Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

California Reviewing FSD/AP

diplomat33

Well-Known Member
Aug 3, 2017
7,721
9,049
Terre Haute, IN USA
More DDDDdddurrrr...... :D Here's the first sentence for you to read and try comprehending again:

LOS ANGELES — California’s Department of Motor Vehicles is reviewing whether Tesla is violating a state regulation by advertising its vehicles as being fully autonomous without meeting the legal definition of self-driving.

I comprehend the sentence just fine. If Tesla is advertising that our cars are autonomous when they are not, then Tesla is violating State regulations. You are just mad that the CA DMV is making a big deal about it because you don't think Tesla is doing anything wrong.

Reductio ad absurdum

Ford F150 "Lightning"

CA DMV and TMC peanut gallery: DDDdduuuurrrr... False advertising! It's actually a pick-up truck and doesn't make a thunderclap when I hit the gas! I thought I was going to be hurling thunder bolts like Zeus.

Yes, that is an absurd example. "Lightning" is just a brand name. "Full self-driving" is different. "Full self-driving" is not a brand name. FSD implies that the car is autonomous. So you cannot call your car FSD if it is not actually FSD.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Matias

mark95476

Active Member
Jun 21, 2020
1,484
848
Bay Area CA
More rehashed TESLAQ...

I remember when the free market was totally going to kill Tesla. Going bankwupt any day now (tm), demand issues (tm), competition is coming (tm), won't produce a single MY (tm), it's just a muddy field (tm), ....etc... just and endless amount of nonsense.

All of those other lawsuits and NTSB investigations went nowhere. The latest it crashed and was totally on autopilot (tm) BS in Texas is fizzling. I'm sure Tesla is in court somewhere fighting the usual garbage.

Now it's all about the government stepping in to make TESLAQ wet dreams come true and shorters whole.

Unless Tesla does something sane (e.g. offers refunds or transfers of the FSD for existing buyers), they are right now wide open for a criminal scam lawsuit. You just need an enterprising DA with a handful of pre-2019 buyers of FSD in their district.
 

run-the-joules

Turgid Member
Aug 13, 2017
3,785
6,858
SF Bay
More rehashed TESLAQ...

I remember when the free market was totally going to kill Tesla. Going bankwupt any day now (tm), demand issues (tm), competition is coming (tm), won't produce a single MY (tm), it's just a muddy field (tm), ....etc... just and endless amount of nonsense.

All of those other lawsuits and NTSB investigations went nowhere. The latest it crashed and was totally on autopilot (tm) BS in Texas is fizzling. I'm sure Tesla is in court somewhere fighting the usual garbage.

Now it's all about the government stepping in to make TESLAQ wet dreams come true and shorters whole.

An apparent Tesla true believer assuming that shadowy short sellers are behind every negative news piece of about Tesla? I'm shocked. FLABBERGASTED. I've never seen such a suggestion before, but it makes sense because nobody has ever found a single customer and shareholder who's angry about how Tesla has been handling the FSD situation. :rolleyes:
 

rxlawdude

Active Member
Jul 10, 2015
2,683
1,900
Orange County, CA
Unless Tesla does something sane (e.g. offers refunds or transfers of the FSD for existing buyers), they are right now wide open for a criminal scam lawsuit.
You got your law degree from where? There's a world of difference between civil litigation, regulatory administration, and criminal law.
 

Barklikeadog

Active Member
Jul 13, 2016
1,880
1,362
PA
Unless Tesla does something sane (e.g. offers refunds or transfers of the FSD for existing buyers), they are right now wide open for a criminal scam lawsuit. You just need an enterprising DA with a handful of pre-2019 buyers of FSD in their district.
I don't know where you get 'criminal scam' from. They are going to get whacked from a regulatory perspective. California is 100% right on this one. Is your product FSD or not? If it is, then follow the rules, if it is not, then make the appropriate changes for consumer protection.

The more they avoid it, the worse it will be.
 

mark95476

Active Member
Jun 21, 2020
1,484
848
Bay Area CA
This is classic projection. :p
  • I'm not mad; You are.
  • Your entire purpose on TMC is "proving" Tesla FSD is bad or wrong or whatever.
  • You've already made-up your mind that Tesla is doing "wrong", violating CA State regulations, ...etc... and you're taking it very personally.
Is the CA DMV actually making a "big deal" or it is just more FUD? They need to monitor and keep track of vendors pursing autonomous driving, where Tesla is involved, but I've never heard of DMV pursing a false advertising complaint over a feature name.

Tesla has been in court and fighting various BS lawsuits ever since they launched ~10 years ago. Nothing substantially has changed.
Tesla has been fighting FUD ever since they launched ~10 years ago. Nothing substantially has changed.

I comprehend the sentence just fine. If Tesla is advertising that our cars are autonomous when they are not, then Tesla is violating State regulations. You are just mad that the CA DMV is making a big deal about it because you don't think Tesla is doing anything wrong.
 

mark95476

Active Member
Jun 21, 2020
1,484
848
Bay Area CA
Your FUD is old and boring.

Just sue Tesla and see how far you get. Many billions have been lost and reputations have been left in tatters believing the TESLAQ FUD so it'll be a bit harder finding people to fund your lawsuit. Tesla has a lot of experience fending off the BS.

An apparent Tesla true believer assuming that shadowy short sellers are behind every negative news piece of about Tesla? I'm shocked. FLABBERGASTED. I've never seen such a suggestion before, but it makes sense because nobody has ever found a single customer and shareholder who's angry about how Tesla has been handling the FSD situation. :rolleyes:
 

diplomat33

Well-Known Member
Aug 3, 2017
7,721
9,049
Terre Haute, IN USA
This is classic projection. :p
  • I'm not mad; You are.
  • Your entire purpose on TMC is "proving" Tesla FSD is bad or wrong or whatever.
  • You've already made-up your mind that Tesla is doing "wrong", violating CA State regulations, ...etc... and you're taking it very personally.
Is the CA DMV actually making a "big deal" or it is just more FUD? They need to monitor and keep track of vendors pursing autonomous driving, where Tesla is involved, but I've never heard of DMV pursing a false advertising complaint over a feature name.

Tesla has been in court and fighting various BS lawsuits ever since they launched ~10 years ago. Nothing substantially has changed.
Tesla has been fighting FUD ever since they launched ~10 years ago. Nothing substantially has changed.

No, my purpose on TMC is not to prove that Tesla is wrong. I am not mad at all. The CA DMV is simply doing their job. We will see what they conclude.

I think you are projecting. You are mad because you don't think Tesla has done anything wrong. You are the one that has already made up your mind that this is all FUD and some TSLAQ conspiracy against Tesla. You think Tesla can do no wrong and anything negative about Tesla has to be FUD. And anyone who believes anything negative about Tesla must be a Tesla hater.
 

run-the-joules

Turgid Member
Aug 13, 2017
3,785
6,858
SF Bay
Your FUD is old and boring.

Just sue Tesla and see how far you get. Many billions have been lost and reputations have been left in tatters believing the TESLAQ FUD so it'll be a bit harder finding people to fund your lawsuit. Tesla has a lot of experience fending off the BS.

Hm. If my alleged FUD is old and boring, what does that make Elon's BS-slinging? Ancient and quotidian? After all, his nonsense predates my expressions of disdain and has a much wider scope of the same ol' crap.
 

JHCCAZ

Supporting Member
Feb 2, 2021
240
415
Tucson
My take:

Feature Names:
I do think that the feature names Tesla is using are potentially confusing, especially to lightly-involved consumers and the public outside the Tesla/AV community.
I don't think, however, that the feature names are seriously misleading compared to other names used in this industry or in product marketing in general. Yes, many people wrongly think Teslas are already capable of self-driving. But many also think Teslas are super-expensive, or catch fire at the drop of a hat, or are obviously impractical to own and use for regular people. Feature names are not the core problem and misperceptions are no reason to compel renaming. I believe that poor news reporting with incorrect/incomplete/premature fact representation have contributed much more to widely-held misperceptions, than have the feature names presented on the website.
I'll give no opinion on legalities of the above as I'm not a lawyer, much less a lawyer in this special area of law.

Interaction with CA DMV:
It's very possible that the involved employees at California DMV may be quite annoyed that Tesla isn't sending them reports constantly. Because that is the nature of regulators. It would certainly be good for Tesla not to antagonize the regulators needlessly, but it's also very important that the regulators not take any targeted or vengeful action based on their annoyance.
In my view, Tesla isn't doing anything criminal, or even unethical, by taking their position that they're not operating cars autonomously, and therefore not required to submit said reports constantly.

Is Tesla developing L2 or L4/L5?
Both. I assume (and hope) that Tesla fully intends to converge toward an L4 or L5 capability as the eventual goal of current development work.
But this doesn't make Tesla liars based on the explanation they put into the "leaked" emails. There is absolutely nothing wrong with having internal goals and ideas for future breakthrough products, informed in part by current usage and feedback gleaned from existing products.
There is no general requirement to let government regulators (nor journalists) in on proprietary future development targets or methods.​
This is a very important fundamental point of free societies & free markets, which is being somewhat lost in our day & age: As a general proposition, government owes us information unless specifically protected for very good cause. Conversely, we do not owe government information unless required for very good cause - "we/us" meaning private citizens but also businesses. This is not saying there's no role for regulation and protection of public safety, and of course there are many grey-area situations in any complex endeavor. But when in doubt the judgment reverts to the base principles above.​
Back to Tesla - they may run afoul of proper regulation if they falsify or withhold information during a future approval process, but they haven't asked for approval of L4/L5 autonomy nor (apparently) initiated testing on public roads (I believe there was some reference to isolated exceptions that were transitory and apparently unintentional or ill-considered; my impression is those were unfortunate but not really important in the overall picture, and Tesla disclosed them to head off any trumped-up accusations of cover-up etc.)

Data gathering and its purpose:
IMO, there is nothing wrong with Tesla gathering data from non-autonomous or L2 operations, whether beta City Streets or released AP, in order to improve both near-term L2 and future L4/L5 features. The disengagement rates and associated circumstances are development-related performance data, and are proprietary to Tesla unless they are requesting driverless deployment. As with other customer-data gathering however, there should be disclosure of the activity and of the nature & purpose of the data collection. It's up to the collector (Tesla) to decide what happens if the customer refuses. Maybe it's OK for Tesla if a minority percentage of customers refuse to allow collection of logs and video feeds in non-AP driving, but it's not OK for the customer to refuse logging of conditions if Tesla would be held liable for an accident.
 

Tesomega

Member
Sep 28, 2017
304
199
Pittsburg, CA
My simple questions to all of you is Tesla is not required to enable FSD (they may never release full FSD because they don't have it and the marketing BS is more than what they actually do) if regulators don't approve it, Regulators cannot approve it if you don't submit the required documentation for it. As a consumer I paid for Tesla's promise that as soon as the Regulators approve it they will enable it and my car has all the hardware to support it. So, how do we fix this?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Matias

rxlawdude

Active Member
Jul 10, 2015
2,683
1,900
Orange County, CA
My simple questions to all of you is Tesla is not required to enable FSD (they may never release full FSD because they don't have it and the marketing BS is more than what they actually do) if regulators don't approve it, Regulators cannot approve it if you don't submit the required documentation for it. As a consumer I paid for Tesla's promise that as soon as the Regulators approve it they will enable it and my car has all the hardware to support it. So, how do we fix this?
You bought based on marketing puffery, not a contractually binding promise. Fix it? Be patient.
 

Microterf

Member
Sep 18, 2020
255
389
Ohio
I look at it based on probability. I bought it for $7000. I got some decent functionality that I'm happy with, but I'm also paying for the chance for much more functionality.

If we get a level 5 robotaxi, then I would have gotten a steal. If I wouldn't have gotten anymore functionality, then I probably would have felt that I overpaid. I'm betting that we get somewhere in between. (Have already gotten stop light control since I bought the car. )
 

Cyberax

Member
Jul 28, 2015
395
221
Seattle, WA
You got your law degree from where? There's a world of difference between civil litigation, regulatory administration, and criminal law.
I'm retelling what my lawyer told me. There are jurisdictions in the US (e.g. D.C. Law Library - § 22–3221. Fraud. ) that define fraud rather broadly.

Promising a product that can't be reasonably delivered is definitely an example.
 

mark95476

Active Member
Jun 21, 2020
1,484
848
Bay Area CA
All of this is puffery on TMC. Lots of garbage posts from anonymous nicks hoping to get some traction.

Lets see how far this false advertising review gets. I'm going to say it goes nowhere just like all of the other FUD and nuisance lawsuits.

Hm. If my alleged FUD is old and boring, what does that make Elon's BS-slinging? Ancient and quotidian? After all, his nonsense predates my expressions of disdain and has a much wider scope of the same ol' crap.
 

mark95476

Active Member
Jun 21, 2020
1,484
848
Bay Area CA
Me: You're projecting.
You: No, you're projecting.

It's like we've devolved into 10 year old kids! ;) Ahhh.... Gotta love "arguing" on the internet. :D

No, my purpose on TMC is not to prove that Tesla is wrong. I am not mad at all. The CA DMV is simply doing their job. We will see what they conclude.

I think you are projecting. You are mad because you don't think Tesla has done anything wrong. You are the one that has already made up your mind that this is all FUD and some TSLAQ conspiracy against Tesla. You think Tesla can do no wrong and anything negative about Tesla has to be FUD. And anyone who believes anything negative about Tesla must be a Tesla hater.
 

About Us

Formed in 2006, Tesla Motors Club (TMC) was the first independent online Tesla community. Today it remains the largest and most dynamic community of Tesla enthusiasts. Learn more.

Do you value your experience at TMC? Consider becoming a Supporting Member of Tesla Motors Club. As a thank you for your contribution, you'll get nearly no ads in the Community and Groups sections. Additional perks are available depending on the level of contribution. Please visit the Account Upgrades page for more details.


SUPPORT TMC
Top