Tesla sued over FSD safety: unsafe robotaxis?

What happened?

A former Tesla employee, who worked as a safety operations manager for the robotaxis, has filed a lawsuit accusing the company of creating 'rolling dangers' by overloading remote operators and failing to address critical failures of the Full Self-Driving (FSD) system. According to the lawsuit, operators had to monitor up to three vehicles simultaneously, preventing an adequate response in emergency situations. The former employee claims he was fired after internally warning about these risks.

This case is not isolated. In 2022, a former employee of the Autopilot division had already reported similar practices, and in 2023, the NHTSA opened an investigation into 830,000 Tesla vehicles for accidents related to FSD. The current lawsuit, filed in a California court, details how remote operators, located in an office in Las Vegas, had to monitor up to three robotaxis simultaneously, with insufficient reaction times to avoid collisions. The former employee, who worked at Tesla between 2022 and 2024, asserts that the company ignored repeated warnings about failures in detecting pedestrians, traffic lights, and unexpected obstacles.

Why is it important?

This case puts the real safety of Tesla's autonomous systems at the center of the debate, especially regarding the promised robotaxi service. If the allegations are true, Tesla would have prioritized commercial expansion over the safety of passengers and pedestrians. Moreover, the lawsuit comes at a time when the company faces multiple regulatory investigations into FSD and its misleading advertising.

Historically, Tesla has promised full autonomy since 2016, but the FSD system remains Level 2 (partial assistance) according to the SAE classification. In 2023, the NHTSA fined Tesla for failing to report fatal accidents involving FSD, and in 2024, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is investigating misleading claims in its marketing. The former employee's lawsuit reinforces the perception that Tesla exaggerates the capabilities of its technology, which could have implications for consumer trust and the adoption of autonomous vehicles in general.

Potential consequences

• Stricter regulation: It could accelerate intervention by the NHTSA and other agencies to impose limits on the number of vehicles an operator can monitor. Currently, there is no federal regulation governing remote operators, but this case could drive changes. For example, in California, the CPUC already requires robotaxis to have one operator per vehicle in testing, although Tesla operates in other states with less oversight.
• Reputational damage: Trust in Tesla's robotaxi program could be affected, delaying its commercial deployment. Tesla has announced it will launch a robotaxi service in 2025, but if these allegations are confirmed, it could face resistance from regulators and the public. Companies like Waymo and Cruise have already had incidents that halted their operations; Tesla could suffer a similar fate.
• Legal repercussions: The lawsuit could open the door to more litigation from former employees or accident victims. Additionally, shareholders could sue for fraud if it is proven that Tesla concealed risks. In 2023, a shareholder class action alleged that Elon Musk exaggerated FSD capabilities.

Comparatively, other companies like Waymo use remote operators with a 1:1 ratio in their testing, and Cruise employs human supervision in test vehicles. Tesla's strategy of maximizing efficiency at the expense of safety could be seen as a risky bet that, if it fails, would delay the industry.

What readers should know

Tesla's FSD system is not fully autonomous; it requires constant human supervision. The lawsuit suggests that Tesla may have misled the public about the true level of autonomy. Investors and consumers should be cautious about the company's promises and demand transparency in safety testing.

A relevant detail from the lawsuit is that remote operators had to respond to emergencies in less than 10 seconds, but by monitoring three vehicles, the effective time was reduced to 3 seconds per vehicle, insufficient for evasive maneuvers. Additionally, the former employee documented 15 serious incidents in six months, including a pedestrian hit in a parking lot. Tesla has not officially commented, but in the past it has denied similar allegations.

"Tesla has created a narrative that its cars are autonomous, but the reality is that they are rolling dangers that require constant human intervention," the former employee states in the lawsuit.

This case underscores the need for clearer regulation of driver assistance systems. Meanwhile, consumers should remember that the name "Full Self-Driving" is misleading: the system requires continuous attention. The lawsuit also highlights the pressure culture at Tesla, where safety employees feared retaliation for reporting failures. This is not unique: in 2022, former assembly line workers reported unsafe conditions. Transparency will be key for the autonomous vehicle industry to gain public trust.