Consumer complaint received 2025-09-30 00:00:00
Product: Vehicle loan or lease — Loan
Issue: Managing the loan or lease — Problem with fees charged
Company: Tesla, Inc.
State: NY

Complaint narrative:
Hello, my name is XXXX XXXX, I previously filed a CFPB complaint against Tesla/Tesla Insurance ( Complaint # XXXX ) for multiple consumer violations that caused me severe emotional harm. Tesla requested the CFPB to close the matter by attaching an alleged electronic repair authorization. I dispute the validity and scope of that document. I had also repeatedly withdrawn consent in writing before repairs began, yet Tesla proceeded anyway. I request that the Bureau reopen my case and require Tesla to produce full authorization and billing records.

1. Disputed Authorization Tesla submitted a repair authorization form dated XX/XX/year>. I did not knowingly or voluntarily execute this authorization, and I dispute its attribution. Under New Jerseys Uniform Electronic Transactions Act ( UETA, N.J.S.A. 12A:12-1 et seq. ), Tesla bears the burden of proving the signature is attributable to me. Teslas internally generated XXXX completion summary is insufficient and subject to manipulation. The suspicious timing ( document creation and signature completion within XXXX minute ) further undermines its reliability. 

Even if Tesla were to authenticate the signature, they must still comply with the New Jersey Automotive Repair Regulations ( N.J.A.C. XXXX ). Those regulations require a repair facility to : Provide a written estimate or not-to-exceed figure before beginning work, and Obtain new authorization if the scope or price changes. 

I did not receive any estimate until XX/XX/year> after repairs were already completed. This alone constitutes a violation, regardless of the alleged XX/XX/XXXX form. 

XXXX. Withdrawal of Consent In addition, I explicitly instructed Tesla in writing via written directives not to proceed with repairs absent my express approval. Tesla nonetheless advanced the work, apparently relying on its own insurance handlers authorization rather than mine. At no point was I contacted or asked to approve, and my explicit withdrawal of consent was ignored. This constitutes repair activity performed without valid consumer authorization under New Jersey law. 


XXXX. Concealment Concerns Teslas reliance on this newly form raises additional concerns because the document was never produced to me during months of earlier disputes with Tesla, Tesla Legal and Tesla Insurance staff ( including their insurance claims manager ). If Tesla possessed this document all along, its withholding suggests concealment or after-the-fact justification.

Teslas audit log claims that the document was accepted from XXXX XXXX in the name XXXX XXXX. However, mere logging of an IP is not conclusive proof of any act. Under XXXX and New Jersey law, Tesla must prove attribution that I, from that IP, knowingly signed. I demand the complete raw audit log, reverse DNS/hostname for that IP, device/browser fingerprinting data, and error logs. If that XXXX corresponds to Teslas internal servers rather than my device, it further undercuts the claim. In any event, I had withdrawn consent in writing Teslas continued work was unauthorized regardless of any prior acceptance. 

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Company public response: Company disputes the facts presented in the complaint
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation