The law firm says many Model 3 and Model Y owners can’t achieve 75% of the quoted range.
This class action is open to anyone with a Model 3 or Model Y built since May 2021.
A German court recently described Tesla’s Autopilot system as “defective” over phantom braking.
Tesla is no stranger to legal troubles and is now the subject of another lawsuit, although this time it comes from Down Under. According to a new suit in Australia’s Federal Court, Tesla Motors Australia has overstated the driving ranges of its EVs, overpromised on self-driving features, and has vehicles suffering from instances of phantom braking.
The latter has plagued Teslas for quite some time and has been the subject of other lawsuits, including in Germany. Just last week, a German court ruled that Tesla’s Autopilot system is “defective” and not “suitable for normal use” due to phantom braking problems.
In this case, Aussie law firm JGA Saddler describes phantom braking as a “dangerous phenomenon [that] would terrify you and your passengers and could, if it causes an accident, result in serious injury and/or death.”
In addition, the director of JGA Saddler, Rebecca Jancauskas, has taken issue with Tesla selling its long-promised Full-Self Driving features without delivering on the promises its made for the system. She also asserts that many Tesla vehicles sold in Australia cannot achieve 75% of their advertised driving range, and believes the automaker has known about its defects for years but has so far failed to address the problems or pay any compensation to owners.
“It is hoped this claim underscores the importance for all EV manufacturers to be truthful in their marketing, deliver on their promises, and ensure their products are safe and reliable,” Jancauskas told Yahoo! News.
The class action is open to anyone who has purchased or leased a Tesla Model 3 or Model Y with the controversial Tesla Vision system since May 2021.
“Tesla made promises about their vehicles’ safety, performance and features such as their ‘full self-driving,’ but it appears some of these promises are falling flat,” Jancauskas added. It’s unclear how many owners and lessees have signed up to be part of the class action.
As Wisconsin’s attorney general, Brad Schimel helped lead a 20-state lawsuit that sought to overturn the Affordable Care Act.
The federal law, known as Obamacare, expanded health insurance coverage by offering exchanges and subsidies for individuals to buy health insurance, and in other ways.
The 2018 lawsuit argued Obamacare was made unconstitutional by a 2017 tax law change signed by President Donald Trump. Schimel at the time called Obamacare “overreaching and harmful.”
In 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the lawsuit. It ruled the plaintiffs didn’t have legal standing to sue. However, it didn’t decide whether Obamacare was unconstitutional.
Susan Crawford, the liberal candidate in the April 1 Wisconsin Supreme Court election, criticized Schimel’s lawsuit. Schimel is the conservative candidate.
Nearly two-thirds of U.S. adults have a favorable view of Obamacare; 72% of Republicans have an unfavorable view.
A record 313,579 Wisconsin residents signed up for health insurance through Obamacare during the 2025 open enrollment.
This fact brief is responsive to conversations such as this one.
Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Brian Hagedorn questions an attorney during oral arguments in January 2025. (Screenshot/WisEye)
A Wisconsin Supreme Court justice who helped write Act 10 recused himself Thursday as the high court signaled it was preparing to take up a legal challenge to the 2011 law limiting public employees’ collective bargaining rights.
After a Dane County judge struck down Act 10 in December, the plaintiffs — a teachers union — filed a motion with the state Supreme Court to bypass the Wisconsin Court of Appeals and take up the case directly.
On Thursday, the Court issued an order related to that motion, granting a request from Republican leaders of the state Legislature to intervene and file a response to the bypass request. The Court set a Feb. 5 deadline for the response.
Along with Thursday’s order, Justice Brian Hagedorn issued an order recusing himself from taking part in the case. Hagedorn previously served as legal counsel to Republican Gov. Scott Walker and helped draft the bill that became Act 10, then defended it against a federal court challenge.
In December, a Dane County judge ruled that parts of the law are unconstitutional because it treats similar types of state employees differently. The law retained collective bargaining rights for police officers, but excluded the state Capitol Police officers, conservation wardens and correctional officers.
“Act 10 as written by the Legislature specifically and narrowly defines ‘public safety employee,’” Judge Jacob Frost wrote. “It is that definition which is unconstitutional.”
In his recusal order Thursday, Hagedorn acknowledged his role in shaping and defending the law.
“Members of the judiciary take a solemn oath to be independent and impartial,” Hagedorn wrote. “Our duty is to call it straight in every case, with neither partiality nor prejudice toward anyone. The law must guide our decisions — not politics, tribalism, or personal policy views.”
“After reviewing the filings and the various ethical rules I am sworn to uphold, I have concluded that the law requires me to recuse from this case,” he continued. “The issues raised involve matters for which I provided legal counsel in both the initial crafting and later defense of Act 10, including in a case raising nearly identical claims under the federal constitution.”
Hagedorn also noted that many of the legal arguments in the current challenge are similar to those made in the 2011 federal case.
Justice Janet Protasiewicz, who had previously said she may recuse herself from an Act 10 case because she participated in protests against the legislation as it was pending, did not participate in the decision to accept the case, but she did not release an order saying she’d recuse herself.
Both Hagedorn and Protasiewicz had faced calls for recusal in the case. Protasiewicz had also faced threats of impeachment from Republican legislators in a previous case about the state’s legislative maps.
In his order, Hagedorn warned about the politicization of the recusal process.
“In my view, recusal on this court should be rare — done only when the law requires it,” he wrote. “Going beyond that can create problems. We have seen how recusal can be weaponized by parties seeking a litigation advantage.”
In response to the Court’s order Thursday on the Legislature’s petition to intervene, Justice Rebecca Bradley and Chief Justice Annette Ziegler dissented.
They, along with Hagedorn, have also dissented in several Supreme Court decisions to bypass lower courts and take up cases after the court’s majority flipped in 2023 from four conservative justices to four liberal ones.
Bradley, writing Thursday’s dissent, pointed out that the state Legislature had asked for a two-week extension to respond to the bypass petition, and was instead given three business days.
“There is absolutely no reason to deny the Legislature’s request, unless three members of this court wish to fast track yet another politically charged case for the purpose of overturning settled law on an issue already decided by this court eleven years ago,” Bradley wrote.
The dispute over Act 10 is set to play a major role in this April’s Supreme Court election between Dane County Judge Susan Crawford and Waukesha County Judge Brad Schimel, who was state attorney general during Walker’s second term.
Wisconsin Supreme Court chambers. (Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner)
The members of Wisconsin’s Republican congressional delegation formally endorsed Brad Schimel in the April Wisconsin Supreme Court election Monday in a virtual news conference that highlighted Schimel’s campaign talking points.
Schimel, a Waukesha County circuit judge and former one-term state attorney general, is running for an open seat on the court against Susan Crawford, a Dane County circuit judge.
Elections for the state Supreme Court are officially nonpartisan, but they’ve become partisan in all but name over the last couple of decades, with both major parties supporting candidates. While Schimel’s announcement Monday touted the backing of congressional Republicans, the Democratic Party of Wisconsin and other key Democratic leaders have endorsed Crawford.
The race to replace retiring Justice Ann Walsh Bradley will determine whether the Court’s four-member liberal majority remains or falls to a new four-member conservative majority.
At the Monday morning news conference U.S. Rep. Derrick Van Orden (R-Prairie du Chien) said the Wisconsin voters who helped carry Donald Trump to a second term as U.S. president in November would do the same for Schimel in April.
“They’re sick and tired of the radical left agenda,” Van Orden said. “They want to make sure that someone that is sitting on the court is interpreting the law, not writing the law.”
Among the questions from reporters on the call was one about Schimel’s past statements on the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol by Trump supporters trying to overturn Joe Biden’s election as president in 2020.
During atalk radio show broadcast on Jan. 2, Schimel charged that the prosecution of the Jan. 6 defendants in Washington, D.C. — where the Capitol is located and the attack took place — was the result of political “manipulation” by Democrats because the population of the city “is overwhelmingly liberal.”
“They would never take their prosecution in a district where you had a fair shot as a defendant,” Schimel told radio host Vicki McKenna.
During Monday’s news conference, a member of Schimel’s campaign staff relayed a reporter’s question that began with a reference to a former U.S. Capitol Police officer “who is coming to Wisconsin tomorrow to criticize your comments about the defendants in those cases.”
The question didn’t specify Schimel’s comments or their context, but asked what he thought “of the Trump pardons for Jan. 6 protesters who assaulted law enforcement officers.”
“I have no idea what comments you are talking about,” Schimel replied, adding, “I’ve said that anyone who engaged in violence and Jan. 6, assaulted a police officer, resisted arrest, those people should have been prosecuted. They should be prosecuted and held accountable, and judges should impose sentences that are just under the circumstances.”
But Schimel also criticized the use of a federal law against election obstruction to lodge felony charges against some of those who had broken into the Capitol that day. He said it took the U.S. Supreme Court to “finally recognize that prosecutors in Washington, D.C., overreached.” The Courtvacated those convictions.
In addition, he voiced support for a president’s right to pardon offenders. “It’s a power they have,” Schimel said. “I don’t object to them utilizing that power.”
The news conference signaled that Schimel’s campaign is focusing on, among other subjects, Wisconsin’s 2011 law requiring voters to show a picture ID when they go to the polls.
Republican lawmakers have proposed an amendment that would enshrine the requirement in the state constitution. That proposal goes before voters on the April ballot — alongside the Supreme Court race. Republicans argue that the state Supreme Court might otherwise overturn the law.
Schimel also raisedthe circuit court decision, now under appeal, that would overturn the 2011 law known as Act 10 sharply restricting collective bargaining for public employees.
As an attorney, Crawford represented clients who sought to overturn the state’sVoter ID law as well asAct 10.
“She advocated, she fought against and tried to overturn Wisconsin’s Voter ID law,” Sen. Ron Johnson said. “It’s such a huge difference between conservative judges, people like Brad Schimel, who will apply the law faithfully — again, not what his policy preferences are, but respect not only our state constitution, but the federal constitution in the separation of powers, the checks and balances and being a judge, not a super legislator.”
Schimel noted Crawford’s work as a lawyer opposing Act 10 in a case that the Supreme Court, with a conservative majority at the time, rejected.
“This has been settled law for over a decade, but it’s coming right back,” he said. “If my opponent wins, does anyone believe a case, a law, like Act 10 has any chance of a fair, objective examination?”
Asked what his standard would be for recusing himself from ruling on a case, Schimel said that would include “any case where my family, I or my family, my immediate family, have a personal stake, win or lose, in that case.” He said he would “perhaps … need to recuse” himself on issues with which “I was directly involved in the past” or that “I took strong positions on” — but added that “it’s hard to predict what that might be in a vacuum like this.”
On Monday, however, the Democratic Party of Wisconsin accused Schimel of prejudging the issue of abortion rights. The party highlighted a New York Timesreport on the race that included references to his opposition to abortion rights and his work as attorney general in helping to “map out a strategy to restrict abortion rights.”
The Times article quoted Schimel telling supporters during a campaign stop this past summer that he supported Wisconsin’s 1849 law that was thought to ban abortion until a December 2023 circuit court decision declared that it did not. That ruling is now under appeal and the case is likely to go before the state Supreme Court, possibly this year.
“There is not a constitutional right to abortion in our State Constitution,” The Times quoted Schimel telling supporters in Chilton. “That will be a sham if they find that.”
Lukasz Krupski had been labeled a “disgruntled former employee” by the carmaker.
Information uncovered by the whistleblower revealed several Autopilot issues.
Krupski sued Tesla for lost wages and emotional distress, seeking a total of €250,000.
In a significant legal ruling, a Norwegian court has ordered Tesla to pay a former employee more than €10,000 (equal to $10,500 at current exchange rates) in damages and cover upwards of €170,000 ($178,000) in legal fees after finding the company had violated his rights as a whistleblower.
The case stems from the actions of Lukasz Krupski, a former service technician at Tesla’s plant in Drammen, Norway. Krupski had provided more than 100 gigabytes of data to German publication Handelsblatt, revealing security flaws and a series of data protection problems. It included information related to problems with the Autopilot system and Tesla’s struggles to bring the Cybertruck to the market.
His leak also revealed that private information about Tesla customers and employees was publicly available, as were contracts with business partners, design plans, and confidential presentations.
Six days after the data was made public, Tesla’s reaction was swift and aggressive. At the company’s behest, Norwegian authorities raided Krupski’s apartment, seizing his computer, phone, and storage devices. Tesla quickly branded him a “disgruntled former employee.” In retaliation, Krupski filed a lawsuit against Tesla, seeking compensation for lost wages, emotional distress, and the unlawful treatment he endured.
Court Rules in Favor of the Whistleblower
Earlier this week, the Norwegian District Court of Buskerud ruled in favor of the whistleblower, the Handelsblatt reports, confirming that he is entitled to compensation, although he won’t get the full €250,000 (~$262,000) that he had been seeking.
“A Victory for Transparency”
Despite the partial financial settlement, Krupski viewed the court’s ruling as a personal victory. “Tesla made my life hell after I raised concerns about serious safety issues within the company,” he said. “I tried to act in good faith, but instead I was faced with retaliation, demotion and isolation. Even if I didn’t get everything I had hoped for, this decision is an important victory for transparency. Now I want to concentrate on looking forward and rebuilding my life.”
Before becoming Tesla’s enemy number one, Krupski had been recognized by none other than Elon Musk. In March 2019, while helping deliver new vehicles to customers in Norway, Krupski saved the day by disconnecting a modified charger from under a Model 3 that had caught fire, preventing a potentially devastating blaze.
Musk emailed him directly saying “Congratulations for saving the day,” but when Krupski replied back expressing safety concerns, he started to draw the ire of his superiors, who claimed he no longer had a future at the automaker. He was fired in 2022 over accusations of poor time management and of being a bad influence on other staff, but also for taking photographs on-site, which is against company policy.
A California woman alleges Tesla’s locking system allowed an assailant to access her vehicle.
The plaintiff claims says she locked her car while she waited inside the cabin at a charging station.
Before she could finish charging, an assailant entered despite indications the car was locked.
Tesla is currently facing a wide array of legal challenges. While the company works to expand the adoption of robotaxis and continues to be investigated over concerns about Autopilot, it is now dealing with a lawsuit brought by a California woman. She alleges that a flaw in Tesla’s locking system allowed an assailant to enter her vehicle and attack her.
The plaintiff, identified only as Jane Doe in court filings from the Golden State, claims that Tesla doors can still be opened from the outside, even when the car is locked via the Tesla app.
According to the filing, the incident occurred at the Galleria at Tyler mall while Jane Doe was charging her Tesla Model Y. After plugging in the vehicle, she moved to the passenger seat to take a nap while the EV charged. Upon getting in, she used her Tesla app to lock the car. Evidently, the wing mirrors folded in and she saw an icon indicating that the car was locked.
Before she woke up, a person identified in the lawsuit as Jabari Marquis shook the car from the outside and then entered through the driver’s side door. While the woman believed the vehicle was locked, the exterior door handle allegedly worked as normal.
She claims that Marquis proceeded to assault her and she called 911, attempting to alert them to her predicament by saying things like “I hate this Mall, it’s full of rapists,” and “The charging stations are so slow.” The call apparently lasted for approximately seven minutes and ultimately police arrived and intervened.
The lawsuit accuses Tesla of failing to secure the vehicle’s doors from the outside and for not alerting occupants about the situation either. Interestingly, the suit isn’t solely against Tesla as the woman also includes the site of the assault, Galleria At Tyler. Her council claims that the mall failed to provide adequate security. Finally, the defendant, Mr. Marquis, is also facing legal consequences here as the woman is suing for damages related to assault and battery.
Login
