Commitments and Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2025
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies Legal Proceedings Litigation Relating to 2018 CEO Performance Award On June 4, 2018, a purported Tesla stockholder filed a putative class and derivative action in the Delaware Court of Chancery against Elon Musk and the members of Tesla’s board of directors as then constituted, alleging corporate waste, unjust enrichment and that such board members breached their fiduciary duties by approving the 2018 CEO Performance Award. Trial was held November 14-18, 2022. On January 30, 2024, the Court issued an opinion finding that the 2018 CEO Performance Award should be rescinded. Plaintiff’s counsel filed a brief seeking a fee award of 29,402,900 Tesla shares, plus expenses of $1,120,115.50. Tesla opposed the fee request, and at Tesla’s 2024 Annual Meeting of Stockholders, 72% of the disinterested voting shares of Tesla, excluding shares owned by Mr. Musk and Kimbal Musk, voted to ratify the 2018 CEO Performance Award. Because Tesla’s disinterested stockholders voted to ratify the 2018 CEO Performance Award, Mr. Musk and the other director defendants, joined by Tesla, filed a brief seeking to revise the Court’s January 30, 2024 opinion. On December 2, 2024, the Court issued an opinion denying the motion to revise the Court’s January 30, 2024 opinion and awarded Plaintiff’s counsel fees in the amount of $345 million. A final judgment was entered by the Court, and the director defendants and Tesla appealed the decisions to the Delaware Supreme Court. Tesla and the Director Defendants filed their response briefs on March 11, 2025. Plaintiffs filed their opening brief on April 25, 2025, and reply briefs were filed on May 16, 2025. Oral argument occurred on October 15, 2025. On December 19, 2025, the Delaware Supreme Court reversed the Court of Chancery’s rescission order, reinstating Mr. Musk’s 2018 compensation package, and awarded $1 in nominal damages. The Court also significantly reduced the attorney fee award. Litigation Related to Directors’ Compensation On June 17, 2020, a purported Tesla stockholder filed a derivative action in the Delaware Court of Chancery, purportedly on behalf of Tesla, against certain of Tesla’s current and former directors regarding compensation awards granted to Tesla’s directors, other than Elon Musk, between 2017 and 2020. The suit asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment and seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, unspecified damages and other relief. Defendants filed their answer on September 17, 2020. On July 14, 2023, the parties filed a Stipulation and Agreement of Compromise and Settlement, which does not involve an admission of any wrongdoing by any party. Pursuant to the terms of the agreement, Tesla provided notice of the proposed settlement to stockholders of record as of July 14, 2023. The Court held a hearing regarding the settlement on October 13, 2023, after which it took the settlement and Plaintiff’s counsel fees request under advisement. On January 8, 2025, the Court approved the settlement and awarded Plaintiff’s counsel fees in the amount of approximately $176 million. A final judgment was entered by the Court on January 13, 2025. The Company disagrees with the amount of attorneys’ fees awarded by the court. On February 10, 2025, Tesla appealed the attorneys’ fee award amount to the Delaware Supreme Court. Tesla did not appeal the Delaware Court of Chancery’s approval of the underlying settlement. Also on February 10, 2025, a single shareholder appealed the approval of the settlement. This shareholder’s appeal does not seek to alter any material terms (e.g., financial contributions or the defendants’ obligations under the Settlement Agreement). The Delaware Court of Chancery had previously rejected this shareholder’s objections when approving the Settlement Agreement. Tesla’s appeal of the attorneys’ fee award and the single shareholder’s appeal have been fully briefed. Oral argument occurred on October 29, 2025, and the parties are awaiting a decision. Because neither Tesla’s appeal nor the shareholder’s appeal seeks to vacate the Settlement Agreement or materially modify its terms, the Company implemented the provisions of the Settlement Agreement in May 2025 by cancelling the options requiring cancellation under its terms. In connection with the settlement, Tesla received $277 million from certain directors and paid Plaintiff’s counsel fees of $176 million (which, as noted above, the Company is appealing) in the three months ended March 31, 2025. We recorded a $31 million reversal of previously recognized stock-based compensation expense in association with the returned awards and increased our provision for income taxes in relation to the return of directors’ compensation. As the settlement was an equity transaction, the net impact to additional paid-in-capital was $110 million in the three months ended March 31, 2025. Litigation Relating to Potential Going Private Transaction Between October 17, 2018 and March 8, 2021, seven derivative lawsuits were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery, purportedly on behalf of Tesla, against Mr. Musk and the members of Tesla’s board of directors, as constituted at relevant times, in relation to statements made and actions connected to a potential going private transaction, with certain of the lawsuits challenging additional Twitter posts by Mr. Musk, among other things. Several of those actions were consolidated. All the non-consolidated cases have been dismissed with prejudice through a stipulation and order. A stipulation for dismissal with prejudice of the consolidated case was filed on December 24, 2025, and the parties are waiting for the court to approve it. In addition to these cases, two derivative lawsuits were filed on October 25, 2018 and February 11, 2019 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, purportedly on behalf of Tesla, against Mr. Musk and the members of the Tesla board of directors as then constituted. Those cases were also consolidated, and on April 25, 2025, were dismissed with prejudice through a stipulation and order. On October 21, 2022, a lawsuit was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery by a purported shareholder of Tesla alleging, among other things, that board members breached their fiduciary duties in connection with their oversight of the Company’s 2018 settlement with the SEC, as amended. Among other things, the plaintiff seeks reforms to the Company’s corporate governance and internal procedures, unspecified damages, and attorneys’ fees. The lawsuit has been stayed. Certain Derivative Lawsuits in Delaware Before converting from a Delaware to Texas corporation on June 13, 2024, three separate derivative actions brought by purported Tesla stockholders were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery on May 24, June 10 and June 13, 2024, purportedly on behalf of Tesla, against current and former directors regarding topics involving Elon Musk and others, X Corp. (formerly Twitter) and xAI. These suits assert various claims, including breach of fiduciary duty and breach of contract, and seek unspecified damages and other relief. On August 6, 2024, the plaintiffs in these three actions moved to consolidate the matters into a single case. The Court consolidated two of the three cases. Tesla and the directors filed motions to dismiss, and oral argument on those motions occurred on October 22, 2025. Litigation and Investigations Relating to Alleged Discrimination and Harassment On February 9, 2022, the California Civil Rights Department (“CRD,” formerly “DFEH”) filed a civil complaint against Tesla in Alameda County, California Superior Court, alleging systemic race discrimination, hostile work environment and pay equity claims, among others. CRD’s amended complaint seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief. The trial is currently set for July 20, 2026. Additionally, on June 1, 2022 the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) issued a cause finding against Tesla that closely parallels the CRD’s allegations. On September 28, 2023, the EEOC filed a civil complaint against Tesla in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California asserting claims for race harassment and retaliation and seeking, among other things, monetary and injunctive relief. The case is in discovery with no trial date set. Other Litigation Related to Our Products and Services We are also subject to various lawsuits that seek monetary and other injunctive relief. These lawsuits include proposed class actions and other consumer claims that allege, among other things, purported defects and misrepresentations related to our products and services. For example, on September 14, 2022, a proposed class action was filed against Tesla, Inc. and related entities in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging various claims about the Company’s driver assistance technology systems under state and federal law. This case was later consolidated with several other proposed class actions, and a Consolidated Amended Complaint was filed on October 28, 2022, which seeks damages and other relief on behalf of all persons who purchased or leased from Tesla between January 1, 2016, to the present. On March 22, 2023, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to order Tesla to (1) cease using the term “Full Self-Driving Capability” (FSD Capability), (2) cease the sale and activation of FSD Capability and deactivate FSD Capability on Tesla vehicles, and (3) provide certain notices to consumers about proposed court-findings about the accuracy of the use of the terms Autopilot and FSD Capability. Tesla opposed the motion. On September 30, 2023, the Court denied the request for a preliminary injunction, compelled four of five plaintiffs to arbitration, and dismissed the claims of the fifth plaintiff with leave to amend the complaint. On October 31, 2023, the remaining plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which Tesla moved to dismiss, and on May 15, 2024, the Court granted in part and denied in part Tesla’s motion. On May 6, 2025, the plaintiff filed a motion for class certification, which Tesla opposed, and on August 18, 2025, the Court certified a limited class comprised of California consumers who are not subject to an arbitration agreement. On September 1, 2025, Tesla filed a petition in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for permission to appeal the class certification order, and on December 18, 2025, the Ninth Circuit granted Tesla’s petition. On January 5, 2026, the district court stayed the case pending resolution of the proceedings before the Ninth Circuit. Tesla’s opening brief in the Ninth Circuit is due on March 12, 2026. On October 2, 2023, a similar proposed class action was filed in San Diego County Superior Court in California. Tesla subsequently removed the San Diego County case to federal court and on January 8, 2024, the federal court granted Tesla’s motion to transfer the case to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Tesla moved to compel arbitration, which the plaintiff did not oppose, and on June 27, 2024, the Court stayed the case pending arbitration. On February 27, 2023, a proposed class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against Tesla, Inc., Elon Musk and certain current and former Company executives. The complaint alleges that the defendants made material misrepresentations and omissions about the Company’s Autopilot and FSD Capability technologies and seeks money damages and other relief on behalf of persons who purchased Tesla stock between February 19, 2019, and February 17, 2023. An amended complaint was filed on September 5, 2023, naming only Tesla, Inc. and Elon Musk as defendants. On November 6, 2023, Tesla moved to dismiss the amended complaint. On September 30, 2024, the Court granted Tesla’s motion to dismiss without prejudice. On November 26, 2024, the court issued a final judgment in Tesla’s favor, and on December 23, 2024, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Oral argument occurred on November 20, 2025, and on December 2, 2025, the Ninth Circuit issued a memorandum decision affirming the district court’s dismissal of the amended complaint. On December 29, 2025, the Court’s clerk issued a mandate closing the case. On August 4, 2025, a proposed class action was filed in the U.S. District Court Western District of Texas against Tesla, Inc., Elon Musk, and certain current and former Company executives. The complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal securities laws through alleged material misrepresentations in public filings regarding the effectiveness of Autopilot, Full-Self Driving (Supervised), and Robotaxi. The complaint seeks monetary damages and other relief on behalf of persons who purchased Tesla stock between April 19, 2023, and June 22, 2025. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in these matters; however, we cannot predict the outcome or impact. We are unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any, associated with these claims, unless noted. Benavides v. Tesla, Inc. On August 1, 2025, a jury in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida reached a verdict in a product liability trial relating to certain allegations regarding the use of our Autopilot technology in a 2019 accident that resulted in a fatality and injuries. The jury awarded $129 million in total compensatory damages, finding the driver 67% at fault and the Company 33% at fault. The jury also awarded $200 million in punitive damages. On September 15, 2025, the Company filed a post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law or, in the alternative, a new trial on all issues or an amended judgment to lesser compensatory and punitive damages. Although we believe that the facts and law do not justify the damages awarded, the Company has recorded an immaterial accrual. We have experienced, and we expect to continue to face, claims and regulatory scrutiny arising from or related to misuse or claimed failures or alleged misrepresentations of new technologies that we are pioneering. We are unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any, associated with these claims, unless noted. An unfavorable outcome in some or all of these proceedings could have a material adverse impact on results of operations or cash flows for a particular period. Our view of these matters is subject to inherent uncertainties and may change in the future. Certain Investigations and Other Matters We regularly receive requests for information, including subpoenas, from regulators and governmental authorities such as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the National Transportation Safety Board, the SEC, the Department of Justice (“DOJ”), and various local, state, federal, and international agencies. The ongoing requests for information include topics such as operations, technology (e.g., vehicle functionality, vehicle incidents, Autopilot and FSD Capability and Robotaxi), compliance, finance, data privacy, and other matters related to Tesla’s business, its personnel, and related parties. We routinely cooperate with such formal and informal requests for information, investigations, and other inquiries. To our knowledge no government agency in any ongoing investigation has concluded that any wrongdoing occurred. We cannot predict the outcome or impact of any ongoing matters. Should the government decide to pursue an enforcement action, there exists the possibility of a material adverse impact on our business, results of operations, prospects, cash flows, financial position or brand. We are also subject to various other legal proceedings, risks and claims that arise from the normal course of business activities. For example, on August 5, 2023, a putative class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, purportedly on behalf of all U.S. individuals impacted by a data misappropriation incident earlier that year. Several additional lawsuits followed, each asserting claims under various state laws and seeking monetary damages and other relief. If an unfavorable ruling or development were to occur in these or other possible legal proceedings, risks and claims, there exists the possibility of a material adverse impact on our business, results of operations, prospects, cash flows, financial position or brand. Letters of Credit As of December 31, 2025, we had $556 million of unused letters of credit outstanding.

On June 4, 2018, a purported Tesla stockholder filed a putative class and derivative action in the Delaware Court of Chancery against Elon Musk and the members of Tesla’s board of directors as then constituted, alleging corporate waste, unjust enrichment and that such board members breached their fiduciary duties by approving the 2018 CEO Performance Award. Trial was held November 14-18, 2022. On January 30, 2024, the Court issued an opinion finding that the 2018 CEO Performance Award should be rescinded. Plaintiff’s counsel filed a brief seeking a fee award of 29,402,900 Tesla shares, plus expenses of $1,120,115.50. Tesla opposed the fee request, and at Tesla’s 2024 Annual Meeting of Stockholders, 72% of the disinterested voting shares of Tesla, excluding shares owned by Mr. Musk and Kimbal Musk, voted to ratify the 2018 CEO Performance Award. Because Tesla’s disinterested stockholders voted to ratify the 2018 CEO Performance Award, Mr. Musk and the other director defendants, joined by Tesla, filed a brief seeking to revise the Court’s January 30, 2024 opinion. On December 2, 2024, the Court issued an opinion denying the motion to revise the Court’s January 30, 2024 opinion and awarded Plaintiff’s counsel fees in the amount of $345 million. A final judgment was entered by the Court, and the director defendants and Tesla appealed the decisions to the Delaware Supreme Court. Tesla and the Director Defendants filed their response briefs on March 11, 2025. Plaintiffs filed their opening brief on April 25, 2025, and reply briefs were filed on May 16, 2025. Oral argument occurred on October 15, 2025. On December 19, 2025, the Delaware Supreme Court reversed the Court of Chancery’s rescission order, reinstating Mr. Musk’s 2018 compensation package, and awarded $1 in nominal damages. The Court also significantly reduced the attorney fee award.

On July 14, 2023, the parties filed a Stipulation and Agreement of Compromise and Settlement, which does not involve an admission of any wrongdoing by any party. Pursuant to the terms of the agreement, Tesla provided notice of the proposed settlement to stockholders of record as of July 14, 2023. The Court held a hearing regarding the settlement on October 13, 2023, after which it took the settlement and Plaintiff’s counsel fees request under advisement. On January 8, 2025, the Court approved the settlement and awarded Plaintiff’s counsel fees in the amount of approximately $176 million. A final judgment was entered by the Court on January 13, 2025.

The Company disagrees with the amount of attorneys’ fees awarded by the court. On February 10, 2025, Tesla appealed the attorneys’ fee award amount to the Delaware Supreme Court. Tesla did not appeal the Delaware Court of Chancery’s approval of the underlying settlement. Also on February 10, 2025, a single shareholder appealed the approval of the settlement. This shareholder’s appeal does not seek to alter any material terms (e.g., financial contributions or the defendants’ obligations under the Settlement Agreement). The Delaware Court of Chancery had previously rejected this shareholder’s objections when approving the Settlement Agreement. Tesla’s appeal of the attorneys’ fee award and the single shareholder’s appeal have been fully briefed. Oral argument occurred on October 29, 2025, and the parties are awaiting a decision.

In connection with the settlement, Tesla received $277 million from certain directors and paid Plaintiff’s counsel fees of $176 million (which, as noted above, the Company is appealing) in the three months ended March 31, 2025. We recorded a $31 million reversal of previously recognized stock-based compensation expense in association with the returned awards and increased our provision for income taxes in relation to the return of directors’ compensation. As the settlement was an equity transaction, the net impact to additional paid-in-capital was $110 million in the three months ended March 31, 2025.

Between October 17, 2018 and March 8, 2021, seven derivative lawsuits were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery, purportedly on behalf of Tesla, against Mr. Musk and the members of Tesla’s board of directors, as constituted at relevant times, in relation to statements made and actions connected to a potential going private transaction, with certain of the lawsuits challenging additional Twitter posts by Mr. Musk, among other things. Several of those actions were consolidated. All the non-consolidated cases have been dismissed with prejudice through a stipulation and order. A stipulation for dismissal with prejudice of the consolidated case was filed on December 24, 2025, and the parties are waiting for the court to approve it. In addition to these cases, two derivative lawsuits were filed on October 25, 2018 and February 11, 2019 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, purportedly on behalf of Tesla, against Mr. Musk and the members of the Tesla board of directors as then constituted. Those cases were also consolidated, and on April 25, 2025, were dismissed with prejudice through a stipulation and order.

Before converting from a Delaware to Texas corporation on June 13, 2024, three separate derivative actions brought by purported Tesla stockholders were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery on May 24, June 10 and June 13, 2024, purportedly on behalf of Tesla, against current and former directors regarding topics involving Elon Musk and others, X Corp. (formerly Twitter) and xAI. These suits assert various claims, including breach of fiduciary duty and breach of contract, and seek unspecified damages and other relief. On August 6, 2024, the plaintiffs in these three actions moved to consolidate the matters into a single case. The Court consolidated two of the three cases. Tesla and the directors filed motions to dismiss, and oral argument on those motions occurred on October 22, 2025.

We are also subject to various lawsuits that seek monetary and other injunctive relief. These lawsuits include proposed class actions and other consumer claims that allege, among other things, purported defects and misrepresentations related to our products and services. For example, on September 14, 2022, a proposed class action was filed against Tesla, Inc. and related entities in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging various claims about the Company’s driver assistance technology systems under state and federal law. This case was later consolidated with several other proposed class actions, and a Consolidated Amended Complaint was filed on October 28, 2022, which seeks damages and other relief on behalf of all persons who purchased or leased from Tesla between January 1, 2016, to the present. On March 22, 2023, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to order Tesla to (1) cease using the term “Full Self-Driving Capability” (FSD Capability), (2) cease the sale and activation of FSD Capability and deactivate FSD Capability on Tesla vehicles, and (3) provide certain notices to consumers about proposed court-findings about the accuracy of the use of the terms Autopilot and FSD Capability. Tesla opposed the motion. On September 30, 2023, the Court denied the request for a preliminary injunction, compelled four of five plaintiffs to arbitration, and dismissed the claims of the fifth plaintiff with leave to amend the complaint. On October 31, 2023, the remaining plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which Tesla moved to dismiss, and on May 15, 2024, the Court granted in part and denied in part Tesla’s motion. On May 6, 2025, the plaintiff filed a motion for class certification, which Tesla opposed, and on August 18, 2025, the Court certified a limited class comprised of California consumers who are not subject to an arbitration agreement. On September 1, 2025, Tesla filed a petition in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for permission to appeal the class certification order, and on December 18, 2025, the Ninth Circuit granted Tesla’s petition. On January 5, 2026, the district court stayed the case pending resolution of the proceedings before the Ninth Circuit. Tesla’s opening brief in the Ninth Circuit is due on March 12, 2026. On October 2, 2023, a similar proposed class action was filed in San Diego County Superior Court in California. Tesla subsequently removed the San Diego County case to federal court and on January 8, 2024, the federal court granted Tesla’s motion to transfer the case to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Tesla moved to compel arbitration, which the plaintiff did not oppose, and on June 27, 2024, the Court stayed the case pending arbitration.

On February 27, 2023, a proposed class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against Tesla, Inc., Elon Musk and certain current and former Company executives. The complaint alleges that the defendants made material misrepresentations and omissions about the Company’s Autopilot and FSD Capability technologies and seeks money damages and other relief on behalf of persons who purchased Tesla stock between February 19, 2019, and February 17, 2023. An amended complaint was filed on September 5, 2023, naming only Tesla, Inc. and Elon Musk as defendants. On November 6, 2023, Tesla moved to dismiss the amended complaint. On September 30, 2024, the Court granted Tesla’s motion to dismiss without prejudice. On November 26, 2024, the court issued a final judgment in Tesla’s favor, and on December 23, 2024, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Oral argument occurred on November 20, 2025, and on December 2, 2025, the Ninth Circuit issued a memorandum decision affirming the district court’s dismissal of the amended complaint. On December 29, 2025, the Court’s clerk issued a mandate closing the case.

On August 1, 2025, a jury in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida reached a verdict in a product liability trial relating to certain allegations regarding the use of our Autopilot technology in a 2019 accident that resulted in a fatality and injuries. The jury awarded $129 million in total compensatory damages, finding the driver 67% at fault and the Company 33% at fault. The jury also awarded $200 million in punitive damages. On September 15, 2025, the Company filed a post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law or, in the alternative, a new trial on all issues or an amended judgment to lesser compensatory and punitive damages. Although we believe that the facts and law do not justify the damages awarded, the Company has recorded an immaterial accrual.

We have experienced, and we expect to continue to face, claims and regulatory scrutiny arising from or related to misuse or claimed failures or alleged misrepresentations of new technologies that we are pioneering. We are unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any, associated with these claims, unless noted. An unfavorable outcome in some or all of these proceedings could have a material adverse impact on results of operations or cash flows for a particular period. Our view of these matters is subject to inherent uncertainties and may change in the future.

We regularly receive requests for information, including subpoenas, from regulators and governmental authorities such as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the National Transportation Safety Board, the SEC, the Department of Justice (“DOJ”), and various local, state, federal, and international agencies. The ongoing requests for information include topics such as operations, technology (e.g., vehicle functionality, vehicle incidents, Autopilot and FSD Capability and Robotaxi), compliance, finance, data privacy, and other matters related to Tesla’s business, its personnel, and related parties. We routinely cooperate with such formal and informal requests for information, investigations, and other inquiries. To our knowledge no government agency in any ongoing investigation has concluded that any wrongdoing occurred. We cannot predict the outcome or impact of any ongoing matters. Should the government decide to pursue an enforcement action, there exists the possibility of a material adverse impact on our business, results of operations, prospects, cash flows, financial position or brand.

We are also subject to various other legal proceedings, risks and claims that arise from the normal course of business activities. For example, on August 5, 2023, a putative class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, purportedly on behalf of all U.S. individuals impacted by a data misappropriation incident earlier that year. Several additional lawsuits followed, each asserting claims under various state laws and seeking monetary damages and other relief. If an unfavorable ruling or development were to occur in these or other possible legal proceedings, risks and claims, there exists the possibility of a material adverse impact on our business, results of operations, prospects, cash flows, financial position or brand.