Tesla revamps Referral Program with Cybertruck raffle

Tesla appears to have revamped its Referral Program, and it looks rather interesting. As noted by members of the Tesla community, the new Referral Program provides credits for vehicle purchases, as well as an exciting raffle for an early-edition Cybertruck. 

As stated by Tesla on the Referral Program’s support page, both existing and new owners are eligible to receive credits. Existing Tesla owners can obtain Referral Credits, while new owners can earn Buyer Credits. Loyalty Credits are also available for those who purchase qualifying Tesla products. The company notes that this is a way to show its appreciation to its existing consumers. 

Images shared online by Tesla owners indicate that Model S and Model X purchases provide 6,000 Loyalty Credits. The two flagship vehicles also offer 3,500 Referral Credits. Purchases of the Model 3 and Model Y yield 3,500 Loyalty Credits or 2,000 Referral Credits. Purchases of Solar Roof and Solar Panels yield 9,000 Loyalty Credits or Referral Credits. 

Perhaps most intriguing, however, is the addition of a Cybertruck raffle in the new Referral Program. For 500 credits, participants can enter a raffle that gives them a chance to win one of the first production Cybertrucks to come off the line. Participants are allowed to submit multiple entries to the Cybertruck raffle. 

“Enter for your chance at a free Cybertruck. One winner will be selected at random to receive one of the first Cybertruck VINs off the line – no reservation needed, free of charge,” Tesla noted. 

Given that credits are typically exchanged for items like Tesla merchandise, the Cybertruck raffle might very well become one of the more popular aspects of the new Referral Program. After all, the Cybertruck is arguably one of the most anticipated electric cars this year, so the opportunity to own one of the all-electric pickup truck’s first production units would likely be a strong incentive, both for existing and new Tesla owners alike.

Don’t hesitate to contact us with news tips. Just send a message to simon@teslarati.com to give us a heads-up.

Tesla revamps Referral Program with Cybertruck raffle

Source

Ex-Tesla employee seeks do-over after $137M jury award gets reduced $97.6%

Tesla’s legal dispute with a former contract worker who accused the company of racial discrimination isn’t over just yet. In a recent update, Owen Diaz, who previously worked as an elevator operator at the Fremont Factory, indicated that he is seeking another retrial.

Diaz, who was awarded $3.2 million in a second trial over alleged racial abuse he experienced while working at Tesla, claimed that the trial proceedings were affected by unjustifiable character attacks from Tesla’s attorney. Tesla, for its part, is requesting a 45% reduction in the punitive damages awarded to Diaz, dubbing them “manifestly erroneous.”

Diaz’s case against Tesla caught headlines when he received a $137 million jury verdict in 2021. The former contract employee had claimed that he endured numerous racial attacks while working at the California plant. The substantial $137 million award was one of the largest ever for an individual suing over discrimination in the US.

However, while the $137 million jury verdict was historic, a judge later noted that the maximum compensation Diaz was entitled to was $15 million. Diaz refused to accept the judge’s stance, which ultimately led to a retrial. The retrial resulted in a $3.2 million verdict, 97.6% smaller than the initial $137 million jury verdict.

In a court filing, Diaz’s attorneys described the case’s retrial as flawed. The former Tesla contract worker’s legal team accused the company’s attorney, Alex Spiro, of calling them “phony civil rights lawyers” and repeatedly disparaging Diaz. Diaz’s legal team further claimed that Spiro violated trial regulations by introducing prohibited evidence, incorrectly questioning Diaz’s witnesses, and suggesting that Tesla had already compensated Diaz.

Diaz’s attorney, Michael Rubin, argued that the judge’s instructions to the jury to set the record straight on the matter ultimately ended up “highlighting Tesla’s poisonous messaging.” “There was no meaningful way to wipe Tesla’s improper accusations and suggestions from the jury’s consciousness,” Rubin noted, as noted in a Bloomberg News report.

Diaz’s legal team is requesting US District Judge William Orrick to order a new trial. The lawyer also noted that Tesla’s “misconduct” is the only plausible explanation behind the drastic reduction of the $137 million jury award since the case’s underlying facts have not changed.

Tesla and its attorney, Alex Spiro, are yet to issue a comment on the matter.

Interestingly, Tesla has noted in its own court filing that the $3 million in punitive damages awarded by the jury is constitutionally disproportionate to Diaz’s relatively modest compensatory damages. A similar argument was made by Tesla when it challenged the case’s original $137 million jury verdict. Tesla has stated that Diaz should receive no more than $1.75 million in total damages.

Don’t hesitate to contact us with news tips. Just send a message to simon@teslarati.com to give us a heads-up.

Ex-Tesla employee seeks do-over after $137M jury award gets reduced $97.6%

Source

Tesla moves forward with Kato Road expansion where 4680 cell develops

Tesla has moved forward with its expansion of the Kato Road facility, where the 4680 battery cell is developed.

Filings seen by Teslarati show the automaker has continued with its expansion of the Materials Lab, where research and development of the 4680 cell and other battery projects take place.

Tesla filed for revisions to the expansion project in late April, but the Materials Lab has been undergoing modifications since 2021.

Tesla filed its initial permit for the expansion of the Materials Lab at 47400 Kato Road in Fremont in July 2021. It has continued to fill out over the past year and a half, with the most recent filings coming in early and late April of this year.

With the 4680 project continuing to expand in terms of production, Tesla is ramping up manufacturing of the cell to accommodate its appearance in vehicles, including the Model Y that is built at Gigafactory Texas.

Tesla first unveiled the 4680 cell in 2020 at the company’s Battery Day event. The automaker detailed how a new cell design would not only increase battery longevity, but also power and vehicle range, which has not yet been applied to cars with a 4680 pack.

Tesla Model Y vehicles fitted with the 4680 cell have actually shown to have less range than other vehicles, but there are be several reasons for this, and Tesla has gone out of their way to explain it.

Tesla said in a rebuttal to criticism of the range ratings of the 4680 pack:

“Introducing the new cells meant introducing a new variant of the Model Y. We’ve designed Model Y AWD to have an attractive combination of range, performance and price that will be the best fit for many customers and will make Model Y accessible to more customers, furthering our mission. Those interested in an even more capable Model Y should explore Model Y Long Range and Performance. We’ve chosen to put a lower-energy battery pack in Model Y AWD, resulting in lower range, acceleration, and price point.”

We have continued to track developments at both Kato Road and the Fremont Factory as Tesla has hinted in the past it could expand the production facility to make way for higher manufacturing rates.

Tesla 4680 production hits milestone of 868k cells in seven days

Tesla has a lofty goal of producing 1.8 million cars this year, and with recently expanded efforts at both Giga Texas and Giga Berlin, the automaker seems on track to reach this. If it does expand the Fremont Factory as well, growth to the 4680 cell project only seems logical.

I’d love to hear from you! If you have any comments, concerns, or questions, please email me at joey@teslarati.com. You can also reach me on Twitter @KlenderJoey, or if you have news tips, you can email us at tips@teslarati.com.

Tesla moves forward with Kato Road expansion where 4680 cell develops

Source