On October 16, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated certification of three California classes in a lawsuit over Tesla’s Full Self-Driving (FSD) advertising. The panel said buyers could not be presumed to have encountered a disputed hardware statement on Tesla’s optional Autopilot webpage, which customers did not have to visit to buy FSD. The case was sent back to the district court. (Ninth Circuit memorandum)
What the court vacated
The classes had been certified under two parts of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, which governs class actions in federal court. Two classes sought monetary relief under Rule 23(b)(3); a third, related class sought injunctive relief under Rule 23(b)(2).
| Rule 23 category | Number of classes | Relief sought |
| Rule 23(b)(3) | 2 | Monetary relief |
| Rule 23(b)(2) | 1 | Injunctive relief |
The lawsuit was brought by Thomas J. LoSavio against Tesla, Inc. (doing business as Tesla Motors, Inc.), Tesla Lease Trust and Tesla Finance, LLC. It alleges that the companies misrepresented vehicle hardware capabilities related to FSD packages. The Ninth Circuit’s decision addressed whether the case could proceed on a class basis; it did not decide whether the advertising was truthful.
Why the optional webpage mattered
The disputed “Hardware Statement” appeared on Tesla’s Autopilot webpage, but FSD buyers did not have to visit that page to complete a purchase. The panel concluded that the district court could not infer that all class members had been exposed to the statement on that basis. Tesla website-traffic data alone did not establish that every class member saw it, and other company communications, including newsletters and presentations, did not establish classwide exposure under the standards the panel applied.
That exposure question also affected the analysis of statute-of-limitations defenses. Because exposure could vary from one buyer to another, the panel found that individual questions mattered to whether common questions predominated for the Rule 23(b)(3) classes.
What happens next
The Ninth Circuit remanded the case to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California for further proceedings. The panel did not reach LoSavio’s proposed damages model, having resolved the appeal on the classwide-exposure issue.
The memorandum is marked “not for publication” and says it is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
