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

[CyberGus]

The thing is you're so sure about this, but it isn't true. North Carolina allows full L5 driving, having specific laws allowing it since 2017. There is no federal law preventing it, nor standard that must be met.

I started with "IANAL" so you seem to be much more sure about how sure I think I am, than I think about how sure I think I am.

Tesla is completely able to release L5 tomorrow in some parts of the country. So no, they are not limited by regulation at all.

You say they're not limited "at all", right after saying "some parts of the country". Are you sure you're sure about that?

To be fair, the legal situation is...complicated. "Legal Status in the US":

Self-driving car - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

At the very least, I would expect all insurance companies to deny coverage for accidents involving fully-autonomous driving unless your policy specifically allows it. Or, they might pay out when they don't think they need to, miracles do happen sometimes.

Again, I completely understand that Tesla has over-promised and under-delivered when it comes to FSD. I just don't think it's actionable.

 

[rxlawdude]

That's not how contracts work. Since one party clearly failed to deliver within reasonable timeframe (half of car's usable lifetime) then the other party can reasonably ask for the contract to be nullified and get the damages paid.

Then put your money where your mouth is and sue on that theory.

We'll wait.

 

[gearchruncher]

Then put your money where your mouth is and sue on that theory.

And he will obviously lose because of what reason?

 

[CyberGus]

 

[Cyberax]

Then put your money where your mouth is and sue on that theory.

We'll wait.

I'm going to. And I opted out of mandatory arbitration, so that's likely going to be a class action lawsuit. I'm waiting for the end of the year.

 

[rxlawdude]

I'm going to. And I opted out of mandatory arbitration, so that's likely going to be a class action lawsuit. I'm waiting for the end of the year.

We'll wait.

 

[gearchruncher]

I'm going to. And I opted out of mandatory arbitration, so that's likely going to be a class action lawsuit. I'm waiting for the end of the year.

We're local to each other and have Hagens Berman in Seattle, who won the previous Autopilot delay class action. I've actually spoken to their partners before about Tesla and they are very knowledgeable. We should get together and talk to them, I'm sure they're interested in another round with Tesla (if they aren't already doing it).

It's hilarious to see people so sure there is no case here when the previous case opened this way, and is basically the same as what we are discussing now:

Tesla has been marketing and selling its Enhanced Autopilot and Full-Self Driving features for a combined $8,000 premium since October 2016. Tesla states that it equips its newest Model S and Model X vehicles with eight surround cameras providing 360 degrees of visibility, 12 ultrasonic sensors allowing improved object detection at nearly twice the distance of the previous AP1, a radar able to see through weather conditions, all to enable its Enhanced Autopilot and Full Self-Driving capabilities. But Tesla was late in delivering Enhanced Autopilot features, and owners complain that the Enhanced Autopilot suite is still not complete and that some of its components are unsafe. Also, Tesla still has not delivered its Full-Self Driving features, and it is unclear when or if it can provide the FSD capabilities it promised for its HW2 vehicles.

 

[rxlawdude]

We're local to each other and have Hagens Berman in Seattle, who won the previous Autopilot delay class action. I've actually spoken to their partners before about Tesla and they are very knowledgeable. We should get together and talk to them, I'm sure they're interested in another round with Tesla (if they aren't already doing it).

It's hilarious to see people so sure there is no case here when the previous case opened this way, and is basically the same as what we are discussing now

Your lawyers will get rich. If they win.

Do tell about this previously won class action. Be specific: how many class members, compensation given to each class member and what was the attorneys' compensation?

Here's a hint:
1. "If the settlement is approved by the court, Tesla will pay between $20 and $280 to all Tesla owners in the US who bought or leased cars with Enhanced Autopilot between October 2016 and September 2017."
2. Facts and circumstances very different from current situation.
3. This case was not won. It was settled.
4. And I'd not be happy with $20. Or $280 on an at least $2,000 outlay.

But again, please proceed. I'm begging you too!!!-

 

[Wado]

If it turns out to be vapor ware he should reimburse the purchase price at the very least.

 

[ChicagoJoe]

Count me as another 2019 FSD $6K unsatisfied purchaser who would gladly take a refund. I don’t do enough highway driving to make EAP worthwhile (when it works) and every other feature I could use in the city is a joke. Parking? I can do it faster on the street and without trying to parallel park perpendicular in my garage. Smart Summon? It’s not real-world practical and there’s too many manufacturer limits. Traffic and Stop Sign Control stops at every other crosswalk and requires you to tap dance with it at green lights — not practical either. And given fog, mist, a light rain and most of this stuff stops working.

people waiting for FSD from Elon now are like people waiting for evangelists predictions on the return of the Messiah to come true. 30+ years ago when I did retail sales we had a saying about ‘be-backs’ (people that won’t commit to a sale on the spot and say they’ll be back): ‘There ain’t no such thing as a be-back… The only one that’s coming back is Jesus Christ, and he ain’t said when.’

That last part is as true for Jesus as it is for FSD.

 

[CyberGus]

That last part is as true for Jesus as it is for FSD.

Maybe Jesus could take the wheel...?

 

[rxlawdude]

Maybe Jesus could take the wheel...?

Jesus saves, but Moses invests.

 

[mark95476]

You have FSD?

What do you have to do when you're in traffic and come up to a green light?
What do you have to do when you're in traffic and come up to a red light and then it turns green?

Count me as another 2019 FSD $6K unsatisfied purchaser who would gladly take a refund. I don’t do enough highway driving to make EAP worthwhile (when it works) and every other feature I could use in the city is a joke. Parking? I can do it faster on the street and without trying to parallel park perpendicular in my garage. Smart Summon? It’s not real-world practical and there’s too many manufacturer limits. Traffic and Stop Sign Control stops at every other crosswalk and requires you to tap dance with it at green lights — not practical either. And given fog, mist, a light rain and most of this stuff stops working.

 

[bobby g]

It is so funny to see Tesla stockholders retracting here that People have no legal claims on fsd purchase. Koolaid drinkers, once you sell something you cannot deliver after a century and company has legal obligation. Now why regulators have kept closed eyes for Tesla but would fine $10billion to VW just for lower emission numbers is mistry. I see a fine of atleast $16k going to each fsd customer and rest etc to attorneys. Tesla has kept $1.5 fsd money on side already

Regulatory fines don't go to people, class action gets you $1.380 and it will happen just about the year in your screen name (or later)

 

[mluu510]

Now because it's already like 2 yrs late

 

[_jal_]

I don't have anywhere near the time or interest in personally going through a lawsuit, but it's always surprised me that a consumer fraud claim hasn't been brought - at least in Illinois. Here, consumer fraud requires a deception by the defendant, a reliance on that deception by the plaintiff, that deception causing damage, and that deception happening in the course of commerce. There isn't even mention of a contract - as a matter of fact, many of the deceptions are of the "I know the contract says this, but ..." with that statement made by an agent of the defendant being the very deception that causes the plaintiff to enter into the contract. A company can commit fraud by withholding facts that a sophisticated buyer would have relied on to behave differently. On the other hand, a firm can also commit fraud by producing falsehoods that the buyer relies on to commit to a purchase.

It isn't, in my mind anyhow, enough that Tesla never said we'd have FSD in whatever timeframe. Elon made statements, and Tesla posted videos and statements like "coming by the end of the year" that made it sound like FSD was right around the corner. And Elon's tweets and statements matter because he is very much a company agent. If the fact is "and we don't actually have a working version of this anywhere close to the form we're showing in a video," then it was a deception. Again, per the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, just omitting a material fact that would have changed the behavior of a buyer is fraud. So omitting the fact (assuming it is true - nothing but discovery could prove it) that Tesla has no working FSD prototype capable of advertised features constitutes fraud.

I imagine at least some people wouldn't have bought FSD had they know it wasn't just awaiting regulatory approval, but in fact, wasn't even existent anywhere. Some people would have been fine with it and paid anyhow. Other people relied on information that was clearly incomplete at best and feel defrauded. And again, it isn't that Tesla never said "You will have FSD by xx/xx/xxxx," but instead because Tesla never said "we don't have a working version anywhere and there is no proof we ever will." If that is a material fact for people and Tesla didn't disclose it, then per the Act in Illinois, that is fraud.

 

[rxlawdude]

I don't have anywhere near the time or interest in personally going through a lawsuit, but it's always surprised me that a consumer fraud claim hasn't been brought - at least in Illinois. Here, consumer fraud requires a deception by the defendant, a reliance on that deception by the plaintiff, that deception causing damage, and that deception happening in the course of commerce. There isn't even mention of a contract - as a matter of fact, many of the deceptions are of the "I know the contract says this, but ..." with that statement made by an agent of the defendant being the very deception that causes the plaintiff to enter into the contract. A company can commit fraud by withholding facts that a sophisticated buyer would have relied on to behave differently. On the other hand, a firm can also commit fraud by producing falsehoods that the buyer relies on to commit to a purchase.

It isn't, in my mind anyhow, enough that Tesla never said we'd have FSD in whatever timeframe. Elon made statements, and Tesla posted videos and statements like "coming by the end of the year" that made it sound like FSD was right around the corner. And Elon's tweets and statements matter because he is very much a company agent. If the fact is "and we don't actually have a working version of this anywhere close to the form we're showing in a video," then it was a deception. Again, per the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, just omitting a material fact that would have changed the behavior of a buyer is fraud. So omitting the fact (assuming it is true - nothing but discovery could prove it) that Tesla has no working FSD prototype capable of advertised features constitutes fraud.

I imagine at least some people wouldn't have bought FSD had they know it wasn't just awaiting regulatory approval, but in fact, wasn't even existent anywhere. Some people would have been fine with it and paid anyhow. Other people relied on information that was clearly incomplete at best and feel defrauded. And again, it isn't that Tesla never said "You will have FSD by xx/xx/xxxx," but instead because Tesla never said "we don't have a working version anywhere and there is no proof we ever will." If that is a material fact for people and Tesla didn't disclose it, then per the Act in Illinois, that is fraud.

Interesting analysis. I invite you or another owner in IL to proffer it in court.

 

[Cyberax]

Regulatory fines don't go to people, class action gets you $1.380 and it will happen just about the year in your screen name (or later)

This is incorrect. Punitive fines go to people. Lawyers DO get a cut, but it's usually something like 15% of the settlement.

Most people think that all class-action suits result in $2.5 rewards, but that's also not true. This is typically because damages are usually judged to be pretty small for truly mass class-action.

 

[bobby g]

This is incorrect. Punitive fines go to people. Lawyers DO get a cut, but it's usually something like 15% of the settlement.

Most people think that all class-action suits result in $2.5 rewards, but that's also not true. This is typically because damages are usually judged to be pretty small for truly mass class-action.

Was referring to fines, as in the action against VW that resulted in EA brought by regulatory agencies rather than class actions. Both could be brought under the right circumstances.

Then let's think, should we try and kill the company so that we are made owners of an orphan brand?
Not considering any shorters out there.

 

[_jal_]

Interesting analysis. I invite you or another owner in IL to proffer it in court.

Honestly, how softly could I have played that for you? “I don't have anywhere near the time or interest in personally going through a lawsuit, but it's always surprised me that a consumer fraud claim hasn't been brought - at least in Illinois.” This is an honest musing. I bought FSD! Even after leasing another MS and paying for EAP. I had smart summon for like 5 days on that car. I don’t have anywhere near the time to go to court over $10k even if I include court costs and punitive damages. Well, maybe if it were like One Hundred Million Dollars in punitive damages. But it’s not.

I’ve been through a lengthy fraud case in IL where I learned a lot about its definition here, and this sure seems like the same thing. It’s hard to say though because so much needs to come out in discovery. If I were to sue Tesla regarding my purchase of EAP, I’d have to produce proof an agent of the company made false statements that I relied upon. I didn’t record her nor do I have emails, etc. So that’s basically impossible - even though it is true. Or, and only possible to determine during discovery, it is possible officers of the company knew their claims were unfounded, or at least materially so, and relied upon by customers to be true thereby deceiving them. I think that could very well be true. Even though I don’t know it’s true … false. … or truly false. I don’t know how a company could so publicly promote a feature that was so totally not actually about to be available in form.

IL courts (which are insane btw) have nibbled away at the law, but even so, I’d still be surprised (I am surprised! But I’m surprised a lot and maybe cuz I’m wrong!) if it didn’t get traction. I’m not arguing will FSD happen or won’t it happen with lidar or hi def maps or whatever. What I’m saying is that the practices could very well be construed as fraudulent. The website today pretty much advertises what you actually get (what I saw on the mobile site anyhow). That’s what they should have done from day one. Leak some news to the press and let them spin up the FSD news. That’s fine. But when it comes from the CEO, that’s different cuz .. and cue the eye rolls, but it’s actually part of being an officer … he’s an officer and therefore agent of the company. The website too (with certain limitations), and the salespeople.

It’s an adventure and I signed up and it’s fine as far as I’m concerned. Still, regardless of what ends up being delivered or my estimation of the timeline, they’re bumping up against fraud if not actually knee deep in it.