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

[svusa]

You can easily argue that this was plainly false advertising, and since it was in the description of features presented to you when placing an order, these were false statements made to induce purchases…

I think you’ll be hard-pressed to find a more avid Tesla fan than myself…but we can’t ignore reality…there are a lot of people that are unhappy and, I think, with good reason.

You hit the nail on the head! Tesla's marketing through their website and CEO's tweets suggested that Full Self Driving without any human intervention is what the average consumer is paying for back in 2018. These are the folks who by word of mouth helped create Tesla's brand value.

Now, as soon as anyone questions Tesla, people jump to a conclusion that person has a vested interest in bringing the brand value down!

 

[EVNow]

Of course you‘re right about a lot of what Elon says and said. What about the Tesla website which over the years consistently listed the FSD features as “coming later this year.” Telsa only recently changed this . That’s surely not puffery. You can easily argue that this was plainly false advertising, and since it was in the description of features presented to you when placing an order, these were false statements made to induce purchases…

Yes - the website was even factually wrong for a number of months showing "advanced summon" as an available feature.

Legally I don't know what exactly is a "false statement". Does Tesla need to "know" that to be false ? Would it be a false statement if they believed it to be true ?

 

[gaspi101]

Yes - the website was even factually wrong for a number of months showing "advanced summon" as an available feature.

Legally I don't know what exactly is a "false statement". Does Tesla need to "know" that to be false ? Would it be a false statement if they believed it to be true ?

Well, “false statement,” by itself means just that. A statement about a fact that is objectively false. for the purposes of a lawsuit, however, each cause of action has ”elements,” or things you have to prove in order for the lawsuit to succeed. causes of action such as fraudulent inducement or just good ol fraud includes the requirement that the person making the statement know or should have known it to be false. But! There are other causes of action that do not requirement of intent or knowledge—many consumer defense statutes that prohibit false advertisements, for example, are more like regulatory statutes, which are meant to punish bad behavior, irrespective of knowledge or intent. Kind of like a traffic infraction. It doesn’t matter that you did not know that you had to stop for a red light.…The test for a violation is simple to say (but sometimes difficult to apply): would a common reasonable consumer be deceived by the advertisement? If so, it‘s a violation.

this sort of framework is everywhere in regulatory law, most notably, also, in debt-collecting communications.

 

[EVNow]

Well, “false statement,” by itself means just that. A statement about a fact that is objectively false.

But here is the problem - if someone is actively working on a feature (infact spending billions) and the CEO believes they can get the feature done by the end of the year - is it a "false statement" to say so ?

Future statements, I think by their very nature, are difficult to classify as straight false / true. Just the fact that those statements - in hindsight - didn't become true are not enough.

ps : If a resume states the person is graduating later this year but they fail to graduate - was the statement "graduating later this year" a false statement ?

 

[gaspi101]

But here is the problem - if someone is actively working on a feature (infact spending billions) and the CEO believes they can get the feature done by the end of the year - is it a "false statement" to say so ?

Future statements, I think by their very nature, are difficult to classify as straight false / true. Just the fact that those statements - in hindsight - didn't become true are not enough.

ps : If a resume states the person is graduating later this year but they fail to graduate - was the statement "graduating later this year" a false statement ?

Great points. I think the difference between the resume scenario and the FSD scenario is whether there already was a process being carried out, the natural and ultimate conclusion of which would have been the result indicated. In your resume situation, if you‘re enrolled in the school and attending classes for a 4 year degree, and are presently in your fourth year, then graduating is the inevitable result, barring any major and unforeseen intervening issue, such as the school burning down or your suffering a family emergency that forces you to stop attending classes. But I think it would be a completely different thing if you put “Graduating later this year,” and you hadn’t yet enrolled in the school nor figured out how you were going to pay for tuition, and the school had not told you your anticipated date of graduation.

That, to me, is the distinction— whether there was a mechanized process the natural conclusion of which would’ve been that result. In the case of Tesla, I think it is clear that in 2016, maybe they’d enrolled in school, but the deadline of graduation was certainly not set by anyone else, and they still had to figure out how the hell to pay for tuition. They didn’t get sick nor did the school burn down… By All accounts they have been busting their butts day and night for years and have achieved a lot of things others believed virtually impossible. That doesn’t make the 2016 statements any less deceptive.

the crux of consumer protection laws in advertising is to ensure that companies are ACCURATE in their ads. So if the CEO truly believed he could deliver “available later this year,” then in the absence of a mechanical process already in place, it would have been more accurate to say, “in development, anticipated for release later this year,” and even then, it’s still iffy. The general rule is you don’t promise unless You’re certain you can deliver

 

[dbldwn02]

Nobody promised you full L5 during your purchase. (and certainly not with a Nov 2 deadline).



What is currently on the official website says you've already received every available feature today, and that the one remaining one is "coming soon"

We're talking about 2016/2017 FSD definition...not 2021 watered down definition.

February 2019
We will be feature complete full self driving this year. The car will be able to find you in a parking lot, pick you up, take you all the way to your destination without an intervention this year. I'm certain of that. That is not a question mark. It will be essentially safe to fall asleep and wake up at their destination towards the end of next year
---Sounds like L5 to me!---

January 2016
In ~2 years, summon should work anywhere connected by land & not blocked by borders, eg you're in LA and the car is in NY.
---Sounds like L5 to me!---

June 2016
I really consider autonomous driving a solved problem, I think we are less than two years away from complete autonomy, safer than humans, but regulations should take at least another year
---Sounds like L5 to me!---

October 2016
By the end of next year, said Musk, Tesla would demonstrate a fully autonomous drive from, say, a home in L.A., to Times Square ... without the need for a single touch, including the charging.
---Sounds like L5 to me!---

March 2017
I think that [you will be able to fall asleep in a Tesla] is about two years
---Sounds like L5 to me!---

May 2017
Update on the coast to coast autopilot demo? - Still on for end of year. Just software limited. Any Tesla car with HW2 (all cars built since Oct last year) will be able to do this.
---Sounds like L5 to me!---

March 2018
I think probably by end of next year [end of 2019] self-driving will encompass essentially all modes of driving and be at least 100% to 200% safer than a person.
---Sounds like L5 to me!---

November 2018
Probably technically be able to [self deliver Teslas to customers doors] in about a year then its up to the regulators
---Sounds like L5 to me!---

The list goes on here...

ELON FSD TIMELINE

 

[gaspi101]

We're talking about 2016/2017 FSD definition...not 2021 watered down definition.

February 2019
We will be feature complete full self driving this year. The car will be able to find you in a parking lot, pick you up, take you all the way to your destination without an intervention this year. I'm certain of that. That is not a question mark. It will be essentially safe to fall asleep and wake up at their destination towards the end of next year
---Sounds like L5 to me!---

January 2016
In ~2 years, summon should work anywhere connected by land & not blocked by borders, eg you're in LA and the car is in NY.
---Sounds like L5 to me!---

June 2016
I really consider autonomous driving a solved problem, I think we are less than two years away from complete autonomy, safer than humans, but regulations should take at least another year
---Sounds like L5 to me!---

October 2016
By the end of next year, said Musk, Tesla would demonstrate a fully autonomous drive from, say, a home in L.A., to Times Square ... without the need for a single touch, including the charging.
---Sounds like L5 to me!---

March 2017
I think that [you will be able to fall asleep in a Tesla] is about two years
---Sounds like L5 to me!---

May 2017
Update on the coast to coast autopilot demo? - Still on for end of year. Just software limited. Any Tesla car with HW2 (all cars built since Oct last year) will be able to do this.
---Sounds like L5 to me!---

March 2018
I think probably by end of next year [end of 2019] self-driving will encompass essentially all modes of driving and be at least 100% to 200% safer than a person.
---Sounds like L5 to me!---

November 2018
Probably technically be able to [self deliver Teslas to customers doors] in about a year then its up to the regulators
---Sounds like L5 to me!---

The list goes on here...

ELON FSD TIMELINE

“Your Honor, Exhibit “A.”

 

[Knightshade]

We're talking about 2016/2017 FSD definition...not 2021 watered down definition.

Which also isn't L5- it's 4.

February 2019
We will be feature complete full self driving this year. The car will be able to find you in a parking lot, pick you up, take you all the way to your destination without an intervention this year. I'm certain of that. That is not a question mark. It will be essentially safe to fall asleep and wake up at their destination towards the end of next year
---Sounds like L5 to me!---

It's not though.

For one, that's a future aspirational goal, it's not a description of the actual thing you were sold.

For another you can fall asleep in an L4 vehicle as well.


Not gonna re-quote every other bit, but there's several issues with em all similar:

1) They're future speculation- not the thing you were actually told during the sales process.

2) An L4 vehicle can do virtually every one of them anyway.


Might wanna read up on the actual SAE definitions since apparently everything sounds like L5 to you.

Or re-read what the pre 3/19 folks were promised.

Which was "full self-driving in almost all circumstances"

The post 3/19 folks of course were only every promised L2 during purchase.

 

[wensai]

“Your Honor, Exhibit “A.”

Wrong gaspi, I will tell you what you paid for because as a lawyer and big time Tesla fan of course I know exactly what you thought you were getting:

You paid for smart summon and the opportunity to support this excellent research project. Beta is just a great bonus Elon tossed in there and you should be grateful.

 

[t3sl4drvr]

Tesla did advertise in a demo video on their FSD feature page that the only reason there needs to be a driver in drivers seat [at that time] is legal. And continued next to the order button that they only need extensive verification and permits before they ship full self driving feature. Page also stated that the car has all HW needed for self driving.

All these statements turned out to be gross misrepresentations of their ability and intent for delivering advertised feature they took full pre-payments for.

 

[Knightshade]

Page also stated that the car has all HW needed for self driving.

All these statements turned out to be gross misrepresentations of their ability and intent for delivering advertised feature they took full pre-payments for.

Thusfar any time it has turned out someone needed updated HW to get a generally available FSD feature- Tesla upgraded their HW for free.

Meaning there's nothing to sue over as you have $0.00 in damages.

 

[Tesomega]

Thusfar any time it has turned out someone needed updated HW to get a generally available FSD feature- Tesla upgraded their HW for free.

Meaning there's nothing to sue over as you have $0.00 in damages.

"generally available FSD feature" are you including all the BETA Versions that are available?

 

[BriansBucketList]

"Exhibit A" sure seems like a good start for a small claims court claim to get a refund for the feature based on false or misleading statements leading to a purchase. I'm willing to give them time, and help them develop the feature, which was never agreed to by the way, but only until the warranty of my car is up. That would be giving Tesla 4 years to deliver on what they said back in 2018. I'll let the judge drive my car, or bring go pro videos

March 2018
I think probably by end of next year [end of 2019] self-driving will encompass essentially all modes of driving and be at least 100% to 200% safer than a person.

 

[dbldwn02]

Or re-read what the pre 3/19 folks were promised.

Which was "full self-driving in almost all circumstances"

The post 3/19 folks of course were only every promised L2 during purchase.

Here's a quick reminder of what we were sold, "pending regulators"

I guess Tesla Network where your car drives itself to pick people up is level 4 too?

Where does it say "in almost all circumstances?". I can't find that asterisk anywhere.

 

[Knightshade]

Here's a quick reminder of what we were sold, "pending regulators"

I guess Tesla Network where your car drives itself to pick people up is level 4 too?

Waymo has a robotaxi that drives itself to pick people up in AZ right now

it's level 4.

Where does it say "in almost all circumstances?". I can't find that asterisk anywhere.

It literally says that in the first sentence of the picture you just posted

So when people suggest folks thinking they're ALL SET TO SUE might not be fully informed- you have provided two great example.

You didn't read your own evidence before submitting it.



Here- I circled it in red for you since you missed it the first 27 times people provided it to you and you yourself posted it-

"generally available FSD feature" are you including all the BETA Versions that are available?

Generally available means generally available to people who purchased the option, rather than only available to a limited/early access development group.


For example the HW3 free computer upgrades began once a feature that needed it (responding to stop lights and signs) became generally available.

City streets (commonly called FSDBeta) is not generally available to anyone who bought FSD so it's not yet generally available (and likely won't be until it reaches a higher level of refinement and confidence)

 

[dbldwn02]

It literally says that in the first sentence of the picture you just posted

So when people suggest folks thinking they're ALL SET TO SUE might not be fully informed- you have provided two great example.

You didn't read your own evidence before submitting it.



City streets (commonly called FSDBeta) is not generally available to anyone who bought FSD so it's not yet generally available (and likely won't be until it reaches a higher level of refinement and confidence)

Alright, you got me there. I'll eat my words on that.

So you really think they'll push 10.3 to MCU1? Truly believe that? If that were true, a simple response from Elon to the Teslarati article would have sufficed. Rather than rage quitting.

People who purchased prior to 2018, bought FSD not "NOAP on city streets". Are you saying they gave up on "2017/18 FSD" since it's "feature complete" now?

 

[Knightshade]

Alright, you got me there. I'll eat my words on that.

Just wanted to take a moment to say I appreciate that.

It's entirely too rare when someone is shown a correction and the graciously acknowledge it. Thanks.

So you really think they'll push 10.3 to MCU1? Truly believe that?

Can you quote where I ever claimed such a thing?

I don't recall ever saying anything about that specific thing/combo, or even being asked, before your post.

If you're asking now then I suspect one of the following will happen- I can't tell you which.


1) Elon has previously said MCU1 is fine for FSD- It turns out that's true for the final wide release- those cars may need the 2.5 camera upgrade, and will get it for free (as already stated) once general release is ready. They will still have MCU1 unless they pay to upgrade themselves.

2) Elon discovers MCU1 is not sufficient for final release- FSD buyers (not renters) will get the MCU2 upgrade for free-- and anyone who is an FSD owner prior to having paid for an MCU upgrade will get a refund.

In neither case would "pushing 10.3" make any sense- since that's not a wide release- and nothing in your purchase of generally released features says anything about being entitled to pre-wide-release software.

On the contrary it specifically calls out you may NOT get certain features while software validation is still in progress. Which is what 10.3 is.

People who purchased prior to 2018, bought FSD not "NOAP on city streets". Are you saying they gave up on "2017/18 FSD" since it's "feature complete" now?

No-- EAP is feature complete (and has been since 2019) though.

Pre March 2019 FSD buyers are still "owed" at least an L4 system.

You can see that fact reflected in the financials- where Tesla has never recognized most of the revenue from those FSD sales- instead it's a liability on the books since it's still owed.



As I've said before there's a few possible outcomes here:

1) Tesla admits they can't get a working L4 system, period. Seems the least likely- but would involve at minimum a full refund (with interest) to buyers. I expect there'd still be a class action here, which would net lawyers millions, and actual owners a coupon for 5 hours of supercharging or something.

2) Tesla manages to develop a working L4 system AND manages to do it on some variant of existing HW- to the point it requires either no (near 0% chance) or relatively easy (much higher chance) additional HW, which will be provided by Tesla for free upon general release.

3) Tesla manages to develop a working L4 system that CAN NOT be easily/reasonable handled by current fleet vehicles (maybe it needs too many added cameras in weird places or something, we don't know what it'd look like exactly).

Here I see Tesla offering 2 options:

A) A full, with interest, refund of FSD (but you get to keep whatever FSD features they did manage to include on your car, like the lights/stop signs right now for example)

or

B) You get to keep whatever features they could do on your current vehicle AND you get "free" FSD on a new Tesla that actually has a working-the-day-you-buy-it FSD system with the added HW on it.



Obviously this is speculative- but Tesla certainly has plenty of cashflow to support these options (given pre 3/19 FSD buyers are actually a tiny % of the fleet at this point) and it seems to make sense.

 

[gaspi101]

Which also isn't L5- it's 4.




It's not though.

For one, that's a future aspirational goal, it's not a description of the actual thing you were sold.

For another you can fall asleep in an L4 vehicle as well.


Not gonna re-quote every other bit, but there's several issues with em all similar:

1) They're future speculation- not the thing you were actually told during the sales process.

2) An L4 vehicle can do virtually every one of them anyway.


Might wanna read up on the actual SAE definitions since apparently everything sounds like L5 to you.

Or re-read what the pre 3/19 folks were promised.

Which was "full self-driving in almost all circumstances"

The post 3/19 folks of course were only every promised L2 during purchase.

It's definitely not a black-and-white issue, and not a solid case for either side. However, you have to admit that when the company's representative markets the product by saying "I'm certain of that. That is not a question mark. It will be essentially safe to fall asleep and wake up at their destination towards the end of next year," these words rise higher than mere speculation or "aspirational goals." He's selling a product now, which Tesla will, without question or doubt, be L4 by "the end of next year." Again, not saying you're wrong--I'm saying it's a damn gray area, and as lawyers, we always urge our clients to avoid gray areas like the plague--because gray=lawsuit.

 

[gaspi101]

Wrong gaspi, I will tell you what you paid for because as a lawyer and big time Tesla fan of course I know exactly what you thought you were getting:

You paid for smart summon and the opportunity to support this excellent research project. Beta is just a great bonus Elon tossed in there and you should be grateful.

Yes, you are right!! My expectations were certainly more tempered than those of many people merely because I keep up with technological developments of this sort, read the trade-journals, so to speak. But remember, consumer protection laws don't generally care about what geeks (as most of us are) think or expect. The standard used in court (usually) is that of the "Ordinary Consumer." For the same reason you have to put a label on garbage bags' packaging that says don't give it to a toddler to play with, you also have to ensure that your marketing materials are not deceptive when received by the ordinary consumer. The standard is not whether a tech-saavy consumer would be deceived, and certainly not whether a tech-saavy-annoying-lawyer would be deceived.

 

[gaspi101]

View attachment 728018

"The car will enter seek-mode." Oof. Even Elon recently admitted that as of July 2021, summon is just a gimmick. I don't see them having created a path for having the car "enter seek mode" such that you don't have to run alongside the car while it's "seeking," because it very well may crash against....anything. The very mention of "seek-mode" in the sales materials for the car is an astonishing lack of good judgment, and I think just this alone could justify a good case against Tesla...add all of the other little things...it ain't pretty.