Range Extender Class Action Claim

[PungoteagueDave]

I am not advocating, but am out the $3,800 per year in cash that I am now spending to have my boat towed from Maryland to Florida and back every spring and fall. I knew about the range shortfall, but depended having on the promised RE to do it, and now cannot use my truck for one of the key purposes it was purchased. I still love my CT, but traded in an F350 that could actually do that job, so do actually have financial damages as a direct result of Tesla’s failure to deliver something that it sold to me as a key feature of the vehicle. There was no hedging the commitment to build and deliver the RE - it was sold as a commitment.

Sponsored

 

[PungoteagueDave]

No you haven't

Literally not a possibility.

 

[Protondecay123]

On May 7, 2025, I received an email stating that Tesla would not sell the Range Extender and that my deposit would be refunded. This sudden change constitutes a misrepresentation or fraudulent inducement and is grounds for a misrepresentation claim. I—and likely others—relied on the promised Range Extender when deciding to purchase the $135,000 Foundation Series Cyberbeast vehicle. Without the Range Extender, the recommended effective daily charging range is 240 miles at 80% charge, which is significantly lower than the 450 miles promised with the Range Extender.

I would not have purchased the Cyberbeast without the promised range increase from the Range Extender.

Is there any support and momentum among the club to move forward with a class-action claim for misrepresentation?

What actions would constitute “ moving forward “?

 

[not_elon_]

Just give us FUSC and all is forgiven.

 

[no%X#XMVk65v#cq]

I am not advocating, but am out the $3,800 per year in cash that I am now spending to have my boat towed from Maryland to Florida and back every spring and fall. I knew about the range shortfall, but depended having on the promised RE to do it, and now cannot use my truck for one of the key purposes it was purchased. I still love my CT, but traded in an F350 that could actually do that job, so do actually have financial damages as a direct result of Tesla’s failure to deliver something that it sold to me as a key feature of the vehicle. There was no hedging the commitment to build and deliver the RE - it was sold as a commitment.

A compelling argument. The counter would be that it is possible to make that trip (but I wouldn't either).

 

[PungoteagueDave]

A compelling argument. The counter would be that it is possible to make that trip (but I wouldn't either).

I don’t think it is possible to do it, at least safely. Only 90 miles max range at 55 mph.

 

[Protondecay123]

I don’t think it is possible to do it, at least safely. Only 90 miles max range at 55 mph.

In some ways I’m just wondering if the OP is trolling us or has a law firm in mind. It would seem logical to me to talk to someone in the business and then seek plaintiffs. But I’m not in that business.

 

[henchman24]

You're probably right. But the question may not go away, if the EREV approach turns out to be successful.

And we may find out soon if that is the case. Ram is currently advertising that the 1500 REV will be available in 2026, with 690 miles of range.

And Tesla has zero desire for an EREV. So we won’t ever find out from them.

I wouldn’t bet on Ram fulfilling all their promises. They’ve canceled or changed the vast majority of their EV or similar plans.

 

[TheLastStarfighter]

On May 7, 2025, I received an email stating that Tesla would not sell the Range Extender and that my deposit would be refunded. This sudden change constitutes a misrepresentation or fraudulent inducement and is grounds for a misrepresentation claim. I—and likely others—relied on the promised Range Extender when deciding to purchase the $135,000 Foundation Series Cyberbeast vehicle. Without the Range Extender, the recommended effective daily charging range is 240 miles at 80% charge, which is significantly lower than the 450 miles promised with the Range Extender.

I would not have purchased the Cyberbeast without the promised range increase from the Range Extender.

Is there any support and momentum among the club to move forward with a class-action claim for misrepresentation?

While I think there was some misleading marketing on Tesla's part with the Cybertruck Launch and the Range Extender (specifically stating the truck will have a range of up to 450 miles with the RE or less without and showing it in the ordering options as if it was an actual option on the truck), your post comes across as very disingenuous. Specifically, you use the 100% promised RE range, but use 80% actual non-RE range you experience. Thus you are intentionally using inconsistent numbers to make your gripe sound more dramatic. You also use the taxes-in cost (not the number you paid to Tesla) to emphasize the cost to you (and thus the high expectations you have, as such a big spender). Overall this reeks of political speak and selective statistics to plead your case, so I think it's rubbing some people the wrong way.

I doubt Tesla is liable for anything, I'm sure they knew the legal situation before offering and then cancelling the RE. That said, I do think it was some misleading marketing and the right thing to do would have been to offer early buyers who chose the RE free supercharging, especially since Elon and the boys specifically said many times people don't need more range because of the great charging network. They should put their money where their mouths are.

 

[TheLastStarfighter]

I don’t think it is possible to do it, at least safely. Only 90 miles max range at 55 mph.

I appreciate your disappointment. I think the counter point would be, was your expectation that it would be ok with the RE reasonable? You're saying 90 miles makes it impossible, but would 125 miles work well?

 

[JackCypher]

While I think there was some misleading marketing on Tesla's part with the Cybertruck Launch and the Range Extender (specifically stating the truck will have a range of up to 450 miles with the RE or less without and showing it in the ordering options as if it was an actual option on the truck), your post comes across as very disingenuous. Specifically, you use the 100% promised RE range, but use 80% actual non-RE range you experience. Thus you are intentionally using inconsistent numbers to make your gripe sound more dramatic. You also use the taxes-in cost (not the number you paid to Tesla) to emphasize the cost to you (and thus the high expectations you have, as such a big spender). Overall this reeks of political speak and selective statistics to plead your case, so I think it's rubbing some people the wrong way.

I doubt Tesla is liable for anything, I'm sure they knew the legal situation before offering and the cancelling the RE. That said, I do think it was some misleading marketing and the right thing to do would have been to offer early buyers who chose the RE free supercharging, especially since Elon and the boys specifically said many times people don't need more range because of the great charging network. They should put their money where their mouths are.

This is what courts and lawyers are for. Having owned, vehicles, heavy equipment and lemon law return/buyback a +$100,000 vehicle - I am glad your assessment was not used to determine outcomes.
...Because I'd get a free tank of gas for my defective lemon vehicle.

Basic Contract Law requires the parties to as a minimum to 'deliver and/or perform' on any claims/representations made; if you don't it is breach of contract. No one forced Tesla to make these add-on claims, representation for the Cybertruck - they did of their own accord.

Just as when you signed the purchase contract - you committed make all the payments.

..so if the lightbar is $1,000...can we all miss the last $1,000 of our CT loan payment and still expect to get the title? [You've been brainwashed that the little guy gets the short end of the deal and should 'be a man, and move on']

It is a bit capricious and arbitrary to state that I don't nor anyone else deserves the lightbar that Tesla included in the sales contract for the Cybertruck and feel that your remedy is good enough for everyone.

I am not a fan of a Class Action suit - however, everyone is owed what was promised - period and a free puppy is not a substitute...

 

[PungoteagueDave]

I appreciate your disappointment. I think the counter point would be, was your expectation that it would be ok with the RE reasonable? You're saying 90 miles makes it impossible, but would 125 miles work well?

It would be at least workable. I have no issue with local towing. Tomorrow I will tow the boat to the dealer in Ft. Lauderdale, from my home in Boynton Beach - very doable at 50 miles. If it had a legit 110 miles range, I would make the trek 1,050 miles from Boynton to Kent Island, MD - at least once on a trial basis - it would be 12-14 charges and an extra 14 or so hours, but not an impossibility, as is the case now. I have already towed many lighter loads that route, starting with an MS in 2014, and more recently with my wife's MY - our 32-ft quad-jet-ski trailer - a 4,500-lb rig that did great, had about 150 miles range, and then back with the CT. I'm a glutton for punishment, have always seen EV's as part adventure - most of people wouldn't put up with this, including my wife.

 

[JackCypher]

It would be at least workable. I have no issue with local towing. Tomorrow I will tow the boat to the dealer in Ft. Lauderdale, from my home in Boynton Beach - very doable at 50 miles. If it had a legit 110 miles range, I would make the trek 1,050 miles from Boynton to Kent Island, MD - at least once on a trial basis - it would be 12-14 charges and an extra 14 or so hours, but not an impossibility, as is the case now. I have already towed many lighter loads that route, starting with an MS in 2014, and more recently with my wife's MY - our 32-ft quad-jet-ski trailer - a 4,500-lb rig that did great, had about 150 miles range, and then back with the CT. I'm a glutton for punishment, have always seen EV's as part adventure - most of people wouldn't put up with this, including my wife.

Thank you for actual real-world feedback...
I've hauled about 1,500lbs of lumber in mine and did not feel the weight at all...way smoother than hauling weight in a ICE vehicle. [the drive was not far enough to have total range a concern]

Like the matching wrap...

 

[TheLastStarfighter]

This is what courts and lawyers are for. Having owned, vehicles, heavy equipment and lemon law return/buyback a +$100,000 vehicle - I am glad your assessment was not used to determine outcomes.
...Because I'd get a free tank of gas for my defective lemon vehicle.

Basic Contract Law requires the parties to as a minimum to 'deliver and/or perform' on any claims/representations made; if you don't it is breach of contract. No one forced Tesla to make these add-on claims, representation for the Cybertruck - they did of their own accord.

Just as when you signed the purchase contract - you committed make all the payments.

..so if the lightbar is $1,000...can we all miss the last $1,000 of our CT loan payment and still expect to get the title? [You've been brainwashed that the little guy gets the short end of the deal and should 'be a man, and move on']

It is a bit capricious and arbitrary to state that I don't nor anyone else deserves the lightbar that Tesla included in the sales contract for the Cybertruck and feel that your remedy is good enough for everyone.

I am not a fan of a Class Action suit - however, everyone is owed what was promised - period and a free puppy is not a substitute...

Your opening statement is ridiculous, and your assumption of my brainwashing incorrect and condescending. This isn't a faulty vehicle. It's an additional product that was promised and then cancelled. This happens often, and without compensation, across all businesses. I'm not for the big guy or the little guy, only fairness, and fairness based on clear written word, not assumptions.

As far as I know, nothing in the purchase agreement guarantees a range extender. As such, the argument that the purchase of the truck was dependent on the RE, while understandable, is not enforceable. It's like buying a game console because a game that you really want to play is announced as in development for it; but the game gets into development hell and is cancelled. It may have been the reason you bought the hardware, but that was your choice and you don't get compensation. The company has to have the right to cancel a product that isn't working out.

I do think good will/customer relations is a different matter, and that Tesla should have offered something to those that pre-ordered the RE. I suspect they are a small number. I just doubt that they should legally have to, and the only winners would probably be lawyers for both sides.

 

[bg002h]

On May 7, 2025, I received an email stating that Tesla would not sell the Range Extender and that my deposit would be refunded. This sudden change constitutes a misrepresentation or fraudulent inducement and is grounds for a misrepresentation claim. I—and likely others—relied on the promised Range Extender when deciding to purchase the $135,000 Foundation Series Cyberbeast vehicle. Without the Range Extender, the recommended effective daily charging range is 240 miles at 80% charge, which is significantly lower than the 450 miles promised with the Range Extender.

I would not have purchased the Cyberbeast without the promised range increase from the Range Extender.

Is there any support and momentum among the club to move forward with a class-action claim for misrepresentation?

Yes, but I suspect this type of misrepresentation is not actionable under well trod commercial law. Ask AI or pay a lawyer $10,000 for an opinion.

Sponsored