Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
Alcon Entertainment sued Tesla, Elon Musk and Warner Bros. Discovery after an image resembling Blade Runner 2049 appeared during Tesla’s October 10, 2024 Cybercab unveiling. Alcon alleges it refused permission to use the film’s imagery, but that an AI-generated image drawing on it was shown anyway. On February 3, 2026, a judge let Alcon’s literal-copying theory against Tesla and Musk proceed past dismissal; the ruling did not decide whether infringement occurred or whether the image was fair use.
What prompted Alcon’s lawsuit?
The dispute centers on Tesla’s Cybercab presentation on October 10, 2024, held at a Warner Bros. Discovery studio lot in Burbank. In its October 2024 complaint, Alcon Entertainment says the defendants sought permission to use an iconic still from Blade Runner 2049 at the event. Alcon says it refused and objected to any suggestion that it was affiliated with Tesla. It alleges that an image resembling the film’s imagery was then displayed during the presentation, apparently generated using AI. Reuters reported Alcon’s allegations at the time.
| # | Preview | Product | Price | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |
|
Blade Runner 2049 (Blu-ray) (BD) | $7.99 | Buy on Amazon |
| 2 |
|
Blade Runner 2049 (4K Ultra HD + Blu-ray) (4K Ultra) | $17.53 | Buy on Amazon |
| 3 |
|
Blade Runner 2049 | $29.99 | Buy on Amazon |
| 4 |
|
Blade Runner Collection: Blade Runner The Final Cut / Blade Runner 2049 (2-Movie Blu-ray Set) | $28.22 | Buy on Amazon |
Alcon’s complaint says the image appeared onscreen for 11 seconds. That duration is the plaintiff’s allegation, not a finding by the court. The company also alleged that the use could confuse people about its relationship with Tesla and harm its commercial interests, including its planned Blade Runner 2099 series for Amazon Prime. Those are claims in the complaint, not findings that confusion or harm occurred.
Who sued whom, and what did Alcon claim?
Alcon Entertainment named Tesla, Elon Musk and Warner Bros. Discovery as defendants. The complaint asserts copyright claims under the Copyright Act and a false-endorsement claim under the Lanham Act. In broad terms, Alcon argues that the image improperly used protected film material and could suggest a commercial connection or endorsement that did not exist.
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minute2Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errors3Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitches#1 Best Overall
A complaint sets out a plaintiff’s allegations; it does not prove them. The court’s later ruling addressed whether a claim could continue at an early stage, not whether Alcon ultimately established infringement, false endorsement or damages. The complaint and case docket identify the parties and claims.
What did the judge decide in February 2026?
In an order dated February 3, 2026, U.S. District Judge George H. Wu rejected Tesla and Musk’s effort to have the litigation dismissed at the pleading stage. The court found Alcon’s theory that material from the film may have been literally copied in creating the event image sufficiently plausible to proceed. The order said: “Plaintiff has a seemingly-valid and plausible theory of literal copying, which does not appear to require an assessment of ‘substantial similarity.’” That statement describes the court’s assessment of the pleaded theory, not a final finding of copying or liability.
Rank #2
- Brand New in box. The product ships with all relevant accessories
The ruling also treated Warner Bros. Discovery’s position separately. The court said Alcon had not plausibly connected WBD to the literal-copying allegation on the same basis asserted against Tesla and Musk. The order therefore should not be read as finding WBD liable or as applying the same pleading conclusion to every defendant. The February 3, 2026 order is available on the case docket.
Why is fair use still unresolved?
Fair use is a fact-dependent defense, and the judge concluded that the issue could not be resolved from the pleadings in this case. The court said a full assessment would come no earlier than summary judgment. The February order thus left open whether the image’s creation or use qualifies as fair use, alongside the ultimate merits of Alcon’s claims.
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →Rank #3
- Alcon’s allegation: film imagery was used without permission after Alcon refused a request.
- The pleading-stage decision: the literal-copying theory against Tesla and Musk was plausible enough to continue.
- Questions left open: whether copying or false endorsement is ultimately proved, whether fair use applies, and what liability, if any, follows.
What remains unknown about the case?
The latest located ruling is the February 3, 2026 order. It is not a final judgment, and the available information does not establish later case activity through October 8, 2026. The order did not determine that Tesla, Musk or WBD infringed copyright, and it did not resolve Alcon’s false-endorsement claim on the merits.
Quick Recap
Rank #4
- Widescreen
- Bundle
- Double Feature
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
