Link to doc 40:
Excerpts:
This portion of the website breaks the Full Self-Driving Capability function into two
categories: (1) features listed directly under Full Self-Driving Capability, including navigate to
autopilot, auto lane change, autopark, and summon; and (2) features listed under the subheading
“coming later this year:” including “recognize and respond to traffic lights and stop signs” and
“automatic driving on city streets”. Doc. 15-1 at 2. I will address the two categories of features
separately.
Read in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, however, in describing what Plaintiff would
get in exchange for the $6,000 Full Self-Driving Capability option, Defendant did promise that
by year’s end the vehicle would be able to “recognize and respond to traffic lights and stop
signs” and “automatic driving on city streets”. Doc. 15-1. Even if this webpage did not promise
the “activation and use” of these features, it at least promised that these features would be
developed. In other words, in defining the term “Full Self-Driving Capability” on its website,
Defendant promised these features by year-end.3
In his complaint, Plaintiff alleges Defendant “fail[ed] to deliver Full Self-Driving Capability on December 31, 2019[.]” Doc. 1-1 ¶ 39.
Plaintiff also alleges Defendant did not deliver any automated driving features by December 31,
2019. Doc. 1-1 ¶¶ 5(i), 44. Plaintiff claims, “Tesla thereby duped Young into sympathizing with
the company’s feigned inability to deliver a non-existent feature that it had fraudulently led him
to believe it had in fact developed and would in fact deliver by December 31, 2019 . . .” Doc. 1-1
¶ 53. He further alleges that Tesla fraudulently solicited and received $6,000 from him for a
“product” the company failed to deliver by December 31, 2019, as promised. Doc. 1-1 ¶ 78. And,
in the “Count 1-Breach of Contract” portion of his complaint, Plaintiff generally alleges that
“$6,000 of the $60,100 consideration paid by Young is expressly for an optional feature called
‘Full Self-Driving Capability’” and that by not providing a vehicle with Full-Self Driving
Capability before the end of 2019, Defendant breached its obligation in the Agreement. Doc. 1-1
at ¶¶ 90, 94-95.
Reading the complaint in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, considering Plaintiff’s pro
se status, and drawing reasonable inferences in Plaintiff’s favor, I read Plaintiff’s complaint as
alleging that Defendant failed to deliver the two features promised in category two. Although
Defendant made no promises as to when its vehicles would be fully automated such that they
could operate safely without human intervention, in connection with the $6,000 Full Self-Driving Capability option, it did promise to stay on a certain track; namely, that by year end the Full SelfDriving Capability Plaintiff paid for would at least include recognizing and responding to traffic
lights and stop signs and automatic driving on city streets. Allegations that Defendant did not
deliver on those two features by the end of the year as promised states a claim for breach of
contract.
As such, I recommend that the Court find that the complaint states a claim for breach of
contract as to the two features “coming later this year” (recognizing and responding to traffic
lights and stop signs and automatic driving on city streets).
CONCLUSION
...
allow leave to amend only as to the fraud count for allegations related to Musk’s
extracontractual statements made during the February 2019 podcast interview.
