My experience taking Tesla to court about FSD

[Billbrown1982]

I have surprisingly mixed feelings on this. On the one hand, I'm really glad you had a good outcome and quite deservedly so. I think I'm a little torn about the potential precedent it sets though. I will admit Tesla has MANY faults but I also really like a lot of the things they do differently. I am still extremely happy with my 2.5 year old Model 3 and enjoy driving it daily.

Tesla do seem to be having a bit of a bad time of it lately, I tend to avoid the news as best I can because its nearly always doom and gloom but their shares seem to be down as well as a few other bad indicators.

I don't want to see them fail. I also don't want to see them pull back from UK or EU markets to focus even more on the US, which they clearly prioritise as it is.

I also want self driving tech to progress over here and that is only going to happen if the government pull their heads out their asses but also if companies actively pursue it and are in competition with each other.

Maybe I'm a little bit edgy as I owned a Saab years ago when they went pop and I don't want to go through that again ?

 

[ACarneiro]

I'm surprised that the settlement terms didn't require a non-disclosure agreement.

It did, as per the original post.

 

[Sean.]

Well done you. I know we corresponded in the early stages and I decided to drop out and subsequently sold the car. Glad for you.

 

[ACarneiro]

I have surprisingly mixed feelings on this. On the one hand, I'm really glad you had a good outcome and quite deservedly so. I think I'm a little torn about the potential precedent it sets though. I will admit Tesla has MANY faults but I also really like a lot of the things they do differently. I am still extremely happy with my 2.5 year old Model 3 and enjoy driving it daily.

Tesla do seem to be having a bit of a bad time of it lately, I tend to avoid the news as best I can because its nearly always doom and gloom but their shares seem to be down as well as a few other bad indicators.

I don't want to see them fail. I also don't want to see them pull back from UK or EU markets to focus even more on the US, which they clearly prioritise as it is.

I also want self driving tech to progress over here and that is only going to happen if the government pull their heads out their asses but also if companies actively pursue it and are in competition with each other.

Maybe I'm a little bit edgy as I owned a Saab years ago when they went pop and I don't want to go through that again ?

I sympathise and I absolutely love driving my car.
The company itself, however, has been going down a slippery slope of apparent contempt for its customers and downright lying on its promises.
Making it behave doesn’t mean making it fail.
It’s high time they got a wake up call.
I agree, however, that I would be very sad to see it fail. But I doubt that’s likely.

 

[edb49]

That would probably be a strand of a claim I would make, i.e. that Autopilot has gone backwards in functionality due to regulations, rather than the other way around. This has never stopped Tesla withdrawing it from sale, or discounting it to allow for a reevaluation of where things are. Hell, Tesla have been continuing to sell EAP/FSD at full price since removing ultrasonics with core features (Summon, Autopark) completely absent.

It may be interesting for others, so I've attached my draft witness statement. I never finalised it as Tesla settled. My strategy for the court hearing was pretty simple though:

1. Everyone agrees I bought a car and paid for FSD
2. The Tesla website at the time said they'd deliver city driving by the end of 2019
3. Tesla in their defence said they hadn't delivered it
4. QED

This was my primary argument, and I was just planning to present this to the judge and see if there was any merit in going into further detail/nuance. There were secondary arguments, which I didn't think would be necessary but I put in just in case. Essentially, if you do take Tesla to court you want to make it as easy as possible for the judge to find in your favour. Getting too complicated and technical can make this more difficult.

 

[edb49]

I'm surprised that the settlement terms didn't require a non-disclosure agreement.

They definitely wanted one, I wasn't sure if they'd settle without removing it as I required. (I would never have signed up to one in any circumstances, I was prepared to lose in court rather than by bound by an NDA.)

 

[Adopado]

2) My experience with Tesla is they don't negotiate unless their hand is forced, so I think any opportunity to transfer it will be very much because they're running an offer rather than you've asked for it.

This an important point. It applies to any "negotiation" with a non human entity. If a person sets out on the process expecting a huge publicly-quoted company to respond in the manner of a reasonable human being they are immediately on shaky ground! Any such company is akin to a machine that does what it needs to do to achieve its ends. That's just the way it is.

 

[edb49]

Well done you. I know we corresponded in the early stages and I decided to drop out and subsequently sold the car. Glad for you.

Even if I had sold the car, I would still have a claim. The claim value would be reduced by the extra I had got for selling a car with FSD. So if residuals are £1k higher for cars with FSD, I would have had to subtract that from the value of my claim and get £7k rather than £8k. (I have no idea on FSD residuals, but I suspect many others on this forum do.)

Just because you no longer own the car, doesn't mean Tesla can wash its hands from the contract it agreed to you when it sold you the car in the first place.

 

[father_of_6]

It did, as per the original post.

Derp, I realize now I glossed over the details. Sorry for that!

 

[Adopado]

They definitely wanted one, I wasn't sure if they'd settle without removing it as I required. (I would never have signed up to one in any circumstances, I was prepared to lose in court rather than by bound by an NDA.)

They knew for sure that they were going to lose in court. It's probably a small advantage to Tesla be able to say they haven't lost the case in court.

 

[MkPotato]

Good work there, sir! You clearly fought out of principle, and love the way you didn’t accept the gagging clause. I suspect too many people do (in other cases/companies), so to some extent Tesla deserve for this information to be disseminated.

Do you fancy having a pop at them for Park Assist being shite??

More seriously, they need to be more consumer focused. Cutting USS to save a few quid has made the car demonstrably worse, as will the removal of stalks in the 3. They shouldn’t be getting away with treating their customers with contempt.

 

[father_of_6]

Even if I had sold the car, I would still have a claim. The claim value would be reduced by the extra I had got for selling a car with FSD. So if residuals are £1k higher for cars with FSD, I would have had to subtract that from the value of my claim and get £7k rather than £8k. (I have no idea on FSD residuals, but I suspect many others on this forum do.)

Just because you no longer own the car, doesn't mean Tesla can wash its hands from the contract it agreed to you when it sold you the car in the first place.

That's tricky though, because if you sold the vehicle to someone else with that feature on it, you'd be asking Tesla to reimburse you for it and leave it on the car.

 

[edb49]

I have surprisingly mixed feelings on this. On the one hand, I'm really glad you had a good outcome and quite deservedly so. I think I'm a little torn about the potential precedent it sets though. I will admit Tesla has MANY faults but I also really like a lot of the things they do differently. I am still extremely happy with my 2.5 year old Model 3 and enjoy driving it daily.

I have some sympathy with that POV. I think the way Tesla should have handled this is said something along the lines of:

Yes, we agree we haven't delivered FSD as promised yet. We're happy to do a couple of things for you:

1) Refund the FSD cost and downgrade your car to standard AP
2) Refund the difference between FSD and EAP, and downgrade to EAP

We're working really hard on FSD, and it's likely when it's ready we will put prices up! So you may want to keep it because of that, but we don't mind doing (1) or (2) either.

If they'd done that then it would have kept me happy, saved them some bother, and history would have recorded they did The Right Thing.

 

[edb49]

Do you fancy having a pop at them for Park Assist being shite??

Hah! Fortunately for me, I have USS! But I suspect someone motivated could succeed.

 

[Type2]

This is superb news and I congratulate @edb49 for his well deserved victory. The financial settlement is great but it’s the moral victory that is important. We all know Tesla have been over promising and under delivering on FSD for years, and now they have been well and truly caught with their corporate pants down. You don’t settle out of court, hand over a bunch of money and attempt to impose gagging orders unless you know you’re in the wrong and will lose the case. And Tesla seem to have lost on every level.

I will almost certainly be going down the same route. Again, it’s not the money but the principle that’s important. Tesla should be held to account for their deception, and there’s even a chance they might be more careful about spouting such complete crap in the future.

 

[edb49]

That's tricky though, because if you sold the vehicle to someone else with that feature on it, you'd be asking Tesla to reimburse you for it and leave it on the car.

Actually - this is not how the law would see it. There are two separate things from a legal point of view:
1) The "cause of action" - e.g., what event happened that created a legal liability.
2) Damages - e.g. how can Tesla put things right

For me, the cause of action is the same whether I still own the car or not. It's Tesla's breach of contract, e.g. I paid for FSD that they said would have city driving by the end of 2019, and they didn't deliver it.

The difference is damages. The settlement involved Tesla removing FSD, so the financial damages are easy to work out - it's the £5.8k I paid for it plus interest/court costs.

If I didn't still own the car, the damages would be the £5.8k less what I gained from the increased resale value, e.g. the residual cost of FSD. It's actually irrelevant whether Tesla can remove it or not from the court's POV, because the car is owned by a third party.

 

[Whyone]

I sympathise and I absolutely love driving my car.
The company itself, however, has been going down a slippery slope of apparent contempt for its customers and downright lying on its promises.
Making it behave doesn’t mean making it fail.
It’s high time they got a wake up call.
I agree, however, that I would be very sad to see it fail. But I doubt that’s likely.

This!

 

[Adopado]

Well @edb49 ... I spotted your Christmas present for this year ...

 

[Artiste]

I will almost certainly be going down the same route. Again, it’s not the money but the principle that’s important. Tesla should be held to account for their deception, and there’s even a chance they might be more careful about spouting such complete crap in the future.

Same here. Tesla have for years treated their customers with contempt by knowingly and deliberately misleading them. The only way they will change is if they are held to account. I would expect any company to refund me if they didn’t deliver a product or service I paid for in good faith. Why should Tesla be any different?

 

[aq42]

I'm surprised that the settlement terms didn't require a non-disclosure agreement.

From what OP has said, Tesla wanted that, he refused and Tesla blinked.