After what time has passed would you consider an FSD class action lawsuit?

[rxlawdude]

I purchased FSD and on my order it showed the attached description:

View attachment 721192
The website also showed the demonstration of what FSD was. This video is still online.

Tesla Self-Driving Demonstration | Tesla

www.tesla.com

Watch that video and explain how 5 years later the system is worse than was in 2016 unless Tesla's demonstration was fake?

ALSO... NOWHERE in my purchase agreement does it state ANY disclaimers about FSD. I have looked over my purchase agreement and I still have a copy in my glovebox.

Are you wilfully blind to the bold text you just posted (that is not your purchase agreement)??

You and the tag team of whiners should sue rather than bitching and moaning to people that have no control over Tesla.

We get it: you're butt sore. Do something about it???

For as smart as Tesla owners are in general, many can't read or comprehend.

 

[t3sl4drvr]

Are you wilfully blind to the bold text you just posted (that is not your purchase agreement)??

Disclaimer reads
"functionality is dependent upon"
a) "extensive software validation and"
b) "regulatory approval, which may vary widely by jurisdiction"

Lets unpack two parts separately to show that they have not been the reason for non-delivery.

a) extensive software validation

That statement implies that Tesla had the FSD system they believed to be capable of L5* already at the time of making this statement (2016?), but had not yet sufficiently validated that for a public release.

This should be easy to disprove in court: They should just be asked to produce that system version from 2016 (?) along with the internal test reports that led them to believe that the software was sufficient for L5 unless "extensive software validation" demonstrated otherwise.

As we do not have access to their internal documentation, we cannot prove that they did not have such a system. That said, based the demo they released at the time it seems reasonable to believe that they did not think they have a system sufficiently robust and safe for L5 (apparently they had to fake it).

*) One could argue that L4 might be sufficient here, but Elon Musk have consistently mentioned L5 and also at the time discussed LA-NYC drive without human interventions. Whether it would be L4 or L5, all points are still the same.


b) regulatory approval,

Now 5 years later they have not even applied such approval.


With this, we can conclude that the actual reason for non-delivery has been something else than the disclaimers they gave in 2016. We know from Tesla's own admission that at least cameras and AP computer were not up to task of FSD. Furthermore, we have observed the software process and can conclude that software is not yet there for L5.

Thus their representation of the FSD functionality delivery readiness in 2016 was knowingly misleading.

I think, both (a) and (b) will be significant factors AFTER Tesla internally concludes that they have a L5 capable system.

 

[rxlawdude]

Disclaimer reads
"functionality is dependent upon"
a) "extensive software validation and"
b) "regulatory approval, which may vary widely by jurisdiction"

Lets unpack two parts separately to show that they have not been the reason for non-delivery.

a) extensive software validation

That statement implies that Tesla had the FSD system they believed to be capable of L5* already at the time of making this statement (2016?), but had not yet sufficiently validated that for a public release.

This should be easy to disprove in court: They should just be asked to produce that system version from 2016 (?) along with the internal test reports that led them to believe that the software was sufficient for L5 unless "extensive software validation" demonstrated otherwise.

As we do not have access to their internal documentation, we cannot prove that they did not have such a system. That said, based the demo they released at the time it seems reasonable to believe that they did not think they have a system sufficiently robust and safe for L5 (apparently they had to fake it).

*) One could argue that L4 might be sufficient here, but Elon Musk have consistently mentioned L5 and also at the time discussed LA-NYC drive without human interventions. Whether it would be L4 or L5, all points are still the same.


b) regulatory approval,

Now 5 years later they have not even applied such approval.


With this, we can conclude that the actual reason for non-delivery has been something else than the disclaimers they gave in 2016. We know from Tesla's own admission that at least cameras and AP computer were not up to task of FSD. Furthermore, we have observed the software process and can conclude that software is not yet there for L5.

Thus their representation of the FSD functionality delivery readiness in 2016 was knowingly misleading.

I think, both (a) and (b) will be significant factors AFTER Tesla internally concludes that they have a L5 capable system.

Your arguments are specious. I love armchair lawyers. JUST DO IT (sue rather than bitch).

Done with you and your tag-team buds.

 

[BestRadar]

Disclaimer reads
"functionality is dependent upon"
a) "extensive software validation and"
b) "regulatory approval, which may vary widely by jurisdiction"

Lets unpack two parts separately to show that they have not been the reason for non-delivery.

a) extensive software validation

That statement implies that Tesla had the FSD system they believed to be capable of L5* already at the time of making this statement (2016?), but had not yet sufficiently validated that for a public release.

This should be easy to disprove in court: They should just be asked to produce that system version from 2016 (?) along with the internal test reports that led them to believe that the software was sufficient for L5 unless "extensive software validation" demonstrated otherwise.

As we do not have access to their internal documentation, we cannot prove that they did not have such a system. That said, based the demo they released at the time it seems reasonable to believe that they did not think they have a system sufficiently robust and safe for L5 (apparently they had to fake it).

*) One could argue that L4 might be sufficient here, but Elon Musk have consistently mentioned L5 and also at the time discussed LA-NYC drive without human interventions. Whether it would be L4 or L5, all points are still the same.


b) regulatory approval,

Now 5 years later they have not even applied such approval.


With this, we can conclude that the actual reason for non-delivery has been something else than the disclaimers they gave in 2016. We know from Tesla's own admission that at least cameras and AP computer were not up to task of FSD. Furthermore, we have observed the software process and can conclude that software is not yet there for L5.

Thus their representation of the FSD functionality delivery readiness in 2016 was knowingly misleading.

I think, both (a) and (b) will be significant factors AFTER Tesla internally concludes that they have a L5 capable system.

I purchased my 2016 Model S directly after they released the FSD Video and spoke with sales reps at Tesla. Nowhere did anyone mention the FSD video was FAKE nor did anyone mention it was made up from different clips put together and was only a representation of what the system could do. It was promoted as what FSD was and that is the way it was sold.

The video they promoted clearly starts with the following notice:

Lets requote this: "THE PERSON IN THE DRIVERS SEAT IS ONLY THERE FOR LEGAL REASONS. HE IS NOT DOING ANYTHING. THE CAR IS DRIVING ITSELF."

This is a FRAUD is the video took several hundred miles of footage and compiled to make it look like a successful FSD trip.

 

[rxlawdude]

I purchased my 2016 Model S directly after they released the FSD Video and spoke with sales reps at Tesla. Nowhere did anyone mention the FSD video was FAKE nor did anyone mention it was made up from different clips put together and was only a representation of what the system could do. It was promoted as what FSD was and that is the way it was sold.

The video they promoted clearly starts with the following notice:

View attachment 721222

Lets requote this: "THE PERSON IN THE DRIVERS SEAT IS ONLY THERE FOR LEGAL REASONS. HE IS NOT DOING ANYTHING. THE CAR IS DRIVING ITSELF."

This is a FRAUD is the video took several hundred miles of footage and compiled to make it look like a successful FSD trip.

Again, armchair lawyer, please take legal action. Let us know how much you lose in attorney's fees.

Advertising <> promises. Advertising = puffery.

Legally distinct. One is binding, the other not. If you have a written, executed document stating that you were to get FSD the day you bought it (or even by EOY 2016) you might have a leg to stand on. Trouble is, you don't have it, right?

 

[BestRadar]

Again, armchair lawyer, please take legal action. Let us know how much you lose in attorney's fees.

This is why I hate this site... The Fanboy's can never just admit Tesla's faults or lies. They always try to put down anyone that comes here with a legit gripe. If no one holds Tesla accountable for all their lies and shortcomings nothing will ever change.

 

[EVNow]

If no one holds Tesla accountable for all their lies and shortcomings nothing will ever change.

You thinking they are "lying" doesn't make it a fact.

Take your own writing seriously and sue them and "hold them accountable" and let us know how you fare.

 

[asterothe]

You thinking they are "lying" doesn't make it a fact.

Take your own writing seriously and sue them and "hold them accountable" and let us know how you fare.

So you think they are not lying?

It's a fact that they sold this feature in 2016 and still not deliver. That simple.

 

[rxlawdude]

This is why I hate this site... The Fanboy's can never just admit Tesla's faults or lies. They always try to put down anyone that comes here with a legit gripe. If no one holds Tesla accountable for all their lies and shortcomings nothing will ever change.

No, I'm telling you what to do to resolve your grievance. In fact, I specifically advocate the use of Small Claims Court (permitted whether or not you opted out of arbitration agreement) to assert you deserve a refund.

 

[t3sl4drvr]

Now that the debate is somewhat heated here, I would like to remind all of us that the name of the topic is "When would you consider initiating/joining a class action lawsuit for Tesla failure to deliver FSD?". If you do not like to have a discussion on ground for a lawsuit, stop reading and posting in this topic.

For the rest of us, discussing the potential case is entertaining and educational. And could prove helpful later on.

I would not be surprised if some of the people reading this are negotiating a dispute concerning FSD delivery with Tesla at the moment. They might not just be comfortable sharing that here as the typical advice from any lawyer would be to not discuss a dispute publicly (anything you write might be used as evidence against you). I hope this discussion helps their legal representation to surface different aspects of the issue that might otherwise be left unnoticed. Thus, if you are reading this and have hired a lawyer to represent you, go ahead and forward this topic to them.

 

[svusa]

Forget about the legal argument as I doubt anyone of us has a law degree... but Tesla and the current CEO lied to people about FSD capabilities and there is plenty of evidence already presented in this thread!

10 years later, people still defending Tesla's action will be driving some beta version and would consider it as progress... the next big thing, Flying Teslas! coming soon...

 

[svusa]

Now that the debate is somewhat heated here, I would like to remind all of us that the name of the topic is "When would you consider initiating/joining a class action lawsuit for Tesla failure to deliver FSD?". If you do not like to have a discussion on ground for a lawsuit, stop reading and posting in this topic.

For the rest of us, discussing the potential case is entertaining and educational. And could prove helpful later on.

I would not be surprised if some of the people reading this are negotiating a dispute concerning FSD delivery with Tesla at the moment. They might not just be comfortable sharing that here as the typical advice from any lawyer would be to not discuss a dispute publicly (anything you write might be used as evidence against you). I hope this discussion helps their legal representation to surface different aspects of the issue that might otherwise be left unnoticed. Thus, if you are reading this and have hired a lawyer to represent you, go ahead and forward this topic to them.

you are so correct.. reason I joined this discussion as at some point I have to think about what legal options I have and if others feel the same way I do that Tesla misled consumers into thinking they are buying FSD that doesn't require human intervetion.

good to see that there are people out there who loved their Tesla car but are educated enough to hold the company and executives accountable.

 

[jjrandorin]

Forget about the legal argument as I doubt anyone of us has a law degree

I am fairly certain that @rxlawdude is actually a lawyer, so.....

Practicing what, I have no idea.

I also actually laugh out loud every time someone posts in THIS SUBFORUM and starts talking about "tesla fanbois prevent people from posting negative stuff", because in THIS SUBFORUM the negative posts outweigh the positive by (made up number) 10-1.

Simply read any thread in this subforum, and its very apparent that this subforum discussion is basically about how much people think tesla sucks, with VERY few exceptions. So, this subforum is the exact opposite of "fanbois", and this thread was started by someone who was banned for being a troll / troublemaker.

I personally dont care about the topic, or whether people complain, etc... but stating that this specific subforum is dominated by "tesla stans" is pretty funny.

 

[am_dmd]

I have helped save at least three buyers from wasting their money on fake FSD and will keep doing it as long as I can. Every time someone asks me about the car while supercharging I always tell them about Tesla's worst customer service and fake FSD marketing.

 

[Sporty]

I have helped save at least three buyers from wasting their money on fake FSD and will keep doing it as long as I can. Every time someone asks me about the car while supercharging I always tell them about Tesla's worst customer service and fake FSD marketing.

Same here. Saved 1

 

[jabloomf1230]

The trouble with this subforum is that it is impossible to separate the owners who have been truly wronged by Tesla from the TESLAQ and other trolls. This uncertainty is what is motivating other people to start arguments. My advice is for those who want to pursue legal action, set up a reddit sub and heavily moderate it.

 

[t3sl4drvr]

reason I joined this discussion as at some point I have to think about what legal options I have

This is a very good question. I would like to know the answer as well.

Ideas from top of my head:

• Initiate arbitration process without hiring a lawyer. Experiences shared on this forum point to it being easy process (with low risk of downside). Would be worth checking out if you are ok with a refund as outcome.
• Initiate arbitration process with a lawyer. While changes of winning might increase, you likely end up paying for your legal representation the same amount you are refunded. Bright side is that a good lawyer will guide you on whether arbitration is the right path or not.
• Take the issue to small claims court (with legal representation)
• Find a lawyer who initiates a class action. This will be a large project and the arbitration clause might end up holding in court.
• Complain to service center team. I would not expect this to yield any results.
• Complain to SEC. Consider with your legal team if you have lost millions trading TSLA.
• Complain to FTC. Does not sound likely that they would solve your case, but when they receive many complaints they might decide to pursue this.

Any other ideas?

 

[svusa]

This is a very good question. I would like to know the answer as well.

Ideas from top of my head:

• Initiate arbitration process without hiring a lawyer. Experiences shared on this forum point to it being easy process (with low risk of downside). Would be worth checking out if you are ok with a refund as outcome.
• Initiate arbitration process with a lawyer. While changes of winning might increase, you likely end up paying for your legal representation the same amount you are refunded. Bright side is that a good lawyer will guide you on whether arbitration is the right path or not.
• Take the issue to small claims court (with legal representation)
• Find a lawyer who initiates a class action. This will be a large project and the arbitration clause might end up holding in court.
• Complain to service center team. I would not expect this to yield any results.
• Complain to SEC. Consider with your legal team if you have lost millions trading TSLA.
• Complain to FTC. Does not sound likely that they would solve your case, but when they receive many complaints they might decide to pursue this.

Any other ideas?

- Complain to State Consumer Affairs or Attorney's office
- Complain to Senator/Local Congressman ??

 

[S4WRXTTCS]

I have helped save at least three buyers from wasting their money on fake FSD and will keep doing it as long as I can. Every time someone asks me about the car while supercharging I always tell them about Tesla's worst customer service and fake FSD marketing.

All I do is I tell people to try to contact Tesla through email or through an online message/ticket type system, and only buy one if they're able to.

FSD has gotten easier to dismiss as people can always do the subscribe to try occasionally. It used to be the topic to avoid at all cost as it was just embarrassing.

My boss was thinking of buying a Model Y so I wrote a huge email that compared Tesla ownership to being in an abusive relationship. Especially for those of us with FSD. But, then I didn't sent it. Thankfully he talked to someone in Europe who sold him on the idea of buying an E-Tron. I said that was great as long as it was the GT version.

I honestly quite enjoy my Performance Model 3, but the company itself is just so frustrating.

Most of it is due to the completely unnecessary stuff they do.

Did they really need to get rid of being able to email them?
Did they really need to subject people to the Safety Score well before it was ready to release
Did they really need to pull the Radar well before Vision was at parity

As someone else said they just make stuff up as they go along.

In terms of passion I've already jumped ship to Rivian. But, I have some reservations that it will become the same thing only Bezos the Clown will be Musk. So far they've copied a lot of the good ideas from Tesla, and hopefully they did so without the bad.

 

[Knightshade]

Forget about the legal argument as I doubt anyone of us has a law degree...

Like most of your claims, this seems contrary to known facts.

but Tesla and the current CEO lied to people about FSD capabilities and there is plenty of evidence already presented in this thread!

By "plenty" you mean 'zero' I guess.

there's been evidence that predictions about future delivery dates were wrong.

there's been zero evidence whatsoever those promises were made with the speaker knowingly lying


Oddly one of the FRAUD guys admitted he thinks Elon believed everything he said- which means it's literally not fraud yet keeps going on about fraud anyway.

10 years later

Less than 5.

FSD was announced Oct 19. 2016.

It'll finally be 5 years next week.


FACTS! TRY THEM SOMETIME!

My sales rep certainly did not tell me it might come in 5+ years. He told me it would be released shortly in 2017.

Yes, and car salesmen NEVER say anything that isn't 1000% accurate, right?

I've been buying cars for a good while, and never encountered anyone selling em who didn't claim things I knew were factually untrue during the sale because I'd actually done some research on what I was spending tens of thousands of dollars on.

In some cases they were clearly just flat lying- in others it appears to be they didn't know the answer and did not want to admit it so they made up some nonsense that wasn't accurate- in others they genuinely thought they were telling the truth by repeating something "they heard" from someone else without having checked.

In 0 cases would I ever "rely" on what the dude not making much to push the car tells me about the car.



That said- feel free to sue for misrepresentation by the salesperson-- that's the basis for the case of the 2 brothers in CA. They haven't won by any means, but the judge at least allowed the case to survive summary judgement for dismissal.