Tesla customers cannot proceed under the existing class-certification order in a California dispute over self-driving hardware claims, after the Ninth Circuit vacated the order and returned the case for further proceedings.
The October 16 memorandum concerns Thomas LoSavio’s allegations that Tesla misrepresented vehicles’ hardware capabilities for its full self-driving packages. It does not decide whether those representations were false or whether Tesla is liable.
The panel rejected the inference that all class members had encountered the challenged statement on Tesla’s Autopilot webpage. Unlike a consistently used product label, that page was not something every purchaser necessarily had to see.
Individual exposure also affected limitation-period defences. The resulting problems defeated the existing certification of two damages classes; the linked class seeking injunctive relief fell with them.
The judges did not reach the proposed damages model. Their decision followed a permitted interlocutory appeal, rather than a trial judgment disposing of the customers’ claims.
The memorandum is designated nonprecedential, subject to the circuit’s rules. The district court must now conduct further proceedings on remand.
Official memorandum, LoSavio v Tesla, No. 25-7927.
