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

[gearchruncher]

IMHO, the lawyers know full well that only a fraction of the class will object (or even read the offer) and so the members of the Class get lowballed. I have been a member in many Class Action suits, as I am sure many of you have, and have never seen one with a reasonable settlement. I always object but I know almost no one else does.

It seems like you are saying "I agree with the lawsuit and like it. However, I didn't get enough money from it, so I wish it never happened at all, and I object to how it was handled. However, I am not going to go sue them myself."

This sounds exactly like the behavior big companies would like, and the story they would perpetuate about how "class actions are bad" since they know most people won't actually sue themselves. The existence of class actions are a much bigger deterrent for companies than worrying about a few individuals suing. A lot of the "class actions suck" stories are really big companies promoting that story in hope that less people use that process.

My favorite was when Uber forced every driver into individual arbitration and blocked class actions. So the drivers all used that, and Uber went "OMG, no, we didn't mean that, please file a class action!" The court smacked that down.

Uber loses appeal to block $92 million in mass arbitration fees

A New York state appeals court sent an unmistakable message last week to companies that have imposed mandatory arbitration and class action waivers on their customers: You are stuck with the consequences of that strategy, even if it winds up costing you tens of millions of dollars in upfront...

www.reuters.com

 

[Dewg]

It seems like you are saying "I agree with the lawsuit and like it. However, I didn't get enough money from it, so I wish it never happened at all, and I object to how it was handled. However, I am not going to go sue them myself."

Unfortunately, our legal system favors the person with the most money. Sometimes class-actions are the only way to do "collective bargaining" in the legal world. A single person suing any big company will be at a disadvantage unless they have an airtight case, and a lawyer willing to front the fees until the case is settled. It's not uncommon for a company to "bury the suing party in paperwork" costing a fortune in legal fees.

 

[ATPMSD]

It seems like you are saying "I agree with the lawsuit and like it. However, I didn't get enough money from it, so I wish it never happened at all, and I object to how it was handled. However, I am not going to go sue them myself."

No, I am saying that Class Action lawsuits result in settlements that offer little in the way of real benefit to the class. The defendant does not admit guilt and gets offer easy, financially. What you have missed is that if the class rejects the settlement offers it then goes to trial where guilt is established and real money is paid to the class.

My opinion of course.

 

[gearchruncher]

The defendant does not admit guilt and gets offer easy, financially. What you have missed is that if the class rejects the settlement offers it then goes to trial where guilt is established and real money is paid to the class.

"Guilt" is never found in civil cases. Just a judgement for the plaintiff or defendant, and a damage amount.
And what you describe is true of ALL civil cases, not only class actions.
Have you ever bothered to sue any company yourself? Or does the company actually get off even easier if nobody files a class action at all?
You can always start your own class action too, and be a lead member and have a lot of influence on how the case goes.

 

[hooty]

Here's the 2016 doctored 'FSD' video from Tesla's website:
Tesla Self-Driving Demonstration (Short)

Note the initial statement:
"The person in the driver seat is only there for legal reasons. He is not doing anything. The car is driving itself."
An argument could be made that it is a fraudulent statement, since it was trained for the route & the section where it crashed was edited out. It gave a misrepresentation of reality, to induce purchase by customers - that a customer's car could do this.

New York Times article:
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/06/technology/tesla-autopilot-elon-musk.html
Referenced on Jalopnik:
https://jalopnik.com/the-car-used-in-teslas-promo-video-for-autopilot-hit-a-1848167379Tesla's famous early Autopilot video that appears to show the car driving on its own isn't showing the whole storyThe Car Used In Tesla's Promo Video For Autopilot Hit A Barrier During Filming According To A New York Times Story

The Car Used In Tesla's Promo Video For Autopilot Hit A Barrier During Filming According To A New York Times Story​

There’s an excellent story on The New York Times right now, a look inside Tesla’s development program for their semi-automated driver assist systems that the company confusingly (perhaps deceptively) calls Autopilot and Full Self-Driving. The article is full of interesting insights from sources inside the company, but there is one detail that I’m finding really incredible right now: during the filming of an Autopilot demonstration video, one that comes out and says the car was “driving itself”, that car hit a barrier all by itself and had to be repaired. That part wasn’t included in the video that was published, as I’m sure you’re shocked to hear.

This detail really sticks with me because it’s a video that Tesla has had on their site since 2016, and was released to coincide with Telsa’s announcement that their cars have all the hardware needed for full self-driving, even though this proved not to be true even by Tesla themselves, who had to upgrade the FSD computers in cars for newer versions of their FSD software...

As Tesla approached the introduction of Autopilot 2.0, most of the Autopilot team dropped their normal duties to work on a video meant to show just how autonomous the system could be. But the final video did not provide a full picture of how the car operated during the filming.
The route taken by the car had been charted ahead of time by software that created a three-dimensional digital map, a feature unavailable to drivers using the commercial version of Autopilot, according to two former members of the Autopilot team. At one point during the filming of the video, the car hit a roadside barrier on Tesla property while using Autopilot and had to be repaired, three people who worked on the video said.
The video was later used to promote Autopilot’s capabilities, and it is still on Tesla’s website.

Remember guys, this goes all the way back to 2016, which consumers relied for the purchasing decisions.

I consider it no surprise that the FSD class action lawsuit has been instigated, its only surprising how long it took.
Class actions will spread state to state, country to country

 

[_jal_]

I've only been here for 6 years since Tesla released a video *demonstrating* that "self-driving" cars were right around the corner. I totally understood that it was probably a bit of a stretch and maybe it wasn't 100% but I did think that it was at least probably close to reality. Obviously I'm an idiot.
No, actually I'm not. I was conned.
"You weren't legally bound via contract to receive a self-driving car. "
"What is self driving? You're a self! Doesn't your car drive by it's self? "
"Level 5 is defined in program 4.1121(a).f(3) and yet you still have the gall to claim you were entitled to this???? ?"
and on and on
I'm in the FSD program (on my second MS) and it's a mess. The intent was totally clear. "You will get in your car and it will drive to your destination." That's what they wrote. It's documented a million times. What I got two days ago isn't anywhere close to being able to drive my car.
The whole retail aspect of this program seems to have stopped, and that's good. It's hard to find the claims that were on the website in years past. But a lot of people were roped in and that sucks.
Tesla makes a very okay good car. The charging network is superb. Way better than anything else out there. The Ys and 3s are good cars. The shade they get are totally unfounded. Most people who buy them will be super happy. The AP BS (aside from the FSD) thing is a distraction.
In the end, all FSD purchases should be essentially refunded. This was a scam. 100% It won't happen in the next 20 years. I've seen the progress in the 25% of that time and no way can a measure of that will actually reach their stated goals. It's a nice idea, but it can't actually happen

 

[2101Guy]

Yep….the tide is turning…

 

[gearchruncher]

You weren't legally bound via contract to receive a self-driving car. "

This is always my favorite argument. A contract is not valid if consideration exists on both sides, and it is defined in the contract. We clearly gave Tesla money. If we weren't bound to receive something from Tesla, then it's not a contract.

 

[gaspi101]

This is always my favorite argument. A contract is not valid if consideration exists on both sides, and it is defined in the contract. We clearly gave Tesla money. If we weren't bound to receive something from Tesla, then it's not a contract.

This word salad hurts my lawyer brain

 

[Dewg]

This is always my favorite argument. A contract is not valid if consideration exists on both sides, and it is defined in the contract. We clearly gave Tesla money. If we weren't bound to receive something from Tesla, then it's not a contract.

I'm curious what you think about pre-orders. When you pre-pay for a video game, for example, but the game's release date is vague, or is being pushed back.

 

[gearchruncher]

I'm curious what you think about pre-orders. When you pre-pay for a video game, for example, but the game's release date is vague, or is being pushed back.

Show me a pre-order contract that doesn't offer a method of refund.
If you don't have a way to get a refund, and also no guarantee of delivery, then that's not a purchase. It's an investment. Investments have risk. Investments are regulated by the SEC.

 

[gearchruncher]

This word salad hurts my lawyer brain

Then take us through it. A contract literally requires Consideration, Offer and Acceptance, Legal Purpose, Capable Parties, and Mutual assent.

There are many people that say Tesla had so many disclaimers as part of the "FSD" "Purchase" that they don't actually owe you anything, and anyone that actually read what they were buying would know that. Yet they required thousands of dollars to enter this agreement. Can you explain how that is a valid contract if Tesla owes nothing? Why would a logical person enter this contract if they did not expect to get anything?

 

[gaspi101]

Then take us through it. A contract literally requires Consideration, Offer and Acceptance, Legal Purpose, Capable Parties, and Mutual assent.

There are many people that say Tesla had so many disclaimers as part of the "FSD" "Purchase" that they don't actually owe you anything, and anyone that actually read what they were buying would know that. Yet they required thousands of dollars to enter this agreement. Can you explain how that is a valid contract if Tesla owes nothing? Why would a logical person enter this contract if they did not expect to get anything?

Of course it’s a contract. re-read what you wrote.

 

[gearchruncher]

Of course it’s a contract. re-read what you wrote.

I am now guessing that you are a Law professor.... An exercise left to the student!

 

[Dewg]

Show me a pre-order contract that doesn't offer a method of refund.
If you don't have a way to get a refund, and also no guarantee of delivery, then that's not a purchase. It's an investment. Investments have risk. Investments are regulated by the SEC.

When I bought my Tesla the Autosteer on City Streets said "Coming Soon", but the rest of FSD (there was no EAP) was available and delivered. There was no date, nor anywhere on the site that indicated when AoCS would be released. Assuming the person had never heard of Twitter, nor even looked up anything in that regard, do you think Tesla should never have even been able to sell FSD, since there was no contract with specifics?

Or should they have simply removed AoCS from the list and just sold FSD as EAP + Traffic Lights, then released FSD Beta as a "bonus" for testers with the intention of releasing it to everyone as a "free addon"?

 

[Dan D.]

When I bought my Tesla the Autosteer on City Streets said "Coming Soon", but the rest of FSD (there was no EAP) was available and delivered. There was no date, nor anywhere on the site that indicated when AoCS would be released. Assuming the person had never heard of Twitter, nor even looked up anything in that regard, do you think Tesla should never have even been able to sell FSD, since there was no contract with specifics?
Or should they have simply removed AoCS from the list and just sold FSD as EAP + Traffic Lights, then released FSD Beta as a "bonus" for testers with the intention of releasing it to everyone as a "free addon"?

I don't know if this is relevant to your question, but isn't the whole point of whatever "FSD" has been imagined to be that it is Full Self Driving? I mean I doubt people are so excited that their cars might do Traffic Lights and occasionally find you in a parking lot. They presumably wanted their cars to actually drive places autonomously, that was the dream.

Would anyone have paid $xx,000 for a list of features that didn't include AoCS? Are people really all that excited nowadays paying $15,000 for a product that is only Level 2, and likely will only ever be Level 2, or "Supervised Autonomy"? Have we given up on the expectation of unsupervised autonomy, wasn't that the point of all this?

 

[Knightshade]

there are several version of timeline here... for 2017 there was a video evidence that demonstrated function

But did not promise when you would receive comparable function in an end user vehicle. It was a tech demo, not a sales promise.


To go back to video games as an example- there's often trailers shown of games years in advance- often what is in the trailer never even makes it to the final game.

, promised EOY Coast-to-Coast (NY-CA) FSD Drive

No such promise was ever made by Tesla, or even mentioned in any part of the EAP or FSD sales process.

The CEO kept GUESSING they'd be able to do it by certain times, and being wrong about it.

Specifically he said:

Our goal is, and I feel pretty good about this goal, that we’ll be able to do a demonstration drive of full autonomy all the way from LA to New York

If you "relied" on the CEO stating a date for a future goal he only "felt pretty good" about, and a goal that was explicitly a DEMO not a production item, to make your purchase- that's kind of on you. Ditto people who think he PROMISED such a thing by that date. That's not legally a promise at all and it sure ain't fraud.

It's a dumb guess that was wrong.

, language that led to believe only regulatory reviews pending, etc...

Which language? Because while all the language from the actual company, during the actual sale, does mention regulators, it also lists a number of other conditions required for added functionality to be released.

And while I agree many people don't bother to read most of the words on a page, "I believed something contrary to what I signed up for because I did not read 90% of what I signed up for" is a poor legal argument.

Here's the 2016 doctored 'FSD' video from Tesla's website:
Tesla Self-Driving Demonstration (Short)

Note the initial statement:
"The person in the driver seat is only there for legal reasons. He is not doing anything. The car is driving itself."
An argument could be made that it is a fraudulent statement

Except the car DID drive itself. Nothing in the video claimed the car as sold had that SW today though.

Do you think when Apple makes their marketing videos for new iphones or ipads that they don't edit the videos to not show any bad parts, software crashes, etc? (We did see this happen live on stage at least once when they didn't have the benefit of editing- hence why the presentations are basically never live anymore)


That said- I agree you could make an argument it's unclear or even misleading. But that's very far, legally, from fraudulent.

"CEO makes dumb speculative guesses" (which Elon 1000% does)
and
"Company engages in fraud"

are a vast distance apart under the law and the second requires tremendously more specific and compelling evidence than appears to exist here.

Remember guys, this goes all the way back to 2016, which consumers relied for the purchasing decisions.

That video isn't shown to you during the purchase process of FSD- so again "a marketing video that existed if you knew where to find it and contained zero words about the actual as-sold product at the time" is legally different from something you're told or shown during the actual sale.

I agree it's likely the nearest thing to supporting evidence... but it's exceedingly weak evidence if that's all they have and that plus some vague Elon "I think" claims seem to be it.


Doubly so when they guy suing did not buy FSD

He bought EAP.

Which he got all the promised features for, years ago.

So his damages here are $0.00.

 

[2101Guy]

Then sounds like this case will get dismissed very early then(since its so slam dunk), and Tesla wont pay (again) millions of dollars to settle, right? Especially with the "new hardcore litigation team" in place.

 

[Dewg]

I don't know if this is relevant to your question, but isn't the whole point of whatever "FSD" has been imagined to be that it is Full Self Driving? I mean I doubt people are so excited that their cars might do Traffic Lights and occasionally find you in a parking lot. They presumably wanted their cars to actually drive places autonomously, that was the dream.

Would anyone have paid $xx,000 for a list of features that didn't include AoCS? Are people really all that excited nowadays paying $15,000 for a product that is only Level 2, and likely will only ever be Level 2, or "Supervised Autonomy"? Have we given up on the expectation of unsupervised autonomy, wasn't that the point of all this?

All I can do is speak for myself, and the answer is yes. I paid for FSD for the features it came with, and thought the AoCS is just bonus if they get it working. I didn't know there was a beta going, and was excited when I was invited to participate. Tesla is luxury brand, and you'll find many of their customers don't mind paying the extra. Absolutely there is a subset of customers who feel disenfranchised, and they deserve their day in court. But let's not kid ourselves and say everyone is outraged.

 

[gearchruncher]

but isn't the whole point of whatever "FSD" has been imagined to be that it is Full Self Driving? I mean I doubt people are so excited that their cars might do Traffic Lights and occasionally find you in a parking lot. They presumably wanted their cars to actually drive places autonomously, that was the dream.

The thing is, this wasn't a dream. Pepperidge Farm remembers, but so does the actual lawsuit, which directly quotes Tesla's own autopilot description from 2016/2017:

The system is designed to be able to conduct short and long distance trips with no action required by the person in the driver’s seat. For Superchargers that have automatic charge connection enabled, you will not even need to plug in your vehicle.

All you will need to do is get in and tell your car where to go. If you don’t say anything, the car will look at your calendar and take you there as the assumed destination or just home if nothing is on the calendar. Your Tesla will figure out the optimal route, navigate urban streets (even without lane markings), manage complex intersections with traffic lights, stop signs and roundabouts, and handle densely packed freeways with cars moving at high speed. When you arrive at your destination, simply step out at the entrance and your car will enter park seek mode, automatically search for a spot and park itself. A tap on your phone summons it back to you.

But, as the defenders will tell you, the very next line is this:

Please note that Self-Driving functionality is dependent upon extensive software validation and regulatory approval, which may vary widely by jurisdiction. It is not possible to know exactly when each element of the functionality described above will be available, as this is highly dependent on local regulatory approval.

And because of that, Tesla doesn't actually owe you anything on any specific date. So as long as they are "working" on it, you have no claim, and all lawsuits are clearly going to get thrown out. Only once you can prove that this will never happen at any date in the future (even 500 years from now) do you have a claim.

The actual lawsuit is a good read on how the lawyers are approaching this as fraud, arguing that Tesla knew and continued to know that they had no clear path to actually making this happen, and things like the video used technologies that were not scale-able (manual, pre-created HD maps of that one route), so Tesla was taking money for something they had (and still don't have) any feasible way to deliver. Again, an "investment" not a "product" but without all that pesky SEC oversight and need to actually be transparent about your risks and challenges (which is exactly where fraud occurs in investments too!)