Australia’s Federal Court is driving the latest escalation in a major consumer lawsuit against Tesla after a judge sharply criticised the company’s handling of evidence disclosure, warning the automaker it could face severe consequences if it fails to accelerate cooperation.

What is confirmed is that Federal Court Justice Tom Thawley rebuked Tesla during a pre-trial hearing over the company’s pace in producing documents for a class action involving about ten thousand Australian Tesla owners.

The judge described the progress as “gobsmacking” after hearing that only about two thousand documents had been handed over during an eight-month discovery process.

The case was filed by Brisbane-based law firm JGA Saddler and targets Tesla’s marketing and performance claims tied to several core vehicle features.

Plaintiffs allege the company misled Australian consumers regarding phantom braking incidents, advertised battery range and the capabilities of its self-driving and driver-assistance systems.

Tesla denies it mischaracterised its products.

The company argues that large-scale document review involving engineering systems, software data and potentially sensitive internal material is complex and time-consuming.

The dispute now centres less on the allegations themselves and more on the legal process surrounding access to evidence.

Discovery is one of the most consequential stages in complex corporate litigation because it determines what internal records, engineering assessments, complaint histories and technical evaluations become available to plaintiffs and expert witnesses.

Lawyers for the claimants told the court they cannot properly prepare technical experts because the information provided so far is inadequate.

The plaintiffs are seeking access to engineering reports, software records, overseas complaint data and investigations tied to alleged defects or system behaviour.

Their argument is that Tesla controls most of the relevant technical evidence and that delayed disclosure weakens the fairness of the proceedings.

Justice Thawley made clear that the court expects significantly broader production.

He stated that detailed engineering documentation and investigations should reasonably form part of discovery in a case involving vehicle software and automated driving claims.

While acknowledging Tesla’s right to redact confidential material, he openly questioned whether the company had treated the exercise seriously.

Tesla’s legal team responded that the company had already manually reviewed roughly one hundred thousand documents and still faced another seventy-five thousand awaiting examination.

The defence also argued there are legitimate concerns around commercially sensitive material and identifying information connected to customers or employees.

The judge nevertheless imposed a harder timeline.

Tesla was ordered to complete discovery by July thirty-first, with another case management hearing scheduled for September first.

Justice Thawley warned that inadequate compliance would trigger deeper scrutiny into how the company handled its obligations.

The lawsuit reflects broader international legal pressure surrounding Tesla’s automated driving technology and marketing language.

Courts and regulators in multiple jurisdictions have increasingly examined whether terms such as “Autopilot” and “Full Self-Driving” create unrealistic consumer expectations about vehicle autonomy.

The Australian proceedings also expose the growing legal complexity surrounding software-defined vehicles.

Modern electric vehicles rely heavily on over-the-air updates, machine-learning systems and continuously evolving driver-assistance software.

That creates difficult legal questions about what consumers were promised at purchase, how capabilities are represented and whether software limitations amount to defects or misleading conduct.

Phantom braking remains one of the most controversial allegations in the case.

The term describes sudden automatic braking events that occur without an obvious road hazard.

Critics argue such behaviour can create dangerous driving conditions, particularly at highway speeds.

Tesla has repeatedly maintained that its systems are designed to improve safety and still require active driver supervision.

The stakes extend beyond Australia.

A significant discovery process could expose internal engineering discussions, software assessments and corporate communications relevant to similar legal disputes in other countries.

Plaintiffs’ lawyers are seeking records tied not only to Australian complaints but also to incidents and investigations outside the country.

The case also arrives during a politically sensitive period for Tesla globally.

The company faces intensifying scrutiny over autonomous driving claims, falling sales growth in some markets, rising competition in electric vehicles and increasing regulatory attention toward artificial intelligence-driven transport systems.

For Australian consumers, the lawsuit represents one of the country’s largest coordinated legal challenges against an automotive technology company.

For Tesla, the immediate issue is no longer just whether the claims are defensible, but whether the court believes the company is fully complying with the legal process required to contest them.