Tesla Spain Legal Battle: Gaitán Claims Faults in Model 3 Faulted and Publicized

• Ángel Gaitán sued the company after discovering multiple defects in the Model 3, including a broken weld point.

• The mechanic still holds a stake in Tesla: “The brand still needs to generate significant revenue.”

Ángel Gaitán, owner of the GT Automoción workshop in Aranjuez, Madrid, pursued legal action against Tesla Spain for selling a car he believed was flawed. The vehicle in question, a Model 3 priced at 52,000 euros, was found to have a range of issues that affected its value and performance.

The case highlighted several defects, such as a poorly welded chassis, a chipped interior engine panel, a misaligned hood, and worn windshield wipers. The matter was adjudicated in the first instance by Court No. 2 in Fuenlabrada, with a ruling handed down in March. The court ordered Tesla Spain to pay Gaitán 62,330 euros, and the decision remains subject to appeal.

Tesla did not grant media inquiries while the case was active. According to the plaintiff, the company asked for additional time to review video evidence, which added to the tension surrounding the dispute.

There are no similar cases documented in Spain within the General Council of the Judiciary’s decision database. Internationally, reports exist of a Chinese buyer facing structural defects in a used Tesla and a Chicago couple who sought legal recourse in the United States but faced arbitration clauses that limited recovery options.

Gaitán, a skilled automotive technician as well as a legal expert in the field, purchased the vehicle in August 2020. He explained his initial enthusiasm for the brand, noting that his early experiences were tempered by repeated problems, which he argues persisted after the car left the factory floor. He stated that he initially forgave the faults because the car represented a pioneering effort in electric mobility, produced in limited numbers.

The purchase price included 7,000 euros attributed to software upgrades, with a total outlay around 72,000 euros. After identifying defects the day after delivery, Gaitán attempted to return the software portion, and he ultimately sought reimbursement for most of the purchase cost.

He described the vehicle as having a poorly welded body, a problem that was dismissed by the seller as a minor issue. Although a two-week online return window existed, a prolonged process at his workshop meant the deadline passed. Tesla offered a soldering fix, which he rejected, arguing that the solution should apply to a new car. He later stated that he would not accept remedies that failed to address the core safety and quality concerns.

“They underestimated me.”

Gaitán is widely known on short‑form video platforms, with a substantial following on TikTok and a sizable audience on YouTube. His public profile contributed to the legal dispute becoming highly visible, exposing the broader consumer experience to a wide audience.

Tesla’s response to the growing visibility was to largely remain silent. Gaitán described his early TikTok posts as unrelated to Tesla, originating from a work accident and subsequent creative experimentation. He later stated that he would publish content if there was no satisfactory resolution, expressing frustration over the lack of official statements from the company and its leadership.

Tesla operates multiple stores across Spain and maintains a service center north of Madrid. A major challenge highlighted by Gaitán centers on perceived gaps in customer service, with complaints about accessibility to direct support and the need to coordinate repairs through European channels rather than a local, readily available service line.

As the case drew public attention, Gaitán began advising Tesla customers who encountered similar issues across Spain. He recounted receiving weekly inquiries about structural and finish defects, explaining that some faults were costly to repair and emphasizing the importance of properly initiating consumer claims.

Tesla’s pricing stance and quality expectations

One aspect of the debate that drew scrutiny was Tesla’s argument that a vehicle priced around 60,000 euros might not be categorized as premium. Gaitán countered that a high‑priced car should meet high quality standards, and the court acknowledged that the observed defects did not compromise the vehicle’s structural integrity or safety, yet argued that the car did not meet the quality expectations associated with a prestigious brand like Tesla.

“Even when faced with missteps, a brand can still perform well.”

Ángel Gaitán, mechanic

The mechanic remains invested in Tesla, believing that there is still substantial potential for profit. He noted owning stock that he purchased at a low price, with current valuations reflecting volatility in the market. He suggested that while the brand may still have opportunities, it is essential for manufacturers to acknowledge consumer concerns and address faults transparently, rather than dismissing legitimate complaints. He added that the broader market of electric vehicles is maturing, which could influence his investment decisions going forward.

Related coverage