California

Tesla faces coordinated class-action litigation across multiple jurisdictions from owners of Hardware 3-equipped vehicles manufactured between 2016 and 2024. The plaintiffs allege that Tesla and Elon Musk made false representations that these vehicles would achieve full self-driving capability through software updates alone. A spring 2026 software release exposed Hardware 3's technical limitations, effectively excluding millions of owners from advanced autonomous features now reserved for newer Hardware 4 systems. The lead case, brought by retired attorney Tom LoSavio, centers on buyers who paid $8,000 to $12,000 for full self-driving capability that is now incompatible with their vehicles without costly hardware retrofits Tesla has not formally offered. Similar suits have been filed in Australia, the Netherlands, across Europe, and in California, where one action involves approximately 3,000 plaintiffs. Globally, the disputes affect roughly 4 million vehicles.

On April 16, 2026, the Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal of a consumer class action against Brita Products Company, holding that a reasonable consumer would not expect a $15 water filter to remove all hazardous contaminants. Plaintiff Nicholas Brown sued under California's Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and Consumers Legal Remedies Act, claiming Brita's labels for its Everyday Pitcher and Standard Filter misled buyers into believing the products eliminated contaminants like arsenic, chromium-6, PFOA, PFOS, nitrates, and radium to undetectable levels. The three-judge panel, led by Judge Kim McLane Wardlaw, rejected the claims after the Los Angeles district court had already dismissed without leave to amend in September 2024.

The Federal Trade Commission's Rule on Unfair or Deceptive Fees took effect on May 12, 2025, requiring companies to disclose total prices upfront for live-event tickets and short-term lodging, including all mandatory fees. The rule has accelerated an already-steep rise in junk fee litigation across ticketing, hospitality, banking, and rental industries. Class actions and mass arbitrations alleging "drip pricing"—the practice of hiding or misrepresenting fees until late in transactions—have spiked since 2022, with potential exposures exceeding $10 million per case. California's SB 478, effective July 1, 2024, compounds liability by imposing penalties up to $2,500 per violation. Plaintiffs' firms are pursuing coordinated mass arbitrations against ticket sellers, banks, landlords, and online retailers, often bypassing class-action waivers through arbitration clauses.

On April 17, the Ninth Circuit reversed a district court's dismissal of a putative class action alleging Target sold 100% cotton bedsheets with fraudulent thread counts. Plaintiff Alexander Panelli claimed he purchased sheets labeled 800-thread-count in September 2023 that tested at only 288 threads per inch. He asserted the label was literally false under California consumer protection law, since 600 thread count is the physical maximum for pure cotton. The district court had dismissed the case, reasoning no reasonable consumer would believe an impossible claim. Target argued the thread count measurement itself was ambiguous and therefore not deceptive as a matter of law.

On March 30, 2026, California Attorney General Rob Bonta filed an amicus brief in Art Center Holdings, Inc. v. WCE CA Art, LLC before the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District. Bonta argued that succession agreements in management services organization–professional corporation (MSO-PC) structures violate California's corporate practice of medicine doctrine by granting MSOs impermissible control over physician ownership. The brief supports a 2024 trial court ruling that found the defendants engaged in unlicensed practice of medicine through a succession agreement that gave the MSO unfettered discretion to replace the physician-owner, effectively creating a "captive PC" regardless of whether that control right was actually exercised.