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.
