Class Action Suit for Battery Degradation

Just another way for a law firm to profit at Tesla's expense.

 

I agree tesla should disclose the real range rather than a fictitious range.

 

This is regarding used vehicles, I have to agree their used listings are quite deceiving regarding range which is often degraded and their fictitious 70 point inspection for which buyers are never revealed what it includes nor provided any documentation of actual completion.

 

Yes, Tesla had the opportunity to define the used car market for EVs by disclosing range when resold as well as performance data. They have it for each car - instead they advertise new car stats... Even though they know it's not true anymore. Disappointed

 

So did this idiot adhere to the same EPA criteria during his tests?

Honestly, some people need to grow up or educate themselves. Or both.

 

While I agree that Tesla could be best in class on this, the whole thing is typical American, and stupid. (Virtually nowhere else are there such crazy class action culture, as in US, where the law firm is the only real winner every time)

If range is a good reason for thus class action, then every used ICE car should be sold with true milage and acceleration data.... Or else... lawsuit.?

 

That’s why this is so bogus.
Nobody would expect that data for an ICE but they expect a different standard for EVs
As with all class actions there is only one winner, the law company running the scam (sorry, class action)

 

Lets keep suing Tesla until there isn’t a company to sue anymore.

 

I bought my used Tesla from Tesla beginning of May. But I started trolling for “the one” in late February. I don’t know what it always said but I know since February there’s and asterisk next to the number that basically says this is what epa says but age of vehicle. Battery degradation etc will determine the exact amount. So....while ya in a perfect world it’d be great if Tesla could post a picture of the car at max charge so we’d all know. I could see potential issues her to because Mannheim both stores and takes the pics for them. It seems that little asterisk covers this issue.

 

I can't agree more with this lawsuit, to be honest. What Tesla has been doing is shameful.

Tesla not only claims full range on used cars, they do it even for cars that are severely degraded like this guy's. His range is 166 miles which is more than TWENTY PERCENT lower than what Tesla advertised on their website. EV's live and die by their range, it's the single most important number.

To people claiming "then ICEs would have to be sold with true mileage data":

1. EPA is the one that sets that mileage data. It is hard to test and hard to verify for individual cars.
2. Reporting on battery degradation on a Tesla is extremely easy. All you have to do is charge the car and look at a number that the screen displays, that's it.
3. On a Tesla, you're measuring the energy holding capability of the battery, not how much energy the car uses. Which could also be very different from car to car and that's not what we are discussing. You are discussing battery size.

Not only Tesla is disclosing best possible case scenario for every single car on their website without regard to what that car's actual capability is based on degradation, they are at times reporting things that that car was NEVER ever able to do.

The P90DL is a great case in point. As you guys might or might not know, the P90DL only existed in 2015 and 2016. In the beginning it had a battery we call V1 that was capable of 253 miles of range and 3.1 seconds 0-60 (2.8-2.9 with Ludicrous). Later it was changed with the V2 and V3, which improved on the V1. The V3 is capable of 270 miles of range and a 0-60 time of 2.6 seconds.

And what is Tesla doing? It's advertising all P90DL's, regardless of what year they were made in, as capable of 270 miles of range with 2.6 sec 0-60. Even the earlier 2015 ones with V1 batteries which are not even close.

If for example Audi upgraded the engines of a certain model and model year (let's say Audi A7 2016), how sympathetic would you guys be to them if they were advertising the new acceleration & mileage data for the 2015 model? Because what Tesla is doing with P90DL's is exactly the same.

They don't even report on mileage differences between wheels.and report range for 19"s no matter what wheels the car they're selling have.

NOTE: Tesla just added an asterisk next to their range number on their cars, saying "Figures based on testing new vehicles to EPA standards. Vehicle range may change depending on battery age and condition, vehicle configuration, driving style, environmental and climate change." Definitely a step in the right direction. Definitely not enough.

 

If a used ICE with a gasoline tank specified as 10 gallons but the driver discovered that it can only accommodate 8 gallons at its fullest 100% capacity, would that be alarming? Not only the range is reduced but the also energy capacity to put in the tank is also reduced 20% on the very first day!

Tesla did repair the car multiple times but could not resolve it by noting that 166 miles were at 90% but when the owner checked those actually were at 100%.

So, without going to court, is there anything else that the owner could do?

U.S. appeals court upholds $210 million Hyundai-Kia gas mileage settlement

Suit seeking $1.2B says Ford falsified F-150 fuel economy tests

GM offers compensation over fuel economy mistake

 

Well, to my experience (what I hear) - Tesla does replace unreasonably degraded packs, (usually due to some clusters of cells in a module being bad)
In this case, we do not know anything about it.... not even if that given range is an estimate or a "look, I have driven it empty after only 166miles, and 6 hours with AC on in park, I want a brand new car now." - or - "I forgot to mention that it was deep-discharged when I went on vacation"

Had it been an long-time member here, providing some data and service-center reply... I would be concerned that this may be bad customer service.

 

This class action is a flood gate already, so it's too late!

I think transparency is the best policy.

Tesla still boasts that it does "mechanical inspections" but it fails to display the most recent readout of the battery capacity / range.

To prevent this kind of problem, it needs to post the lower current range instead of higher new car range and also have the owner write the word "no" in fill in the blank "no warranty for battery degradation" and initialize it.

The problem with transparency is: It might dissuade potential owner.

 

Yes, among other things.

EVs are still new. Unless a person hangs around on this or similar forums, or has a lot of knowledge about batteries, people are not going to be very excited about buying an EV that once upon a time had X miles of "range," and now when the car is used, allegedly inspected, and resold has .85X miles of range. The very first thing to enter a potential owner's mind is something like, "If the car had 210 miles of range four years ago, and it has 166 miles of range today, that means in four more years, my car will have 130 miles of range." This is specious reasoning, but ignorance carries the day in these matters. After all, ICE cars usually do not lose 15-20% of their "range" after four years, so it is quite understandable that this logic will transfer to EVs in the eyes of the public.

From reading the complaint, it appears that Tesla's resale department and marketing department have never had any contact with the legal department regarding what is and is not permissible under federal and state laws. Or maybe Tesla does not have a fully-functioning legal department for matters such as this.

As much as we want Tesla to survive, grow, and prosper, Tesla still needs to behave like a responsible company in the eyes of the public. If that costs some money to replace the batteries or components of the batteries on used cars, so be it. If that requires the sale of used older vehicles with substantial degradation at more of a discount, so be it. Tesla cannot have it both ways.

If I had to guess, Tesla took this car as a trade-in, and they assigned a value that was acceptable to the seller. Tesla likely has some sort of policy to mark-up these trade-ins Z% and market them as "certified, inspected, and like new." This particular car had issues whereby Tesla was unwilling to spend the money to get the car to a better state, and then blew off the customer.

We have learned over the years that sometimes Tesla takes short cuts and leaves people hung out to dry. Their lack of probity leads to frustration and inconvenience, not to mention the feeling of being taken. Sometimes lawsuits are the only way to wake up the Company to get them to fix things that never should have been broken to the extent alleged in these lawsuits to begin with.

This will get Tesla's attention, no doubt. The last thing Tesla wants to do is to go through discovery and have all that information a matter of public record if this goes to trial. Tesla will improve in this area as a part of the negotiated settlement. It is just regrettable that they had to be forced to do things right through litigation instead of doing things right from the start.

 

Absolutely have to agree with this laswsuit. Tesla is being shady with their used fleet and they should be expected to do better. Since when is it wrong to have basic consumer protections? Tesla has data on all of these cars and knows the CAC value for each battery. It knows exactly the range for every car and should disclose as much. Just because such information was not relevant in ICE industry does not apply here. Range is absolutely germane to an EV's value. Nobody is asking for information Tesla doesn't already have.

Stop arguing against your own best interests. Only in America do people do this to themselves.

 

Loving all the ‘disagrees’

If you want to ensure you’re getting the maximum rated range, buy a new one

Mine was rated 208 miles when new, it now charges - nearly five years later - to 197 at 100%

The OP’s probably would too after a few balancing charges

 

Range degrades over time.
Look at your iPhone and what max battery health is over time. The IOS shows battery health as the phone ages.
All lithium ion batteries degrade over time.
That is why you should keep the charge between 20 - 80% most of the time and charge at home on a level 2 charger.
Using the battery to extremes and excessive Super Charging will degrade the battery over time.

 

I think this is what you're missing:

1. Buying a new or used car shouldn't matter. If Tesla has to replace it for someone buying used, they should replace it for any existing customer if its not running to the spec advertised. Obviously Lithuium batteries degrade over time. So existing owners (and used owners) shouldn't get new batteries for that reason alone.

2. The car has a warranty, and that warranty says if its over 30% degraded, you get it repaired. So if the used buyer hasn't seen >30% loss, Tesla shouldn't do anything.

3. People comparing battery degradation with fuel tank capacity are comparing the wrong things. If you want to compare powertrain degradation with an ICE vehicle, try engine compression / power generated. At least that's powertrain spec vs powertrain spec. Engines on ICE vehicles degrade over time. They suffer compression loss, they lose power. That sounds a lot more similar to an EV losing range (which also means voltage and thus power).

I have NEVER seen a used ICE vehicle detail all the decreased specs it might have over a brand new vehicle Everyone understands a used vehicle is used and has normal wear and tear.

Normal wear and tear on an EV includes battery degradation. Even if you didn't drive the vehicle, the battery will age. I guess you could keep it in a freezer to decrease that, but no one would possibly expect a used car to have that level of care.

Expecting 100% battery on a used EV = ambulance chasing lawyers idea of generating revenue. Also the buyer is an idiot.