Range Extender Class Action Claim

[no%X#XMVk65v#cq]

I have never written on this forum before, but I am quickly learning that there is a lot of anger and hostility here. It is healthy to disagree and debate, but no reason for the meanness and sarcasm.

I agree. We're mostly a bunch of sarcastic a-holes. Welcome to the internet.

You came in hot, your first post a suggestion that we join with you to sue Tesla. It's ridiculous.

Also, posting in bold is considered rude.

Sponsored

 

[Limes2]

Also, posting in bold is considered rude.

Came in hot and bold. Let's see how that strategy plays out.

 

[CallsignVega]

You are ill-informed, sir. In the mobile app, under Charging, it clearly states, "Charge tips: 80% recommended for daily driving."

Uh what does that have to do with the maximum range. I think you are just trolling now.

 

[devdrone6]

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

No

 

[Trbizwiz]

So here's my serious answer.

First off, class-action does not benefit you the way you clearly think it does. If you have a good claim, you are much better off as an individual than joining a class. A class action lawsuit results in a team of lawyers making big bucks over many years, and each person that joins the class ends up getting a paltry sum after the lawyers are paid.

Secondly, to win any case you need to have to have a good claim of damages, expressed as dollars. What are your damages for them not selling you a product that you didn't pay for? Sure, you can argue that you wouldn't have bought the vehicle with the knowledge that this add on accessory wouldn't be available. But that didn't cost you anything. You paid for a vehicle equipped exactly the way you were charged. Others have deemed that the price you paid was fair market value. You have no damages.

Just my opinion, but good luck.

Devils advocate, the range extender was a non refundable deposit. Some people ordered them at the same time as the truck. I could see the thinking here, for damages, and I am a huge Tesla fan, and share holder. It seems like the non refundable part, and a relatively high deposit compared to the deposit they ask, on much more expensive products, might be Tesla's Achilles heel in this situation. Anyone paying the high deposit, at the time of order could fairly easily show cause that the R/E was a driving factor for purchase. I am not a lawyer.


Tesla required a $2,000 non-refundable deposit to reserve the Cybertruck Range Extender, which was designed as a roughly $16,000 optional add-on battery pack. Although initially listed, Tesla cancelled the project in May 2025 due to low demand and impracticality, subsequently refunding the $2,000 deposits to customers.

• Deposit Amount: $2,000 (initially, some reports indicated a lower, earlier, or different, non-refundable amount of $500, but it was $2,000 in the final configuration).
• Cost of Extender: Approximately $16,000.
• Status: Cancelled (May 2025).
• Refund Status: Deposits were refunded in full after the cancellation.

 

[TyPope]

I agree. We're mostly a bunch of sarcastic a-holes. Welcome to the internet.

You came in hot, your first post a suggestion that we join with you to sue Tesla. It's ridiculous.

Also, posting in bold is considered rude.

wE aRe NoT aLl SaRcAsTiC, yOu KnOw.

 

[Mikec3399]

I would like to join the 2-class action lawsuit against tesla brought on by the owners in California
the range extender and the Class action suit for the light bar
how does a resident of GA or Connecticut join these class action suits

 

[no%X#XMVk65v#cq]

Devils advocate, the range extender was a non refundable deposit. Some people ordered them at the same time as the truck. I could see the thinking here, for damages, and I am a huge Tesla fan, and share holder. It seems like the non refundable part, and a relatively high deposit compared to the deposit they ask, on much more expensive products, might be Tesla's Achilles heel in this situation. Anyone paying the high deposit, at the time of order could fairly easily show cause that the R/E was a driving factor for purchase. I am not a lawyer.


Tesla required a $2,000 non-refundable deposit to reserve the Cybertruck Range Extender, which was designed as a roughly $16,000 optional add-on battery pack. Although initially listed, Tesla cancelled the project in May 2025 due to low demand and impracticality, subsequently refunding the $2,000 deposits to customers.

• Deposit Amount: $2,000 (initially, some reports indicated a lower, earlier, or different, non-refundable amount of $500, but it was $2,000 in the final configuration).
• Cost of Extender: Approximately $16,000.
• Status: Cancelled (May 2025).
• Refund Status: Deposits were refunded in full after the cancellation.

I conceded in my post that one could argue they only bought the truck because of the range extender option. I still don't see how that equates to damage in dollars. How many dollars is one out for not being able to purchase an accessory? You had to either buy a truck anyway, or go without the use of a truck. Therefore the person with this knowledge beforehand is in no better position than the person that wasn't.

I don't see how the deposit being non-refundable changes anything, especially since it was refunded lol.

 

[Trbizwiz]

I conceded in my post that one could argue they only bought the truck because of the range extender option. I still don't see how that equates to damage in dollars. How many dollars is one out for not being able to purchase an accessory? You had to either buy a truck anyway, or go without the use of a truck. Therefore the person with this knowledge beforehand is in no better financial position than the person that wasn't.

I don't see how the deposit being non-refundable changes anything, especially since it was refunded lol.

Not to be argumentative, but the non refundable deposit gives the consumer the belief that the product is happening. They are concerned enough about the range, they are willing to commit $2000 for the extender, with no hope of refund, for an indeterminate amount of time. They make a purchase decision on this product happening. The OP may have known his use case required 400 plus miles of range, and he wanted a Cybertruck, so he was willing to compromise for the estimated 12 month wait. Had the R/E not been offered, or had he known it would be cancelled, he could have bought a truck with 400 plus miles of range. Any diesel truck would easily do that. I don’t think Tesla owes this guy millions. But in the case of those ordering and placing $2000 deposits on an R/E at the time of ordering the truck, they could show cause for misleading advertising. I think a buyback is in order. Perhaps a buyback minus $0.25 per mile of use. Sort of like a lemon buy back. If I were in his shoes, I’d be happy if they just swapped me out for a new beast with Luxe package, which may offset the extra charging, if he had hoped to use only destination charging from point to point. But I’m not, and I have no idea what will happen here. But I think his case shows he bought the truck based on the extender.
his pool analogy makes sense to me as well. In his analogy, the buyer only wanted a pool home. They ordered and paid for a pool home. They did not receive a pool home.They likely would not have purchased that home had they known they weren’t getting a pool.

 

[Professor]

I had planned on buying the range extender as well, but didn't put down a deposit. That was before i found out that it would take up a third of my bed. Then after taking delivery and driving for a few weeks, i realized i didn't really need it. Yes, the extra range would be nice, but it would extend the charging time proportionally. Now i'm glad i don't have one. I'd rather have the bed space, and the charging time is just long enough to get lunch, and 3 hrs is really the longest i want to drive without stopping.

 

[dw321]

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?

NO

 

[BrockN]

I think you said you've been in the Tesla ecosystem since 2016? If so, then you have probably seen plenty of "promises" broken over the years, mostly comments from Elon on earnings calls and technology days. That's been a criticism from naysayers from Day One and I absolutely get it.

But in your case, assuming your case wasn't dismissed outright, what would realistic damages actually be? I can't see anything beyond the loss of buying at retail and selling at wholesale...adjusted for miles driven. IMHO that unlikely, but arguably potential, juice is hardly worth the squeeze.

My '23 Y, bought when they offered FSD transfer (which triggered my purchase) turned out to be a bit of a rip off. I was told I was getting a made in China Y, because the demand was causing them to bring those ones into Canada to satisfy customers. I asked if there was any difference and was told absolutely not, and in fact, the build quality was better. I went ahead. Turns out that the MiC models didn't transition to HW4 until a few months later, even though the MiUSA ones had had it for a few months already. So in spite of having FSD in the order, I was sold a car with legacy hardware that is a far cry from what my CT does. Believe me, that pisses me off severely! But I also know Tesla doesn't care even slightly.

 

[Cybertruck2024]

Not to be argumentative, but the non refundable deposit gives the consumer the belief that the product is happening. They are concerned enough about the range, they are willing to commit $2000 for the extender, with no hope of refund, for an indeterminate amount of time. They make a purchase decision on this product happening. The OP may have known his use case required 400 plus miles of range, and he wanted a Cybertruck, so he was willing to compromise for the estimated 12 month wait. Had the R/E not been offered, or had he known it would be cancelled, he could have bought a truck with 400 plus miles of range. Any diesel truck would easily do that. I don’t think Tesla owes this guy millions. But in the case of those ordering and placing $2000 deposits on an R/E at the time of ordering the truck, they could show cause for misleading advertising. I think a buyback is in order. Perhaps a buyback minus $0.25 per mile of use. Sort of like a lemon buy back. If I were in his shoes, I’d be happy if they just swapped me out for a new beast with Luxe package, which may offset the extra charging, if he had hoped to use only destination charging from point to point. But I’m not, and I have no idea what will happen here. But I think his case shows he bought the truck based on the extender.
his pool analogy makes sense to me as well. In his analogy, the buyer only wanted a pool home. They ordered and paid for a pool home. They did not receive a pool home.They likely would not have purchased that home had they known they weren’t getting a pool.

This is one of the best posts in this thread, because it gives a measurable way the OP has been impacted. If he is driving 400 miles regularly and has home charging of $0.15 per kWh and supercharging costs $0.40 per kWh, you can easily back into extra cost that was not expected. If you drove 30k miles and now 1/3 of them are at a higher cost, you have a quantitative amount you can display for damages.

Again, I wouldn't go through the hassle of a lawsuit, doesn't seem worth the effort. But to say there is nothing here is a bit unfair to the OP.

Does anyone have the language which came when ordering the extended range? I assume that will be air tight and void most claims for damages against lack of delivery, but I haven't personally read it.

 

[pricedm]

Don’t you believe you have a claim for damages?

No

 

[mongo]

I came 🤏 close to picking up the AWD with free Supercharging just before they officially canceled range extender for longer (and free) towing. No reason to have purchased it otherwise since we already had an FS Beast. I would have been ...

That said, the extender was a separate product and purchase from the truck, and there is an arbitration clause in the vehicle purchase agreement (unless one opted out) , so

Sponsored