Tesla Whistleblower Files Suit Claiming Data Breaches Tied to Autopilot Failures

Lukasz Krupski put out a fire at a Tesla car delivery location in Drammen, Norway, on a March morning in 2019, burning his hands in the process and averting a potentially serious situation. A few days later, Elon Musk sent him a direct email. “Congratulations for saving the day!” That communication, which is by all accounts sincere and kind, marks the beginning of a very different journey that ends with Tesla suing Krupski for theft and sabotage after Norwegian police raid his residence and confiscate his computer, phone, and storage devices.

The case is worth a thorough examination because of what transpired in between. Following the fire, Krupski discussed safety issues at the Norwegian operation with Musk. In response, Musk said he will follow up. Instead, according to Krupski, the atmosphere at work altered as his immediate bosses and coworkers became aware of his communications. He alleges that surveillance software was installed on his work computer, that he was subjected to bullying and reprimands, and that he was told unequivocally that he had no future at Tesla. He raised his concerns with the SEC after first going via internal channels. A few months later, the SEC dismissed the ticket after assigning one person to review a section of his complaint. They never communicated with Krupski again. Early in 2022, Tesla formally fired him, claiming a policy breach involving on-site photos, poor time management, and a detrimental impact on employees.

Important Information

Using search phrases on the company’s internal website, Krupski downloaded more than 100 gigabytes of internal Tesla data because he was frustrated and thought the safety concerns he had brought up were being ignored. This security flaw prompted severe concerns about Tesla’s handling of sensitive data. He gave the information to the German business publication Handelsblatt, which tasked 12 reporters with examining over 23,000 papers. For a firm whose CEO had stated over and again that it had “by far the best real-world AI,” what they revealed was unsettling to read. The documents contained reports of self-acceleration occurrences and thousands of consumer complaints over phantom braking, or automobiles stopping abruptly in reaction to imaginary barriers. Over 3,000 entries reported safety issues with cars crashing into ditches, colliding with walls, or both. The data also included the personal information of more than 100,000 current and former Tesla employees, including Social Security numbers and customer bank account information. This led to GDPR investigations in Germany and the Netherlands, where Tesla has its European headquarters.

Tesla reacted quickly and forcefully. At Tesla’s request, Norwegian police raided Krupski’s residence six days after the Handelsblatt article was published. He was publicly described by the corporation as a disgruntled former employee, and they filed a lawsuit alleging that he had stolen sensitive information. Initially, a Norwegian judge issued an interim order that prevented Krupski from disclosing any of the information he had collected, so preventing him from communicating with authorities at all. For more than a year, that injunction was in effect. It was reversed in July 2024 by the Buskerud District Court, which declared unequivocally that Krupski was a whistleblower and that it was against Norwegian employment legislation and the European Convention on Human Rights to ban him from speaking to public authorities and the media. A Norwegian court ordered Tesla to reimburse Krupski more than €10,000 in damages and more than €170,000 in legal costs in December 2024.

Regardless of the Krupski case, the legal environment surrounding Tesla’s Autopilot technologies had been changing, which made his documents more pertinent to a wider range of allegations. In the first federal trial conviction in a case employing Tesla’s Autopilot, a Miami federal jury found the corporation 33 percent liable for a 2019 crash in Key Largo, Florida, in August 2025. Naibel Benavides Leon, 22, was killed in the collision, and her partner was seriously hurt. When George McGee, the driver of a Tesla Model S, dropped his phone and leaned to pick it up while Autopilot was activated, the car flew through a stop sign and a flashing red light at about 62 mph. Tesla was found liable for roughly $43 million in compensatory damages and $200 million in punitive damages out of the $243 million total given by the jury. Prior to the trial, Tesla had turned down a $60 million settlement offer. A federal court in Miami rejected Tesla’s attempt to have the verdict overturned in February 2026, stating that the evidence “more than supported” the jury’s verdict. Tesla has stated that it would be appealed.

Shareholders filed a class action lawsuit against Tesla and Musk shortly after the August 2025 ruling, claiming the company had misled investors about the capability and safety of its Autopilot and robotaxi technology. Although it’s still unclear how far that case will go, it has a clear trajectory: internal documents indicating known issues, a whistleblower who brought up those issues and faced retaliation, a trial that established partial legal liability, and now investors claiming they were informed differently than what the internal record reveals. The sequence from a flaming Tesla in Drammen to a Miami courtroom is difficult to overlook when you watch it all play out.