DETROIT — Federal prosecutors have expanded investigations into Tesla beyond the electric vehicle maker’s partially automated driving systems, and they have issued subpoenas for information instead of simply requesting it, the company disclosed Monday.
In a quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Tesla said the Department of Justice is looking into “personal benefits, related parties, vehicle range and personnel decisions” without giving details.
The additional investigation topics and the subpoenas suggest that prosecutors have broadened their inquiry, and they have found the need to force Tesla to disclose information, legal experts say. The filing indicates prosecutors may be investigating Tesla CEO Elon Musk, and whether the company has been candid in describing the features of its vehicles, they say.
In January, Tesla disclosed that the Justice Department had requested documents related to its Autopilot and “Full Self-Driving” features. Both features are classified as driver-assist systems, and the company says on its website that the vehicles cannot drive themselves.
Now, the company is disclosing a probe that is “a lot wider than just looking at Autopilot and FSD features,” said Erik Gordon, a University of Michigan business and law professor. “The DOJ often starts with a formal written request and escalates to administrative subpoenas if it thinks it isn’t getting full cooperation,” he said.
Specifying additional items that prosecutors are looking at indicates that Tesla lawyers found them serious enough to change the company’s public disclosures, Gordon said.
Tesla didn’t respond to a request for comment, but the company based in Austin, Texas, said in its SEC filing that to its knowledge, no government agency has concluded that any wrongdoing happened in any ongoing investigation. The Justice Department declined to comment.
For the first time, Tesla said in its filing that the investigations could damage the company’s brand.
“Should the government decide to pursue an enforcement action, there exists the possibility of a material adverse impact on our business, results of operation, prospects, cash flows financial position or brand,” the filing said.