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

[rxlawdude]

He already mentioned reached out to a lawyer to explore his options. Interesting to see the outcome.

I agree. There is a distinction between 2019 and earlier FSD purchases from post 2019 purchases. Those who dispose of an FSD car from earlier have, IMO, a decent argument that they never got their end of the deal. But this is why (IMO) the Small Claims Court approach is preferable in states with pro-consumer limits that provide an opportunity to recoup some or all of what FSD purchasers paid.

Arbitration presents a friendly venue to Tesla. And those with post 2019 FSD have a much bigger hill to climb given the lack of specificity and disclaimers from Tesla.

 

[svusa]

I do not think that is the reason - at least not the only reason. I suspect (without any evidence) that the reasons for a large share of that defensiveness to be due to owning a position in TSLA. Understanding that a visible FSD non-delivery story or class-action has potential to impact stock price sufficiently to have a significant negative impact their own portfolio value.

That might be the case, but why people who feel like they have been duped by Tesla are treated as if they are criminals!? I didn't tell Tesla to advertise the way they did, and it seems to be still my fault!

It's like Nikola's story - in that case, Short Seller had vested interest, but the company did lie. Sooner or later, Tesla will have to settle on the FSD issue because they don't have the solution.

 

[eipi10]

It would be appropriate to submit Tesla's fraud to the FTC. So far, the FTC's focus has been on Tesla's false description of its incompetent driving software as "full self driving." More focus needs to be on the fact that Tesla has had the audacity to SELL this deadly software yet not provide it to most of its paying customers. Selling software that does not exist and is not reasonably expected to exist in the stated timeframe is fraud.

 

[nvx1977]

I feel like this was already asked and answered, more than once, on previous calls.

(the answer was no)

yep. but FSD is getting a lot more attention these days, and this is the top-voted question. That gives it a lot more weight than in the past. Elon or whoever else can say no, but they'll have to think a bit harder about it.

 

[rxlawdude]

That might be the case, but why people who feel like they have been duped by Tesla are treated as if they are criminals!? I didn't tell Tesla to advertise the way they did, and it seems to be still my fault!

Did you read the caveats when you purchased? Not trying to treat you as a criminal, but rather trying to educate you on the difference between actionable promises and marketing fluff.

And if you got FSD during late 2019 or later, you clearly were not given specific delivery dates ("coming later this year" notwithstanding).

 

[t3sl4drvr]

educate you on the difference between actionable promises and marketing fluff

What do you consider actionable promises in this case.

 

[rxlawdude]

What do you consider actionable promises in this case.

What part of the caveats did you not understand?

 

[rxlawdude]

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

Practicing what, I have no idea.

Pharmacy Law and bioethics professor. Never a litigator nor practiced as plaintiff or defense attorney (other than select Pharmacy Law issues).

 

[t3sl4drvr]

What part of the caveats did you not understand?

Asking for your opinion here on "actionable promises".

My opinion likely differs, but I would like to learn from how others think what a customer can reasonably expect to receive given the marketing materials presented.

 

[rxlawdude]

Asking for your opinion here on "actionable promises".

My opinion likely differs, but I would like to learn from how others think what a customer can reasonably expect to receive given the marketing materials presented.

I think it's a question you should litigate. My opinion is these are not binding contractual obligations, but marketing fluff.

Pre 2019 FSD purchase, and if owner disposes of the Tesla, an alternative argument around not getting what was paid for has a better chance not based on fraud. With those who continue ownership waiting for FSD, the case literally isn't ripe IMO.

Again, don't rely on the Internet or my opinions sway you. The only way to find out the viability is to choose arbitration or Small Claims (unless one timely opted out of mandatory arbitration, in which case you sue in a civil trial court) and let us know how it works out.

 

[eipi10]

Did you read the caveats when you purchased? Not trying to treat you as a criminal, but rather trying to educate you on the difference between actionable promises and marketing fluff.

And if you got FSD during late 2019 or later, you clearly were not given specific delivery dates ("coming later this year" notwithstanding).

rxlawdude's legal advice: It's lawful to take money for a product/service, provide a false and objectively baseless estimate of when you will provide it, and never provide that product/service or give the money back so long as you have a caveat in the sales contract saying you aren't sure when you'll provide it.

you don't need to be a lawyer to know this is not the law.

 

[DanCar]

I think the fact is that some people wants to defend Tesla no matter what... Tesla is religion & Elon is the god!

More simple answer for some: financially motivated to pimp the stock and do what they can to stop bad news.
I encourage people to report at: ReportFraud.ftc.gov

 

[jjrandorin]

Pharmacy Law and bioethics professor. Never a litigator nor practiced as plaintiff or defense attorney (other than select Pharmacy Law issues).

I was guessing something in the prescription field from your user name, but, assuming is bad so..... lol.

 

[JimBob 909]

I gotta think Tesla has high powered attorneys that would be reeling in the "promotional" documentation of FSD. I do think Tesla would be wise & money ahead to give early adopters a great deal on carrying over FSD from one car to a new purchase as a one time upgrade.

That would get into if they already had computer or entertainment upgrades etc. on their original purchases. I haven't followed any of that as we have a 2019 Raven. I only tried the FSD Beta once and it comes up to stop signs faster than I like.

 

[svusa]

Did you read the caveats when you purchased? Not trying to treat you as a criminal, but rather trying to educate you on the difference between actionable promises and marketing fluff.

Their marketing material clearly stated no human intervention is required at the time of purchase, followed by a demo of their system on the website/youtube to back their written advertisement claims. Purchase contract nowhere states that FSD is level 2 only... and CEO famously gave the impression that it is solved problem and car will start making money (Millions of ROBOTAXIS!!) so people rushed to buy FSD package !!!!

it is a classic case of deception in my opinion... There is enough here for regulators to investigate. Again, I'm not actively thinking about doing anything right now but looking at current demos and driving Tesla autopilot for the last few years, I have concluded that - Tesla will not be able to deliver true FSD with the current hardware/software approach and that means what I paid for was not FSD but some science fiction experiment.

 

[t3sl4drvr]

My opinion is these are not binding contractual obligations, but marketing fluff.

Just to rephrase to ensure I understood correctly:

Your opinion here on "actionable promises" or what customer can reasonably expect to receive for their purchase given the marketing materials presented is: nothing.

Did I get that right?

If not, would you care to state your opinion in the form of the above statement replacing the word "nothing" with what you think is promised and can be expected.

 

[JimBob 909]

Just to rephrase to ensure I understood correctly:

Your opinion here on "actionable promises" or what customer can reasonably expect to receive for their purchase given the marketing materials presented is: nothing.

Did I get that right?

If not, would you care to state your opinion in the form of the above statement replacing the word "nothing" with what you think is promised and can be expected.

I see rxlawdude as trying to bring the reality of the justice system to your attention. The attorney's I know say "a bad settlement is better than a good lawsuit" .
An attorney won't even talk to you about your case without asking for $5,000 to $10,000 deposit. To sue over $10,000 you paid for FSD is not practical, which is, I think, why he's saying go to small claims court. I am not an attorney, I have other professional credentials and have testified in lawsuits.

If you believed when you bought FSD that it will drive you, drop you off and park, without you touching the steering wheel, you spent too much time in fantasyland. It's marketing hype, and what Tesla is trying to develop in the future.

 

[t3sl4drvr]

I see rxlawdude as trying to bring the reality of the justice system to your attention. The attorney's I know say "a bad settlement is better than a good lawsuit" .
An attorney won't even talk to you about your case without asking for $5,000 to $10,000 deposit. To sue over $10,000 you paid for FSD is not practical, which is, I think, why he's saying go to small claims court. I am not an attorney, I have other professional credentials and have testified in lawsuits.

Not disagreeing with any of that, but that was not the question.

 

[eipi10]

I am not going to provide legal advice. I don't know the relevant law. What someone should discuss with a lawyer is:

• Consumers potentially could bring a class action against Tesla for false advertising. For example: Clarifying Standing In False Ad Cases At 9th Circ. | Article | Law360 | Foley & Lardner LLP
  • Potentially, this could circumvent the arbitration clause.
• Potentially, a court hearing that false advertising case would make a factual finding that Tesla knowingly lied or made recklessly false statements about (1) the functionality of FSD; and/or (2) the timing that FSD would be provided to customers.
• Potentially, the court's factual finding in that regard could then be relied upon by individual plaintiffs to seek reimbursement of the money they paid for FSD.

Potentially, the reality is that Tesla would never submit itself to the necessary discovery in the false advertising lawsuit (which potentially would uncover all kinds of "rolling my eyes" emails from Tesla employees regarding Elon Musk's ridiculous pronouncements) and would choose to reimburse all of its customers the money they paid for FSD.

To be clear, I'd also like to see other car companies sue Tesla for false advertising and/or for the FTC to get involved.

 

[rxlawdude]

rxlawdude's legal advice: It's lawful to take money for a product/service, provide a false and objectively baseless estimate of when you will provide it, and never provide that product/service or give the money back so long as you have a caveat in the sales contract saying you aren't sure when you'll provide it.

you don't need to be a lawyer to know this is not the law.

Nice interpretation. Do you work for Fox News? Your twisting my words suggests you want to bitch and moan but don't have even the confidence to take legal action.

If you are correct, why do you really think that NO ONE WOULD HAVE LITIGATED THIS ALREADY?

I invite you to provide your specific legal theories and arguments here. Specific grounds for your claim. I take it you're butt sore for not getting the beta, rather than having sold your FSD Tesla and arguing for unjust enrichment.

Go ahead, let's rumble! But this ain't a court of law and I'm not a judge nor jury.

It's amazing how much energy is wasted on bitching and moaning.