Tesla Powerwall Recall Results in Class Action Lawsuit

Recall was issued last month for more than 10,000 Tesla Powerwall 2 battery systems, following reports of at least five fires from devices overheating.

A Florida man has filed a lawsuit claiming that Tesla has failed to adequately reimburse owners for economic injuries they suffered as a result of the company’s faulty Powerwall 2 battery systems.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Arthur Brown in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida on November 26, naming Tesla Inc. as the sole defendant.

Tesla’s Powerwall 2 system is a fully integrated home battery designed to store energy, manage household electricity use and provide backup power during outages.

However, that promise of reliability came under scrutiny on November 13, when the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) announced a Tesla Powerwall recall. The recall indicates Tesla received 22 reports of overheating, including six smoking incidents and five fires that caused minor property damage. Federal regulators warned that smoke or flames from the defective batteries could pose a serious risk of injury or death.

In his proposed class action lawsuit, Brown alleges that Tesla sold Powerwall 2 systems with hidden defects that can cause the batteries to overheat during normal use. He claims Tesla documented a pattern of failures in thousands of units sold between 2020 and 2022, leading to last month’s recall of roughly 10,500 systems.

According to the complaint, Tesla continued to market the Powerwall 2 as a dependable home-energy solution even after identifying the defect, assuring customers it was suitable for residential use despite internal data allegedly showing a systemic overheating risk.

Brown further argues that Tesla’s recall response has left many owners without a functioning system for extended periods. The filing states Tesla remotely discharged affected Powerwall 2 units to near-zero levels to reduce fire risk, effectively eliminating the energy-storage features customers paid for. Brown says he received no warning before the shutdown and that Tesla still has not scheduled a replacement for his system.

He claims the loss of stored power has increased his electricity costs, prevented him from charging his Tesla vehicles with stored energy and reduced his home’s resale value. The lawsuit asserts that Tesla has not offered refunds, compensation for lost use or reimbursement for the higher utility bills caused by the recall.

The complaint also contends that Tesla’s warranty remedy, inspection and eventual replacement, is inadequate because it does not address the cost of a defective system or the time and expenses owners have incurred responding to the recall. Brown argues he paid a premium for promised long-term energy savings but instead received an unsafe, materially defective product he would not have purchased, or would have bought at a much lower price, had Tesla disclosed the risks.

Tesla is further accused of imposing restrictive warranty and arbitration provisions that limit consumers’ legal rights. According to the lawsuit, these terms were non-negotiable and not clearly explained to buyers.

“Plaintiff Brown is now deprived of the use of his Powerwall 2. As a result, he can no longer receive the benefits of storing energy and using it for private consumption as promised or provide a backup energy source in case of a power outage. This lack of stored energy requires him to utilize his regular electric output to charge his two Tesla automobiles at home. Simply put, he now pays more in energy costs and is being deprived the benefit of his bargain.”

— Arthur Brown v. Tesla Inc.

Brown raises allegations of breach of an express warranty, breach of an implied warranty of merchantability, unjust enrichment, and violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.

He is seeking damages, restitution and injunctive relief that would require Tesla to make accurate safety disclosures, adopt fair recall practices and compensate customers fully for the economic losses tied to the defect. The proposed class action includes both nationwide and Florida subclasses of Powerwall 2 owners.

Sign up for more legal news that could affect you or your family.