Ninth Circuit throws out Tesla Full Self-Driving class certification

Estimated reading time: 8 minutes.

Key facts

What happened: On October 16, 2026, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated the order that had certified classes of California Tesla buyers who paid for the Full Self-Driving (FSD) package.
The case: In re Tesla Advanced Driver Assistance Systems Litigation, No. 3:22-cv-05240-RFL, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, before Judge Rita F. Lin. The appeal is LoSavio v. Tesla, Inc., No. 25-7927.
Why: The panel said the trial court wrongly assumed that every class member saw Tesla's statement that its cars had the hardware needed for full self-driving. Buyers were not required to visit the web page where it appeared.
What it means now: There is no certified class for now. The case goes back to Judge Lin, and the named plaintiff's own claims are still pending.
No ruling on the merits: The appeals court did not decide whether Tesla's statements were false or misleading.
Not precedent: The decision is an unpublished memorandum, which the Ninth Circuit does not treat as binding precedent.
No money or claim process: This is not a settlement. Tesla owners have nothing to file.

What the appeals court decided

The Ninth Circuit issued a short unpublished memorandum on October 16, 2026. The panel of Circuit Judges Ronald M. Gould, Jay S. Bybee and Daniel P. Bress heard argument on August 31, 2026.

Tesla had asked for permission to appeal the class certification order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f). That rule lets an appeals court review a certification decision before the case goes to trial. The panel granted Tesla's request and then vacated all three certified classes: two classes seeking money damages and one class seeking a court order changing Tesla's conduct. It sent the case back to the district court.

The panel said it did not need to reach Tesla's separate argument about the plaintiffs' damages model, because the exposure problem was enough to undo certification.

Under Ninth Circuit rules, unpublished memorandum dispositions are not precedent. Other courts may consider the reasoning, but they are not bound by it.

Who is involved

The plaintiff. Thomas LoSavio, a California Tesla owner, is the named plaintiff the district court appointed to represent the classes. He was one of five buyers, along with Briggs A. Matsko, Brenda T. Broussard, Dominick Battiato and Christopher Mallow, who filed separate suits in September 2022. The court consolidated those cases the next month.

The defendant. Tesla, Inc. designs, makes and sells electric vehicles. The 2025 certification order notes that Tesla sells only directly, not through dealers, and does not use traditional TV or magazine advertising. It reaches buyers through its website, social media, press events, newsletters and CEO Elon Musk's personal account on X, formerly Twitter.

The lawyers. Judge Lin appointed Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy LLP, Casey Gerry Francavilla Blatt LLP and Bottini & Bottini, Inc. as class counsel in 2025. Reuters reported that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce filed a friend-of-the-court brief supporting Tesla on appeal.

What the lawsuit claims

The plaintiffs allege that Tesla misled buyers about what its driver assistance packages could do. According to the 2025 order, Tesla has sold optional packages priced from $3,000 to $15,000. Enhanced Autopilot includes features such as Autopark, Summon and Navigate on Autopilot. FSD includes those features plus traffic light and stop sign recognition and Autosteer on city streets.

The case centers on two statements. Courts call the first one the Hardware Statement. At an October 19, 2016 press conference, Musk said all cars leaving the factory had "hardware necessary for Level 5 Autonomy." Similar wording appeared on Tesla's website, including the Autopilot page: "All Tesla vehicles produced in our factory, including Model 3, have the hardware needed for full self-driving capability at a safety level substantially greater than that of a human driver."

The second is the Cross-Country Statement, Musk's 2016 prediction that a Tesla would drive itself from Los Angeles to New York by the end of the following year.

The plaintiffs claim violations of three California consumer protection laws: the Unfair Competition Law, the Consumers Legal Remedies Act and the False Advertising Law. They also allege fraud, negligent misrepresentation and negligence. In May 2024, Judge Lin dismissed the warranty claims but let these claims go forward to the extent they rely on the two statements.

The 2025 order also quotes Musk on a 2024 earnings call saying Tesla would "have to upgrade people's hardware 3 computer for those that have bought full self driving." Tesla denies that its statements were misleading, and no court has found that they were.

These are allegations, not findings

No judge or jury has decided whether Tesla's self-driving statements were false. The appeals ruling is about whether the case can proceed as a class action, not about who is right.

How the classes were certified in 2025

LoSavio moved for class certification on May 6, 2025. Judge Lin granted the motion in an order signed August 18, 2025, with an unredacted version filed September 3, 2025. She narrowed the classes to California buyers who paid separately for FSD, by purchase or subscription. Buyers of Enhanced Autopilot alone were left out.

The certified classes were:

California Pre-Arbitration Class: people who bought or leased a Tesla and paid for FSD from October 20, 2016 through May 19, 2017, and who bought or leased the car in California or live there now.
California Arbitration Opt-Out Class: the same kind of buyers from May 19, 2017 to July 31, 2024 who opted out of Tesla's arbitration agreement.
Injunctive relief class: members of either class who say they would like to buy or subscribe to FSD in the future but cannot rely on Tesla's advertising.

Tesla's own data, as described in the order, showed at least 3,595 FSD buyers or subscribers from November 2016 to May 2017 who were not bound by arbitration, and at least 212 from June 2017 to July 2024 who opted out.

Judge Lin found the plaintiffs had shown classwide exposure to the Hardware Statement, but not to the Cross-Country Statement. She ended the class period on July 31, 2024 because the key statement came off Tesla's website in August 2024. Tesla argued that only a sliver of site visitors saw the Autopilot page. The order cites December 2019 figures: over 11 million visitors to Tesla's site, and about 14,000 to the Autopilot page.

Why the Ninth Circuit disagreed

To bring a fraud-type claim as a class action, plaintiffs usually must show that class members as a group saw the challenged statement. Courts sometimes accept that showing when a statement is printed on the product label every buyer sees, or when an advertising campaign is so massive that nearly everyone was exposed.

The panel said this case fit neither category. It held that Judge Lin erred in inferring that every class member was exposed to the Hardware Statement on the Autopilot web page, because buyers did not have to visit that page to buy a car. The panel contrasted product-label cases, where the statement is unavoidable.

The panel also said the same exposure questions run through Tesla's statute of limitations defenses. Those defenses turn on when each buyer knew or should have known about the alleged problem, which may differ from person to person.

What "class certification" means

Certification lets one or a few people sue on behalf of everyone in a defined group. Without it, each buyer generally has to bring his or her own case, which is rarely practical for claims worth a few thousand dollars.

What happens next

The case returns to Judge Lin in San Francisco. The memorandum does not dismiss the lawsuit, and Reuters reported that it remains pending. The court will decide how the case proceeds from here, including whether the plaintiffs can try a different approach to certification.

We did not find a public statement from Tesla or class counsel about the ruling in the sources we reviewed. Either side could ask the full Ninth Circuit to rehear the appeal, but no such request had been reported at publication.

Readers should also know this case is separate from other Tesla disputes. Our earlier coverage of a Tesla Supercharger idle fee settlement involves a different claim and a different court.

What this means for Tesla owners

For now, no one is a class member in this case. There is no settlement, no payment and no claim form. If you bought FSD in California, this ruling does not require you to do anything.

The district court's own definitions also show who was never covered. Buyers outside California, people who bought only Enhanced Autopilot, and post-May 2017 buyers who did not opt out of arbitration were not in the certified classes.

If you believe you were misled about a vehicle feature, a consumer attorney can explain the options in your state, including the deadlines that apply to you. For cases that are open to consumers today, see our list of class action cases you can join.

Watch for scam outreach

There is no Tesla FSD settlement fund. Be skeptical of any email or text claiming you can collect money from this case.

Frequently asked questions

Did the court rule that Tesla's self-driving claims were false?

No. The Ninth Circuit decided only that the classes were improperly certified. It did not decide whether any Tesla statement was false or misleading.

Is the Tesla FSD lawsuit over?

No. The appeals court vacated class certification and sent the case back to the district court, where it remains pending, according to Reuters.

Who was in the classes before this ruling?

California buyers or residents who paid separately for FSD between October 20, 2016 and May 19, 2017, plus later buyers through July 31, 2024 who opted out of Tesla's arbitration agreement.

Can I get money from this case?

Not now. There is no settlement or judgment, and no claim process exists.

What is the Hardware Statement?

It is Tesla's 2016 claim, repeated on its website, that its cars had the hardware needed for full self-driving capability. The plaintiffs say it was misleading. Tesla disputes that.

Does this ruling bind other courts?

No. It is an unpublished memorandum, which the Ninth Circuit does not treat as precedent.