Disappointed Cybertruck Owner Expresses Issues: "Regrettably, my newly acquired Cybertruck has been showing signs of being a lemon, as I've only had it for 50 days and Tesla has yet to resolve the persistent problem"
In an unusual turn of events, a Texas resident named HR CG is considering a lemon law case for his brand-new Tesla Cybertruck. The vehicle, which has spent a total of 50 days in service, including 40 consecutive days, has been plagued by a persistent squeaking noise that Tesla has yet to resolve [1].
The Cybertruck's issue could potentially qualify under Texas's Lemon Law due to excessive time in repair and failure to correct the defect within a reasonable number of attempts. The Texas Lemon Law covers vehicles under the manufacturer’s warranty with defects appearing within 24 months or 24,000 miles of purchase, where the defect substantially impairs the vehicle’s use, value, or safety [1].
If the Cybertruck’s squeaking noise is considered a defect that substantially affects its use or value, and it meets the criteria of being under warranty and repaired multiple times (typically four), and especially if it has been unusable or in the shop for over 30 days, it would likely qualify for relief under Texas Lemon Law [1]. However, the definition of a “substantial impairment” can be somewhat subjective and may require legal interpretation.
HR CG, a member of the Cybertruck Owners Only Facebook group, first noticed the issue shortly after purchasing the vehicle. Despite taking the Cybertruck to the Tesla Service Center for repair, they have been unable to identify the cause of the noise [2].
In response to the ongoing issue, HR CG is encouraged to document everything, including repair orders, communications with Tesla service, and the dates the vehicle was in the shop. Consulting a Lemon Law Attorney is recommended to evaluate his specific case thoroughly and to assist with the claim process [1].
If the defect arose outside the warranty period or after 24,000 miles, federal protections under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act may still apply, which is less strict about “substantial impairment” but requires an unreasonable number of repair attempts [1][5].
The experience of HR CG's Cybertruck highlights a frustrating paradox where a manufacturing defect undermines cutting-edge automotive technology. HR CG, however, is sharing his story as an example for others who may have experienced similar issues with their vehicles [3].
Denis Flierl, a Senior Torque News Reporter, has covered the story and provided expert analysis on the Lemon Law rights and implications for Tesla Cybertruck owners [4]. If HR CG's Cybertruck qualifies for the Lemon Law, he could be eligible for a buyback or replacement of the vehicle [1].
In a surprising twist, HR CG has even used the 240V outlet in the truck’s bed to power his entire house [6]. Despite this unique feature, the Cybertruck has been sent to a collision center for further inspection [7].
As the case unfolds, HR CG's pursuit of a lemon law case serves as a reminder for all consumers to be vigilant about their rights and to seek legal advice when necessary. The saga of HR CG's Cybertruck is a cautionary tale for Tesla and other automakers, highlighting the importance of quality control in the production of innovative vehicles.
[1] Texas Lemon Law [2] Tesla Service Center [3] HR CG's Story [4] Denis Flierl, Senior Torque News Reporter [5] Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act [6] Powering a House with a Cybertruck [7] Collision Center
The persistent squeaking noise in HR CG's Cybertruck, which has undergone multiple repair attempts and spent over 30 days in the shop, could potentially qualify for relief under the Texas Lemon Law due to the vehicle's defect substantially impairing its use. As a member of the Texas Lemon Law, HR CG could be eligible for a buyback or replacement of the vehicle if the case completes successfully.
If the Cybertruck's issue arises outside the warranty period or after 24,000 miles, federal protections under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act may still apply, providing HR CG with options for recourse, even if the impairment is not deemed substantial.
