Ben Gawiser, a Tesla Model 3 owner, won a $10,600 small claims judgment after suing Tesla for failing to deliver the promised Full Self-Driving software. Despite the ruling, Tesla continues to stall payment, extending the dispute.
- Tesla still sells FSD hardware and software but fails to deliver level 5 autonomy.
- Owner Ben Gawiser won a $10,600 small claims judgment for undelivered FSD.
- Tesla delays payment by requesting extensions rather than appealing judgment.
What happened
Ben Gawiser bought a Tesla Model 3 in August 2021 along with the Full Self-Driving (FSD) software, paying over $10,000 for promised autonomous vehicle capabilities. Tesla had advertised that each vehicle had hardware capable of full self-driving and that software improvements would lead to level 5 autonomy within a few years.
After continued software shortcomings and safety issues—including the vehicle stopping unexpectedly and ignoring school zones—Gawiser sought a refund starting in late 2025. Tesla denied the refund and recommended a service center visit, which would not resolve the fundamental failure to deliver level 5 self-driving. He then filed a small claims lawsuit in Travis County, Texas, and won a default judgment for $10,672.88, but Tesla has since delayed payment by requesting deadline extensions.
Why it matters
Tesla’s inability to deliver on its Full Self-Driving promises exposes the gap between ambitious marketing and actual product capability. While the company has rolled out partial FSD features and operates limited Robotaxi services, full autonomy remains unmet, leaving customers with significant unmet expectations and financial losses.
The legal victory reflects growing consumer pushback and increased scrutiny over how automakers represent emerging autonomous technologies. Tesla’s reluctance to promptly comply with court-ordered payments raises concerns about accountability and consumer rights in the evolving autonomous vehicle market.
What to watch next
Monitor whether Tesla complies with the small claims court’s judgment or escalates its legal resistance. Its approach to settlement or delay will signal how it handles similar customer disputes going forward, especially as more owners may seek refunds or legal recourse.
Observers should also track regulatory and legislative responses to Tesla’s FSD claims and consumer protections in self-driving software sales. The case highlights the challenges authorities face in overseeing autonomous vehicle promises and safeguarding customers amid slow technology development.