Ben Gawiser, a Texas software executive, won a default judgment against Tesla in small claims court over Full Self-Driving promises, receiving $10,600 plus $72.88 in court costs after Tesla failed to appear. The case turns on how Tesla’s unsupervised FSD plans
The self-driving dream has been sold for years as something Tesla customers could eventually unlock.. For Ben Gawiser. the pitch met a wall when Tesla told investors that some older vehicles would not be able to run unsupervised Full Self-Driving without a major upgrade. and he says he heard nothing from the company as the gap widened.
Gawiser. a director of software engineering at Oracle. sued Tesla in Texas small claims court earlier this year. arguing the company failed to deliver unsupervised Full Self-Driving.. At a hearing on April 1. he was awarded $10. 600 in a default judgment and $72.88 in court costs after Tesla failed to appear despite being notified.
Tesla later asked the court late last month to extend the appeal deadline, saying it was unaware of the hearing or the default judgment. The judge denied Tesla’s motion, according to court records. Tesla did not respond to a MISRYOUM Business News request for comment.
The purchase that drove the dispute dates back to August 2021, when Gawiser bought a Tesla Model 3 Long Range.. He said he paid $10. 000 for FSD when he bought the car and added another $10. 000 for FSD when he purchased it five years ago.. In his account. he was pulled toward Tesla by the promise of advanced technology. including FSD. after test-driving other EVs like Ford’s Mustang Mach-E.
Gawiser said his frustration hardened after Musk’s remarks in an earnings call in January 2025. when he said Tesla would likely have to upgrade older vehicles equipped with FSD.. Gawiser then tried to reach Tesla without success. and filed his suit in the small claims court in Travis County. Texas. in January.
After winning through the default judgment. Gawiser said he has sent a letter to lawyers representing Tesla asking how the company intends to pay the judgment.. He added that if Tesla refuses to pay. he intends to ask the court for a writ of execution. which. if granted. would allow him to seize assets from one of Tesla’s showrooms.
He described the company’s communication as nonexistent. “I literally had zero communication from them, pretty much since I bought the car. It has been complete radio silence,” Gawiser said.
“I should get my money back,” he added.
Tesla’s long-running framing traces back to 2016. when it sold cars with the promise that they had the necessary hardware to eventually drive themselves at a safety level “substantially greater” than a human driver.. More recently. Tesla has told owners that vehicles with pre-2023 hardware can be limited to a version of Full Self-Driving that still requires human supervision.
Last month. Musk confirmed that Tesla vehicles with pre-2023 hardware would not be able to handle the unsupervised version of FSD. which Tesla has deployed in its robotaxi service in Texas but has not yet made available to customers.. Musk said customers would be offered a discounted trade-in or a full overhaul of their car’s AI computer and cameras. a process that would require Tesla to set up “micro-factories” outside major cities.
The timing is crucial for owners who expected unsupervised driving to arrive without hardware changes.. Many buyers who purchased before 2023 have been left with a more limited version of Full Self-Driving. and pre-2023 owners are described as stuck with that version while fully autonomous driving remains out of reach.
Tesla is also facing additional legal pressure in the United States over what owners described as misleading FSD advertising. The company is also facing potential legal action from European customers after the supervised version of the software rolled out in the Netherlands in April.
Within Tesla’s update plans, executives have said they plan to release a “lite” version of the most recent FSD software update for older vehicle owners, expected in June, and it will also be available internationally.
During the dispute, Gawiser described personal setbacks tied to the technology itself. He said he has largely stopped using FSD after incidents including his Tesla failing to slow down in school zones and coming to a halt for no apparent reason.
Even with the lawsuit, he said he has no intention of giving up his Model 3. “I love the car. It’s a great car. It’s the best car that I’ve ever owned. And if it wasn’t made by Tesla, I would totally buy another one,” Gawiser said.
He also drew a line between innovation and sales promises.. “Your CEO should set a visionary goal for the company.. But don’t put it in the contract with your customers,” he said.. “Most of the people who bought around the time that I bought and paid for full self-driving. I think they have no trust left. ” he added.
The pattern behind the case is tightly connected: Musk’s investor comments about needing major upgrades for older vehicles helped set off Gawiser’s January 2025 decision-making. his suit followed after his attempts to reach Tesla went nowhere. and the court outcome in April came only after Tesla failed to appear at a notified hearing—leading to a $10. 600 default judgment and $72.88 in court costs.
With the judge denying Tesla’s request to extend the appeal deadline, Gawiser’s next step—seeking a writ of execution if payment does not follow—now hinges on whether the company responds to the judgment.
Tesla Full Self-Driving FSD small claims Travis County default judgment Elon Musk Oracle Model 3 Long Range