Edge's News: Tesla agrees to pay $1.5M to settle claims over battery voltage reduction..

Tesla Inc has agreed to pay $1.5 million to settle claims a software update temporarily reduced maximum battery voltage in 1,743 Model S sedans, court documents show.

Owners of the vehicles will get $625 each, which is "many times the prorated value of the temporarily reduced maximum voltage," according to the proposed settlement documents filed Wednesday in U.S. District Court in San Francisco.

Tesla did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Lawyers for the owners who sued said the "voltage limitation was temporary, with a 10% reduction lasting about 3 months, and a smaller 7% reduction lasting another 7 months before the corrective update was released in March 2020."

A U.S. judge set a Dec. 9 hearing on the proposed settlement.

The suit filed in August 2019 alleged Tesla released an over-the-air software update that reduced the maximum voltage to which batteries on some Tesla Model S vehicles could be charged.

A subsequent update restored about 3% of the battery voltage in these vehicles, and a third update released in March 2020 was designed to fully restore the batteries’ voltage over time as the vehicles are driven, the settlement documents said.

Company data shows 1,552 vehicles had maximum battery voltage fully restored and 57 have had battery replacements and for other vehicles the maximum voltage should continue to be restored over time, the settlement documents said.

The $1.5 million settlement includes $410,000 fees and costs for the plaintiffs' attorneys.

Elon Musk agrees and tweeted:

Tesla policy is never to give in to false claims, even if we would lose, and never to fight true claims, even if we would win.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 31, 2021

Comments

The FCT Minister–Soldier Standoff: A Test of Civil Authority and the Rule of Law

On November 11, 2025, Nigerians watched in disbelief as a video surfaced showing a tense confrontation between the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Nyesom Wike, and a group of armed soldiers who blocked his convoy from accessing a disputed piece of land in Gaduwa, Abuja. The incident, brief but dramatic, was more than a moment of political theatre. It struck at the heart of a much bigger issue — the place of the military in a democracy, and the sanctity of civilian authority under the Nigerian Constitution. The Legal Position: Who Was Right? The Minister’s Authority Under Section 302 of the 1999 Constitution and the FCT Act , the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory exercises the executive powers of the President within Abuja. That means the Minister is not just a political appointee — he represents federal executive authority . His duties include overseeing land allocation, urban planning, and the enforcement of development control through the Federal Capital T...

Nigeria: On the Right of Self-Defence and Protection of National Sovereignty

The Federal Republic of Nigeria reaffirms its unwavering commitment to the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, in particular the maintenance of international peace and security, the respect for the sovereignty and political independence of all States, and the peaceful settlement of disputes. Nigeria is a sovereign and independent nation. Our Constitution vests sovereignty in the people of Nigeria and mandates the Government to protect the territorial integrity and independence of our country. This sovereignty—recognised under international law and reaffirmed by our membership in the United Nations, the African Union, and the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS)—is inviolable. The Government of Nigeria has observed with grave concern recent statements and actions that amount to a threat of aggression and possible violation of our territorial integrity. We remind all States that any such threat or use of force contravenes Article 2(4) of the Ch...

Kebbi’s 3 a.m. Withdrawal Shows Why President Tinubu’s Security Reforms Can’t Wait

When Governor Nasir Idris of Kebbi State revealed that security personnel deployed to vulnerable communities were withdrawn at 3:00 a.m.—just 45 minutes before an attack—Nigerians reacted with shock, anger, and a single question that refuses to disappear: Who gave the withdrawal order? It is a fair question. It is also one that may take time, investigation, and institutional honesty to answer. But the Kebbi incident exposes a deeper truth about security management in Nigeria: our command structure is too fragmented for a country battling multi-layered threats. And this, more than anything, validates President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s push for a centralised, technology-driven, and accountable security coordination model. Nigeria’s security agencies—military, police, DSS, civil defence, intelligence units—operate in parallel lanes with overlapping mandates. State governors, despite bearing the title “Chief Security Officer,” have no legal authority over federal forces. This incoheren...

Edge Of The World

Search This Blog