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

[gearchruncher]

You guys can make fun of class actions, but the last class action against EAP led to $280 refunds for a 1 year delay on EAP. You're also not aware of how lawyer fees are calculated in a CA- they are completely independent of damages, but instead calculated off the amount of work the lawyers did. All of those can form a pretty good incentive to a company not misbehaving. It's better than nothing, and better than every one of us needing to sue independently.

 

[DanCar]

Motortrend seems to indicate that Model Y is better than the Ford pony because of things like FSD.

2021 Ford Mustang Mach-E vs. Tesla Model Y

Tesla has long ruled the electric-vehicle roost, but Ford’s Mustang Mach-E EV SUV leads a wave of new challengers. Can the Ford take over the Tesla Model Y?

www.motortrend.com

But FSD is the standout winner here. "Active Drive Assist feels relatively low tech in the Mach-E, which is otherwise a technically compelling EV tour de force,"
...
"When you move from the Mach-E to the Model Y, you feel like you've taken a step forward into the future. The impact of that step is smaller thanks to the amazing job Ford's done, but there's no similar sense of wonder when you go from Model Y to Mach-E."
...
The Model Y's superior technology, range, charging setup, and interior space carry the day. For now.

@Bladerskb Any thoughts why Motortrend rated the Mobileye solution so poorly?

 

[Dan D.]

Motortrend seems to indicate that Model Y is better than the Ford pony because of things like FSD.

2021 Ford Mustang Mach-E vs. Tesla Model Y

Tesla has long ruled the electric-vehicle roost, but Ford’s Mustang Mach-E EV SUV leads a wave of new challengers. Can the Ford take over the Tesla Model Y?

www.motortrend.com

@Bladerskb Any thoughts why Motortrend rated the Mobileye solution so poorly?

I read the Motortrend article and the reason it picked the Model Y over the Mach-E, (or was it the Mach-E over the Model Y) was because it's a Wednesday. Honestly they throw out some numbers, some performance stats, and then just mix it all around with subjective impressions:

"The cabin offers a clean, fresh-feeling execution for a Ford"
"although the Mach-E measures objectively larger, the Model Y's space ultimately seems more usable"
"Ford's dual-screen approach is more conventional and simpler to adjust to ...Despite these positives, the Model Y wins on usability"

It's just a load of nonsense comparisons summed up with an "impression" as to the winner. Either it was determined ahead of time or they picked one on a whim. Next review will say the exact opposite.

I would put no faith in their technical understanding of the difference between FSD and Co-Pilot 360 beyond a few things they have been told by the marketing copy and their brief test drives.

Confusingly it states: "Later this year Ford will offer Active Drive Assist, a $600 over the air upgrade that should offer similar functionality to the Tesla, such as hands free driving (limited to 100,000 miles of mapped divided highways). But FSD is the standout winner here. 'Active Drive Assist feels relatively low tech in the Mach-E, which is otherwise a technically compelling EV tour de force,'".

So did he just review a feature that isn't even in the car?

 

[sean256]

This is tough. On one hand the features I get out of it today are worth the $5k I paid alone (EAP + Elon's stoner sale), but on the other, they are promising FULL self driving and not delivering. So I think a class action is appropriate if only to force their hand into rebranding/cost adjusting.

I would also be less upset if we could transfer the damn thing to a new car. I paid for it with the promise of FSD, and by the time I want to trade it in it still hasn't come.

 

[Nuclear Fusion]

Will V9 wide release occur in June?
Wide release was promised in November for December 2020

 

[Nuclear Fusion]

With the lawsuits for Solar Roofs now instigated, customers will become increasingly more comfortable with doing likewise on FSD.

 

[qdeathstar]

With the lawsuits for Solar Roofs now instigated, customers will become increasingly more comfortable with doing likewise on FSD.

Feel like the solar roof and fsd are different situations, but I don’t really think the solar roof situation has a of of merit.

 

[Moonshine2050]

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

 

[rxlawdude]

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

You law degree is from where? Your analysis seems amateurish and pulled out of your backside.

I love brand new posters like you talking lawsuits and contract law. You'll find some kindred spirits here.

Mostly wrong, but kindred.

 

[gearchruncher]

You law degree is from where?

Oh look, it's our resident law professor that loves to gatekeep any kind of legal discussion, but also completely refuses to ever offer any kind of legal analysis of the situation themselves, preferring to attack the character of the posters they don't like over substance. Where is your law degree from that taught you to argue this way?

I'll keep asking because it's never once been answered: How is a contract valid if it requires no performance from one of the parties?

 

[rxlawdude]

Oh look, it's our resident law professor that loves to gatekeep any kind of legal discussion, but also completely refuses to ever offer any kind of legal analysis of the situation themselves, preferring to attack the character of the posters they don't like over substance. Where is your law degree from that taught you to argue this way?

I'll keep asking because it's never once been answered: How is a contract valid if it requires no performance from one of the parties?

Geez, I thought I had you on ignore. Yep. Must be your reply.

Anyway, which performance of one party are you referring to? Which contractual term, in your purchase agreement, obligates Tesla beyond what they've delivered to date? Which part of "pending validation" obligates Tesla to deliver complete FSD functionality now? Quite clear it's not here yet.

However, I share the impatience for V9 beta. Now, if Tesla were to never deliver FSD as described and with the caveats clearly stated, I'd be one of you guys with tar and feathers. We are a long way from never.

 

[gearchruncher]

Geez, I thought I had you on ignore. Yep. Must be your reply.

As usual, take a swing at the person, not the idea.

Anyway, which performance of one party are you referring to?

I'm talking about the fact that Tesla sold FSD in 2016, with a feature set described. People say that Tesla has no specific date upon which they need to deliver this. That as long as they do it someday, it's OK. But someday and never are the same thing until that day comes, and at some point we need to agree it's functionally "never."

No Tesla "contract," purchase agreement or anything else lists a date supposedly (we'll conveniently ignore "this year" for city streets in 2019, 2020, and 2021). So, if someone took this to court, and said that in absence of Tesla listing a date, they would like the court to consider 36 months as a reasonable timeframe, as this is half the average new car ownership in the USA. They ask the court to use the contra proferentem doctrine, as it is clear that nobody would spend $5K for something they didn't expect to get any value from during the ownership of the vehicle, and Tesla wrote the contract and failed to list a date ("performance") of delivery.

Why would this be unreasonable? What date do you think a court would consider reasonable for someone that paid $3K in 2016 to actually get what was described for that money, in absence of any other agreed upon date? How does the law cover contracts that say "I'll give you this in the future" with no date listed when the parties start to disagree, one saying "don't worry, it's coming" and the other saying "I expected this a long time ago?" Given this is an option on a specific VIN motor vehicle, that cannot be transferred to another, is it not reasonable that the purchaser expected the functions to exist for a large portion of the normal lifetime of that vehicle?

You seem pretty confident that Tesla's descriptions and contracts have them fully in the clear for at least a few more years. It would be interesting to hear why.

 

[emmz0r]

Tesla could solve this without paying a dime - transfer FSD to the next car until it's released (not beta)

 

[Radish11]

I would never sue Tesla over not delivering FSD because I would never purchase FSD until it’s actually up and running.
If Tesla doesn’t believe in FSD enough to you know guarantee a date when it will be released and refund the purchase if it’s not available by then then I certainly don’t believe in it enough either to spend 10k.
If Elon really believed they were about to deliver FSD then he would be willing to make that promise to customers which would cause the purchase rate for FSD to skyrocket. Since he’s not willing to do so shows me that he has no faith in his own ability to deliver it, and for that reason I have no faith in his ability to deliver it

 

[gearchruncher]

So @rxlawdude, are you going to explain why this is a valid contract and when "never" is defined in the law? Would very much appreciate your view on this instead of just telling people they are not lawyers and should move on. You asked me a question, which I expanded on and you seemed interested in explaining, and it would help me change my view on some of this if it's clear why Tesla is fully in the clear here.

 

[rxlawdude]

So @rxlawdude, are you going to explain why this is a valid contract and when "never" is defined in the law? Would very much appreciate your view on this instead of just telling people they are not lawyers and should move on. You asked me a question, which I expanded on and you seemed interested in explaining, and it would help me change my view on some of this if it's clear why Tesla is fully in the clear
.

When there is a condition, that condition must be satisfied. There is no explicit time frame for that condition to occur, unless specified in the contract. Is that clear enough?

Can the contract language be tested in court? Go ahead, make my day!

 

[CyberGus]

So @rxlawdude, are you going to explain why this is a valid contract and when "never" is defined in the law? Would very much appreciate your view on this instead of just telling people they are not lawyers and should move on. You asked me a question, which I expanded on and you seemed interested in explaining, and it would help me change my view on some of this if it's clear why Tesla is fully in the clear here.

IANAL, lol, and I'd love to hear some more educated theories from knowledgeable professionals, but...

Contract law requires specificity, i.e., "You get exactly X in exchange for exactly Y" because vague terms are impossible to enforce. So when the contract says "We shall continue working on said product and deliver when ready" there is no specific date, and therefore you cannot hold the parties to any given timeframe. I think the only leverage you would have is if the work effectively stopped (or failed to make any meaningful progress) or the contract was formed in bad faith (there was never any intent upon fulfilling the terms).

Since Tesla is working on AI as much as anybody if not more so, and there's no bad faith, I don't think anyone has a case against them. Even if there were, damages would be limited to a refund unless there's some punitive statute that comes into play.

 

[CyberGus]

In fact, I could argue to a judge that Tesla has already fulfilled the terms, since the current level of autonomy provided is all that the law will allow. If Elon managed to deliver Level 5 autonomy tomorrow, there are no streets where you would legally be allowed to drive it!

I agree completely that Elon has moved the FSD goalposts often, and it's disappointing when reality fails to meet expectations. But disappointment is not actionable, or else my parents would be rich lol

 

[gearchruncher]

In fact, I could argue to a judge that Tesla has already fulfilled the terms, since the current level of autonomy provided is all that the law will allow. If Elon managed to deliver Level 5 autonomy tomorrow, there are no streets where you would legally be allowed to drive it!

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

Contract law requires specificity, i.e., "You get exactly X in exchange for exactly Y" because vague terms are impossible to enforce. So when the contract says "We shall continue working on said product and deliver when ready" there is no specific date, and therefore you cannot hold the parties to any given timeframe.

Can you show me where this is the contract people agreed to when buying FSD? When I go into the app today for FSD, it says "city streets coming this year" - not "you're paying us to keep working on it, but there is no time frame." I'd be really interested to see someone pull out this contract in clear language that says all you got for $3-10K was Tesla working on it hard.

When there is a condition, that condition must be satisfied. There is no explicit time frame for that condition to occur, unless specified in the contract. Is that clear enough?

My question then is how is this a valid contract? A contract must confer value on both parties. A contract which doesn't require any value to be delivered from Tesla to the purchaser isn't valid. The other version is that there is an assumed date that the purchaser thought they would get value, because no logical person would pay $5K for nothing, and Tesla failed to list it, and now we need a court to decide.

Can you explain what you *did* get when you bought FSD in 2017 from Tesla for $5K? What did that purchase get you, and is that a fully formed, well crafted contract?

 

[Cyberax]

Contract law requires specificity, i.e., "You get exactly X in exchange for exactly Y" because vague terms are impossible to enforce. So when the contract says "We shall continue working on said product and deliver when ready" there is no specific date, and therefore you cannot hold the parties to any given timeframe.

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.