# Ninth Circuit Vacates Class Certification in Tesla FSD Case Over Website Exposure

By Riza Dagoc

Canonical URL: https://www.tokenpost.com/news/regulation/34480
Published: 2026-10-18T21:00:59.000Z
Updated: 2026-10-18T21:00:59.000Z
Section: Regulation

> The panel said Tesla buyers were not required to visit its Autopilot page and sent the case back without deciding whether the company’s statements were false.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Friday, Oct. 16, vacated certification of three classes in a Tesla Full Self-Driving (FSD) hardware case, finding buyers could not be presumed to have seen the challenged statement online.

The court nullified all three certifications: two damages classes and a class pursuing injunctive relief. The panel sent the dispute back to district court for further proceedings. It held that the lower court could not treat the statement’s presence on Tesla’s Autopilot webpage as proof that every buyer had encountered it, because buyers did not need to visit that page to purchase FSD.

The challenged hardware statement appeared on Tesla’s Autopilot webpage from October 2016 to August 2024 and on other Tesla webpages at some points during that period. The district court’s certification order relied in part on Tesla’s direct-sales model and the likelihood that buyers would consult its website. The appeals panel rejected a classwide inference from that reasoning. “The first assumption prevents an inference of classwide exposure,” it wrote.

Exposure also affected the analysis of statute-of-limitations defenses. The panel did not assess the proposed damages model because its decision on exposure resolved the class-certification question.

Thomas J. LoSavio alleges Tesla violated California consumer-protection laws and common law by misrepresenting the hardware capabilities of vehicles sold with FSD packages. U.S. District Judge Rita F. Lin signed the class-certification order on Aug. 18, 2025; it was filed Sept. 3, 2025.

At certification, the district court identified at least 3,595 people who bought or subscribed to FSD from November 2016 to May 2017 and were not subject to arbitration. It also identified at least 212 people who bought or subscribed from June 2017 to July 2024 and opted out of arbitration. Those figures describe the groups in the earlier order; the appeals court did not provide a revised estimate.

The Ninth Circuit did not decide whether Tesla’s statements were false or dismiss the lawsuit. Its memorandum is marked not for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.