Federal Judge Upholds $243M Tesla Autopilot Verdict

A US federal judge refused to overturn a $243M verdict against Tesla over a 2019 Autopilot crash in Florida. Learn what the ruling means.

A US federal court has refused to undo one of the most consequential jury verdicts Tesla has faced over its driver-assistance technology. District Judge Beth Bloom rejected the company’s attempt to overturn a $243 million verdict stemming from a fatal 2019 crash in Florida involving Autopilot.

The collision occurred on April 25, 2019, shortly after 9 p.m. on Card Sound Road near Key Largo. According to court records and trial reporting, the driver of a Tesla Model S, who had been distracted by a mobile phone, approached a T-intersection at roughly 62 mph in a 45 mph zone and failed to stop at a flashing red signal. The vehicle struck a parked Chevrolet Tahoe, near which pedestrians were standing. Naibel Benavides Leon, 22, was killed, and Dillon Angulo suffered serious injuries.

In August 2025, a jury found Tesla 33% responsible for the crash. Central to the plaintiffs’ case were marketing descriptions of Autopilot and “Full Self-Driving” that, they argued, overstated the system’s capabilities and fostered misplaced confidence. The award totaled $243 million, including $43 million in compensatory damages and $200 million in punitive damages.

Tesla sought to have the verdict set aside, but Judge Bloom ruled that the evidence presented at trial more than supported the jury’s findings and that the company had introduced no new arguments warranting reversal. At the trial-court level, that effectively closes Tesla’s options. The automaker has said it will appeal.

The size of the punitive damages is likely to be a focal point in the next phase. Florida law generally caps punitive awards at three times compensatory damages, with specific exceptions. US Supreme Court precedent also emphasizes proportionality between compensatory and punitive damages. How those principles apply here could determine the ultimate financial exposure.

The Florida case stands out because many earlier Autopilot-related lawsuits were resolved through confidential settlements. Since the verdict, reports have indicated that additional cases involving Tesla’s driver-assist systems have also been settled.

Regulatory scrutiny has unfolded in parallel. California’s Department of Motor Vehicles pressed Tesla over marketing terminology it considered potentially misleading, including “Autopilot” and “Full Self-Driving.” After the company took corrective action and stopped using the Autopilot name in California marketing, the DMV said it would not pursue a 30-day suspension of Tesla’s dealer and manufacturer licenses.

At the core of the dispute is a broader question about the meaning of automation in consumer vehicles. Under the SAE classification system, Autopilot is a Level 2 driver-assistance feature, requiring constant driver supervision. The litigation underscores how the boundary between technological assistance and human responsibility remains legally and commercially sensitive.

The appeal will determine whether the headline figure changes. For now, however, the Florida ruling reinforces the pressure on automakers to align marketing language with the technical realities of advanced driver-assistance systems.