More Tesla Woes Emerged Over The Weekend

Sign up for CleanTechnica’s Weekly Substack for Zach and Scott’s in-depth analyses and high level summaries, sign up for our daily newsletter, and/or follow us on Google News!

Last Updated on: 13th May 2025, 01:11 am

More news stories trickled in over the weekend that continued to emphasize the Tesla woes. We all knew that there had been pervasive criticism directed at the all-electric vehicle company. Whether it’s been CEO Elon Musk’s murky appearance on the political scene, or the lack of an affordable Tesla, or more delays in Full Self-Driving, problems have been rife for the once-innovative business. Now there’s more bad news.

Musk Couldn’t Suppress his Mercurial Self while Running DOGE

David Nasaw, an emeritus professor of history at the CUNY Graduate Center, looks at political life with a long lens. He writes in a May 11 editorial for the New York Times that, as the partnership between President Donald J. Trump and Musk comes to an end, “There is one clear loser in the breakup of this affair, and it is Elon Musk.”

Yes, Nasaw acknowledges that Musk has “inked several lucrative federal contracts” during his time in Washington, including contracts for SpaceX and Starlink that should capture billions of dollars.

Musk, however, leaves his position in the Trump administration with his reputation “severely damaged.” He has relied on his reputation “to boost his company’s stock prices and win investors for his ambitious adventures,” but his “bullying and lack of remorse as he slashed federal spending and dismissed tens of thousands of government employees eroded his popularity.”

Musk and his coterie of inexperienced, college-aged employees assisted in undermining the integrity of the federal government and “spread chaos through Washington, locking staff members out of computer systems, gaining access to personal data on private citizens, and identifying government employees they deemed expendable.”

Musk might’ve stayed in his position at the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) had he kept his mouth shut about Trump and his White House merry pranksters. Ever Elon, though, his undoing was criticizing Trump and cabinet members in public, “trespassing on their authority and refusing to recognize the White House chain of command.”

The Tesla woes continue with Musk’s ADHD and ODD leading the way to self-defeat.

Another Employee Who Calls Out Musk’s Politics is Fired

The First Amendment to the US Constitution states, in relevant part, that “Congress shall make no law … abridging freedom of speech.” This includes the right “to use certain offensive words and phrases to convey political messages” [Cohen v. California, 403 US 15 (1971)]. So, when Tesla CEO Elon Musk raised a controversial heil hand gesture, he had the Constitutional right to do so.

So, too, did Tesla employee trainer and manager Matthew Labrot, who set up a website called “Tesla Employees Against Elon.” It offered an open letter to the company to replace Musk as CEO. Labrot feels that Musk’s political views diminished Tesla sales and that Tesla’s leadership did not sufficiently guide employees on how to handle “protests and vandalism” against the company.

Yet Labrot was reportedly fired by Tesla for his actions, which included spray painting his Cybertruck with anti-Musk messages. He was dismissed for “using company resources to build a website that did not align with the company’s perspective,” a Business Insider article explains. “I was very happy with my position, and I could have continued to work in that role my whole life,” Labrot said.

Whether any of us agree or disagree with Labrot, the First Amendment guarantees him the right “to engage in symbolic speech” on his website and through his Cybertruck messaging [Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989); United States v. Eichman, 496 US 310 (1990)].

Labrot has continued to attend Tesla protests. The cost right now in the US to speak out against people in positions of power can be very high, indeed.

Tesla Woes: The Company Loses Bid for Trademark Right to “Robotaxi”

Did Tesla wait too long to seek the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) trademark nod for its Robotaxi?

The USPTO has issued a “nonfinal office action” regarding Tesla’s application to trademark the term “Robotaxi.” A “nonfinal office action” means the USPTO has found potential issues with the trademark application, which prevents its immediate approval and subsequent granting to Tesla. The ruling is particular to autonomous EVs. Tesla has floated the idea of a self-driving fleet since 2016. Since then, though, other manufacturers have jumped on the idea, and some of the competition has started to begin using the term “Robotaxi.” Uber is one such company.

What seems to be happening here is that a term like “Robotaxi” is scrutinized if the USPTO considers the term “merely descriptive” or “generic” for the goods in question. In this particular context, “Robotaxi” could refer to any autonomous taxi vehicle. For a term to be trademarked, it typically needs to be distinctive and act as a brand identifier rather than just a descriptive name of the product’s class or type.

Tesla now has a three-month period to file its counterarguments and address the USPTO’s concerns. If Tesla’s response satisfies the examiner, the trademark could be granted.

Tesla is also seeking to trademark “Cybercab,” “Robovan,” and “Robobus.” Securing a less descriptive name for the vehicle itself often has a higher chance of success with USPTO, as it is far more distinctive than a more general term like “robotaxi.” It has been reported, however, that Tesla’s efforts to secure rights to the term Cybercab have stalled. The USPTO flagged the application due to conflicts with existing or pending trademarks containing the word Cyber.

Tesla’s Insurance Program Needs Assurances

Tesla woes continue to mount with its insurance subsidiary. Created in 2019 to appeal to owners of its EVs via lower premiums, Tesla today is paying out more than it earns from premiums, according to data from S&P Global. In fact, it seems that Tesla’s insurance area took a loss ratio (the relationship of premiums coming in to claims paid) of 103.3 in 2024. The rest of the industry averaged 66.1 the same year. Tesla accrued about $992 million through its US insurance premiums in 2024.

Two reasons for this stand out:

1. Repair costs for Tesla vehicles post-accident seem to be the hitch in the insurance section equation — Tesla vehicles are quite expensive to fix, with an average collision repair cost being 32% higher than an ICE car.
2. Customer satisfaction with their policies was low, too, due to complaints of waiting weeks or months for payouts and repairs.

The original idea was that the company’s Full Self-Driving software had fewer accidents than a human driver, and the company has the ability to collect data on its drivers, which allows driving risk adjustments to occur nearly seamlessly.

It should be noted that, prior to 2024, Tesla’s loss ratio was above the national average. Its recent downward plunge is another example of Tesla woes — right when the last thing the company needs is another problem to add to the increasingly long list.