Data recovered from the 2025 Tesla Model 3 showed the vehicle was traveling over 70 miles per hour when it struck a home and killed 76-year-old Martha Avila, who was inside. Weather was clear, the road was dry, and it was daylight.
Texas man charged in fatal Tesla crash where he blamed Autopilot
Butler told authorities he had passed out at the wheel. But security camera footage obtained by the NTSB told a different story, and showed the car accelerating through an intersection before leaving the road entirely. Police also found that Butler’s phone had Google searches including the terms “Tesla FSD not aggressive enough 2026” and “Tesla FSD too timid,” raising serious questions about how he was using the system before the crash. Butler has since been charged with manslaughter. The victim’s family has filed a lawsuit against both Butler and Tesla, alleging negligence.
The NTSB findings aligned directly with what Tesla VP of AI Software Ashok Elluswamy had already stated publicly on X in the weeks after the crash, writing that “the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100%.” The data confirmed his account.
Yup. In this case, the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100% of the accel pedal in this residential area. They reached a speed of 73 mph during the crash, and had the accelerator pressed even after the crash.
— Ashok Elluswamy (@aelluswamy) June 22, 2026
Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future
Tesla has to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says
