Has anyone sued Tesla for FSD costs?

[edb49]

But this is what you will need to prove, you paid some money to get the only option that was available at that time and received the capabilities that were advertised as being available. If you want a total refund you will need to show that you received no value and bought purely on the anticipation of getting City Streets driving by the end of the year, despite the caveat that this would need new regulations. They can also point to the numerous press releases from the DoT that 'self driving cars' will be available 'next year' for at least the last 2 years. https://www.nationalworld.com/lifes...e-permitted-on-uk-motorways-this-year-3216552

If you plan to argue that the features you did receive are defective is a different type of case.

I'm not defending Tesla as I agree they overstated the position, but I doubt you would succeed in any legal proceedings.

Hi Grilla,

Surely the point is pretty simple here. If Tesla had FSD capability they could have delivered it to the UK, just within the regulations. (As I understand it, driver hand on the wheel, limited speed in corners, etc.)

The reality of the situation is that Tesla didn't deliver FSD *anywhere in the world* until July 2021 - and then only as a very restricted beta to a handful of users in the US.

 

[Sparkeur]

To stand any chance of a suit succeeding, it would have to be shown that Tesla deliberately and wilfully advertised a feature it knew would never be functional at any level. Given the admittedly slow but plodding progress of FSD, even as a personally aggrieved party, I can't see how that could be proved.

 

[Durzel]

I disagree that I have to show I received no value for a claim to be successful.

I believe I have to demonstrate that I did not receive promised features that were - by Tesla's own words - "Coming later this year". That part is easy enough, since I don't have them now, 3 years on. Tesla's defence will I'm sure be that regulations mean they can't deliver those features. I'm not going to show my hand on here at this point, and if I lose I'll assess that outcome accordingly.

What I'm not going to do is do nothing because Tesla gets to say "but regulations" whilst continuing to sell features they know they can't deliver.

 

[Durzel]

To stand any chance of a suit succeeding, it would have to be shown that Tesla deliberately and wilfully advertised a feature it knew would never be functional at any level. Given the admittedly slow but plodding progress of FSD, even as a personally aggrieved party, I can't see how that could be proved.

I don't have "Automatic driving on city streets" or "Your car will come to you in a car park" "at any level", which was promised to me as "coming later this year" (2020) when I bought the car. Tesla didn't have to make this promise, and in fact do not make this promise anymore, replacing it with the nebulous "Upcoming". The fact they made that change is, in my opinion, noteworthy.

 

[edb49]

To stand any chance of a suit succeeding, it would have to be shown that Tesla deliberately and wilfully advertised a feature it knew would never be functional at any level. Given the admittedly slow but plodding progress of FSD, even as a personally aggrieved party, I can't see how that could be proved.

I also disagree with this - the legislation doesn't say the trader (e.g. Tesla) needs to be deliberately and wilfully advertising (describing goods) incorrectly. There is no "good faith" defence I can see in the legislation, it is not enough for Tesla to have thought they could deliver something.

 

[Rooster6655]

I don't have "Automatic driving on city streets" or "Your car will come to you in a car park" "at any level", which was promised to me as "coming later this year" (2020) when I bought the car. Tesla didn't have to make this promise, and in fact do not make this promise anymore, replacing it with the nebulous "Upcoming". The fact they made that change is, in my opinion, noteworthy.

I don't have FSD but if I did I would be looking in the Consumer Rights Act as there is clearly some areas that will apply in the case where FSD was purchased with the promise of a delivery in 2020.

I am not sure why some people actively discourage people from taking any action at all, as thats what these big companies want you to think, I don't doubt it won't be an easy case especially as Tesla have a lot to lose if it goes against them, I suspect an out of court settlement would be most likely for those with any valid claims.

 

[Durzel]

I don't have FSD but if I did I would be looking in the Consumer Rights Act as there is clearly some areas that will apply in the case where FSD was purchased with the promise of a delivery in 2020.

I am not sure why some people actively discourage people from taking any action at all, as thats what these big companies want you to think, I don't doubt it won't be an easy case especially as Tesla have a lot to lose if it goes against them, I suspect an out of court settlement would be most likely for those with any valid claims.

Small claims courts don’t set legal precedents and I’d bet money on any settlement involving some kind of NDA.

I remember a guy on one of the FB groups saying he was taking them to court for something and I’ve not heard anything from him for some time (although these claims will rumble on for months).

All of that is to say that anyone doing this is basically is only likely to get some redress personally “without prejudice”, etc without any wider ramifications for Tesla. It’s a shame because they really ought to be taken to task publicly on these promises.

 

[phil4]

I think if you're going legal then you really need concrete proof they've broken a contract with you.

You'll probably need more than a grab from a web page, that's just misadvertising, but rather something contractual that says you will receive something specific which they've then not done.

If you plan going small claims, go for it, until it goes to a hearing you've nothing to lose. When it goes to hearing, then you've any legal counsel's costs you employ to cover.

 

[GRiLLA]

Hi Grilla,

Surely the point is pretty simple here. If Tesla had FSD capability they could have delivered it to the UK, just within the regulations. (As I understand it, driver hand on the wheel, limited speed in corners, etc.)

The reality of the situation is that Tesla didn't deliver FSD *anywhere in the world* until July 2021 - and then only as a very restricted beta to a handful of users in the US.

They kind of have, the current regulations for ALKS are very narrow, and base level AutoPilot utilises pretty much everything that's allowed. We really don't have regulations that allow a practical level of self driving, so it's not possible to build something more while still being within the current regulations.

 

[Pink Duck]

It's now legal for cars in the UK to make autonomous lane changes at highway speed (subject to UN dictated approach), but seems unlikely Tesla will implement that especially. More likely FSD will become available to the UK, just heavily crippled.

 

[WllXM]

It's now legal for cars in the UK to make autonomous lane changes at highway speed (subject to UN dictated approach), but seems unlikely Tesla will implement that especially. More likely FSD will become available to the UK, just heavily crippled.

Elon always said RHD markets will be addressed last in FSDb expansion. It obviously requires more changes than adapting the existing US model to EU roads. So I don't think they'll be spending 1 minute of devs time on legacy FSD code at the moment.

 

[Pink Duck]

The UK ADAS drivers have had FSD Beta single stack for a while now, but yes, they’ve likely dropped all development on legacy since.

 

[edb49]

Small claims courts don’t set legal precedents and I’d bet money on any settlement involving some kind of NDA.

I remember a guy on one of the FB groups saying he was taking them to court for something and I’ve not heard anything from him for some time (although these claims will rumble on for months).

All of that is to say that anyone doing this is basically is only likely to get some redress personally “without prejudice”, etc without any wider ramifications for Tesla. It’s a shame because they really ought to be taken to task publicly on these promises.

You are right that small claims don't set binding precedents, but Tesla can't make you sign an NDA.

Which FB group did you see this on out of interest?

 

[Jason71]

I remember a guy on one of the FB groups saying he was taking them to court for something and I’ve not heard anything from him for some time

Gulp

 

[Durzel]

You are right that small claims don't set binding precedents, but Tesla can't make you sign an NDA.

Which FB group did you see this on out of interest?

I'll try and find it, it was one of the two UK Tesla Facebook groups.

 

[CaptFish2003]

I am not surprised that people are pissed. However, it was clear at the time that FSD did not work and people 'bought' it based on a promise that was not honoured, to date. What I don't understand why people ordered it anyway? You could always subscribe to it at any point in the future, why were people eager to hand over their cash upfront for a promise.
It does not make sense today, but didn't make sense then either.

 

[edb49]

What I don't understand why people ordered it anyway? You could always subscribe to it at any point in the future, why were people eager to hand over their cash upfront for a promise.

Because Tesla said on their website it would be working by the end of the year, and it was cheaper to buy up front than as an add on. (If I recall correctly.)

 

[CaptFish2003]

Because Tesla said on their website it would be working by the end of the year, and it was cheaper to buy up front than as an add on. (If I recall correctly.)

I just can't believe people actually trusted that statement - even then. There was no law that allowed the level of FSD that Tesla advertised, and still isn't (happy for lawyers to chip in).

 

[edb49]

I just can't believe people actually trusted that statement - even then. There was no law that allowed the level of FSD that Tesla advertised, and still isn't (happy for lawyers to chip in).

I can't speak for others, but my POV on it was that I would get FSD that required me to hold on to the wheel and supervise, and then I'd be able to let go if/when regulation caught up.

Anyway - the law is pretty clear that consumers can rely/trust statements made by businesses about products, it's not for the consumer to determine how likely/trustworthy a vendor's claim is.

 

[init6]

You might be right. Let’s say 110,000 Teslas in the UK. In North America 20% buy FSD. If it’s 10% here that’s 11k possible claimants at say £5.8k that’s a £63m liability. Even if only a fraction claim might be enough for one of the law firms to have a punt.

In Ashok's CVPR 2022 presentation on Occupancy Networks, he mentioned that there were approx 100k cars with FSD. I presume that's a worldwide figure.