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

[rxlawdude]

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, 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.

What part of binding arbitration don't you understand? You have no right to sue, especially class actions.

 

[t3sl4drvr]

What part of binding arbitration don't you understand?

Looks like for some this is up to debate: Sutton v. David Stanley Chevrolet, Oklahoma Supreme Court.

 

[Cyberax]

The failure of Tesla to deliver those last 2 on time is the only valid basis for any legal claim anyone has ever made.

That's not true. If you pre-order something then you can expect it to be delivered within reasonable time. My car is past 80k miles and it's almost 3 years old by now. With NOTHING delivered of what was promised.

 

[Cyberax]

What part of binding arbitration don't you understand? You have no right to sue, especially class actions.

What part of "False Advertisement" you don't understand?

Arbitration can be compelled only for the matters that are described by the contract. E.g. you can use it if Tesla fails to deliver the vehicle on time (it's a contract matter). But this is a completely different civil lawsuit against the company as a whole.

 

[rxlawdude]

Looks like for some this is up to debate: Sutton v. David Stanley Chevrolet, Oklahoma Supreme Court.

So you assert buyers were illegally induced to agree to binding arbitration? For a self-service, online purchase?

The issue here was the constructive fraud by the dealer not discussing the binding arbitration clause when explaining other key points in the purchase contract.

I don't believe this is a case on point.

 

[rxlawdude]

What part of "False Advertisement" you don't understand?

Arbitration can be compelled only for the matters that are described by the contract. E.g. you can use it if Tesla fails to deliver the vehicle on time (it's a contract matter). But this is a completely different civil lawsuit against the company as a whole.

Again, sue. Stop your internet trial if you believe it was false advertising and arbitrate or sue.

You're making an assertion. My point is you need to prove it in a legal venue.

You haven't done that.

 

[t3sl4drvr]

So you assert buyers were illegally induced to agree to binding arbitration? For a self-service, online purchase?

The issue here was the constructive fraud by the dealer not discussing the binding arbitration clause when explaining other key points in the purchase contract.

I don't believe this is a case on point.

I do not have an opinion on the linked Supreme Court case. Instead, I am just pointing out that some people contest validity of an arbitration clause in a car purchase agreement.

Let's also recognize that Tesla purchase agreement acknowledges the possibility of a class action waiver being unenforceable:

 

[rxlawdude]

I do not have an opinion on the linked Supreme Court case. Instead, I am just pointing out that some people contest validity of an arbitration clause in a car purchase agreement.

Let's also recognize that Tesla purchase agreement acknowledges the possibility of a class action waiver being unenforceable:
View attachment 722084

Legal documents are complex and sometimes hard to understand. It's easy to pick just one part out to prove something that the whole of the agreement simply doesn't say.

I'm having trouble understanding your assertion that class action is permitted under the arbitration agreement. It doesn't say that at all.

 

[t3sl4drvr]

I'm having trouble understanding your assertion that class action is permitted under the arbitration agreement.

I am not asserting that.

What I am pointing out is that the enforceability of class action waiver and arbitration clauses can be challenged at court. I do not have opinion on merits of any particular case. Furthermore, I point out that Tesla has recognized that possibility in their agreement.

None of this implies that Tesla arbitration clause would not be binding. What it implies that in different legislations it might be challenged with various results.

 

[rxlawdude]

I am not asserting that.

What I am pointing out is that the enforceability of class action waiver and arbitration clauses can be challenged at court. I do not have opinion on merits of any particular case. Furthermore, I point out that Tesla has recognized that possibility in their agreement.

None of this implies that Tesla arbitration clause would not be binding. What it implies that in different legislations it might be challenged with various results.

No. It is federal law that controls. Courts are hesitant to void mandatory arbitration agreements unless there was coercion to accept MA, as in the OK case discussed above.

 

[AlphaTom]

And what type of reimbursement would you expect?
By FSD, I mean full hands off autonomy & sleeping in your car. Not beta.

I just want my CHF 7500 back, which I paid in 2019 (bought/ live in Switzerland). In Europe we got next to nothing so far. But the same promise of “2020”, based on which I paid for it. And Tesla still saying you can’t take FSD over to a new car. Would join a class action lawsuit immediately.

 

[Jigglypuff]

1 minute with autopilot is enough proof that FSD ain't even close. Perhaps those who paid for it are getting what they deserve: nothing. The FSD claim is right up there with the Theranos claims.

 

[Ptheven]

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

Almost as much as is wasted by lawyers ruining everything.

 

[dbldwn02]

No. It is federal law that controls. Courts are hesitant to void mandatory arbitration agreements unless there was coercion to accept MA, as in the OK case discussed above.

With that said, how was I a part of the EAP class action suit in 2018? I didn't even want to be a part of it. You're saying it CAN'T happen. I'm saying it already happened.

I didn't even want to sue Tesla but I guess I did. Seems pretty easy.

 

[rxlawdude]

With that said, how was I a part of the EAP class action suit in 2018? I didn't even want to be a part of it. You're saying it CAN'T happen. I'm saying it already happened.

I didn't even want to sue Tesla but I guess I did. Seems pretty easy.

I'd have to look at that suit.

Edit: "Judge Anderle is allowing the case to continue based on the fact that the Filippinis have sufficiently stated their allegations of fraudulent behavior, and it sufficiently shows a violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act."

FSD claims will likely not meet the fraud definition, and this is what we are arguing about at the core.

By the way, what did you get from it, and are you sure it wasn't a settlement rather than going to trial?

 

[BestRadar]

With that said, how was I a part of the EAP class action suit in 2018? I didn't even want to be a part of it. You're saying it CAN'T happen. I'm saying it already happened.

I didn't even want to sue Tesla but I guess I did. Seems pretty easy.

That suite was not for FSD, That was just for not delivering the features like auto windshield wipers, emergency braking etc. and the payout was a pro-rated payout based on how long it took for you to receive the paid features from the date you purchased the car.

Another similar suit can easily be brought for FSD but I believe they are looking into whether full FSD is realistically possible and at the same time with how many accidents have already happed with FSD, would it even be safe.

 

[eipi10]

What part of binding arbitration don't you understand? You have no right to sue, especially class actions.

My proposed lawsuit does not involve the contract that has the arbitration clause. The legal theory is that Tesla fraudulently touted that its toy driving software was "full self driving" and "coming soon," when in fact Tesla knew that the software has nothing close to full self driving capability and that it would not be coming soon. As a consequence, consumers who hope to purchase full self driving in the future cannot trust Tesla's advertising. This theory is similar to the theory found viable in the case below. I am not providing legal advice, but I feel it is very unlikely that this claim would be subject to arbitration, because it does not involve the sales contract.

Clarifying Standing In False Ad Cases At 9th Circ. | Foley & Lardner LLP

Recent decisions by and within the Ninth Circuit elucidate the contours of Article III standing when plaintiffs seek injunctive relief in false advertising cases despite already having awareness of the claimed false advertising of the product.

www.foley.com

 

[rxlawdude]

My proposed lawsuit does not involve the contract that has the arbitration clause. The legal theory is that Tesla fraudulently touted that its toy driving software was "full self driving" and "coming soon," when in fact Tesla knew that the software has nothing close to full self driving capability and that it would not be coming soon. As a consequence, consumers who hope to purchase full self driving in the future cannot trust Tesla's advertising. This theory is similar to the theory found viable in the case below. I am not providing legal advice, but I feel it is very unlikely that this claim would be subject to arbitration, because it does not involve the sales contract.

Clarifying Standing In False Ad Cases At 9th Circ. | Foley & Lardner LLP

Recent decisions by and within the Ninth Circuit elucidate the contours of Article III standing when plaintiffs seek injunctive relief in false advertising cases despite already having awareness of the claimed false advertising of the product.

www.foley.com

Your second sentence merits the twit key. You're welcome to try fraud theories. Good luck.

 

[svusa]

So you assert buyers were illegally induced to agree to binding arbitration? For a self-service, online purchase?

The issue here was the constructive fraud by the dealer not discussing the binding arbitration clause when explaining other key points in the purchase contract.

I don't believe this is a case on point.

I’m just curious… Tesla is not a traditional car dealer, in fact people argue that it is a tech company so I have to think that failure to deliver software should be viewed under consumer rights act as applicable to digital goods.

 

[rxlawdude]

I’m just curious… Tesla is not a traditional car dealer, in fact people argue that it is a tech company so I have to think that failure to deliver software should be viewed under consumer rights act as applicable to digital goods.

Again, have at it. That's an interesting theory but Tesla is a car company.