-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Elon now under (yet another) investigation by SEC over false self driving claims
- Thread starter 2101Guy
- Start date
If anyone has a problem with fast-food advertising and wants to join a class action in the US, Justin Chimienti vs Wendy's LLC and McDonalds is working its way through the system right now
Same that happened with magazine "touch-ups". Imagine our world if all advertising was actually real - no Photoshop allowed? Would the 2nd pic of the Big Mac entice you to go buy one? Would it make your mouth water?
If I buy a Big Mac and it doesn't meet my expectations, I turn around and bring it back and it's never questioned.
There is a ton of nuance here. The initial story matters, how things changed over time matters, the company's response to complaints matters, and it all matters much more when we're talking about a purchase of $,$$$ or $$,$$$ versus a $5 burger.
There is a ton of nuance here. The initial story matters, how things changed over time matters, the company's response to complaints matters, and it all matters much more when we're talking about a purchase of $,$$$ or $$,$$$ versus a $5 burger.
In the US, law allows for something called "puffery" in advertising. To your point, most reasonable people understand that advertising is showing the best light/side/feature of the product/service. We understand that the makeup, once applied, will not make us look like the supermodel wearing it. Same with clothing.
Puffery: In everyday language, puffery refers to exaggerated or false praise. Puffery serves to "puff up" what is being described. In law, puffery is usually invoked as a defense argument: it identifies futile speech, typically of a seller, which does not give rise to legal liability. In a circular manner, legal explanations for this normative position describe the non-enforceable speech as a statement that no "reasonable person" would take seriously anyway.
OxBrew
Active Member
This is a really bad analogy.This is a Big Mac
It more like you bought a 5 speed manual transmission car from Mars brand cars, but were told 5th gear was coming soon. Just need to work out some bugs with the ECU firmware to control it and get the fuel maps right. It overdrive! See? Here's a video proving it works!
[several years go by, we all speculate about the exact gear ratio, improved mpg, measure wheel rotations and count rpm's from the video and audio until every one is so bored they want to barf]
Then they "release" 5th gear, but for the first owners, it's just 4th gear in the 5th gear spot, you need to get new gears installed.
For later owners, it works, but only down hill.
Then everyone sues, and the engineers explain that the video was fake, they used an old Ford transmission, and never got the real one to work.
All I know is this is all so boring I want to barf.
I like the Big Mac analogy better. Marketing / Advertisement 101.
Yours was too long and specific, but I guess it has its own value, too.
See, you had to explain yours in like 5-6 paragraphs, and I still don't get it. I posted a picture (almost out of context) and I think everyone knew instantly.
Regarding "puffery": puffery in advertisements (for the legal culpability aspects) refers to indefinite claims such as "this is a great car", "this car is perfect", "I wouldn't hesitate to drive this car across the country", "this car can get 40mpg" (but routinely gets 30). It does not apply to factual claims such as "this car has a V12" (when it has a I4), "this car is a 2012" (when it is a 2008), etc.
Put another way, sellers can say non-concrete things, but you can't say factually untrue things. In terms of car dealers selling things they also usually/always have terms in the purchase agreement saying that only promises included in the contract are enforceable (ie things the sales person said aren't binding), but those terms are of questionable enforce-ability (though you'd find it crazy hard to prove what was said to even try bringing action).
Also, generally speaking, contract terms don't insulate against actual fraud should a provably willful fraudulent statement have been made.
Put another way, sellers can say non-concrete things, but you can't say factually untrue things. In terms of car dealers selling things they also usually/always have terms in the purchase agreement saying that only promises included in the contract are enforceable (ie things the sales person said aren't binding), but those terms are of questionable enforce-ability (though you'd find it crazy hard to prove what was said to even try bringing action).
Also, generally speaking, contract terms don't insulate against actual fraud should a provably willful fraudulent statement have been made.
Tesla Inc. is already facing multiple investigations by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration for problems with its two driver-assist systems, Autopilot and “Full Self-Driving.”/cloudfront-us-east-2.images.arcpublishing.com/reuters/RQPCTKCPYFKABLQRPKZX3T6FXI.jpg)
U.S. Justice Department seeks Tesla driver-assist documents
Tesla Inc disclosed on Tuesday the U.S. Justice Department has sought documents related to its Full Self-Driving (FSD) and Autopilot driver-assistance systems as regulatory scrutiny intensifies.www.reuters.com
Despite their names, Tesla still says on its website that the cars can’t drive themselves. Teslas using “Full Self-Driving” can navigate roads in many cases, but experts say the system can make mistakes, which even CEO Elon Musk acknowledges. “We’re not saying it’s quite ready to have no one behind the wheel,” CEO Musk said in October.
It's funny how it always converges to that. We all know it, yet, some of us keep yelling “IT'S NOT DONE I SOLD MY CAR AND NEVER SAW IT I WANT MY MONEY BACK”. And then it dies. And then some Elon hating site throws him on the fire again, someone creates a thread that links to it, and we have the same discussion over and over again.
Beyond the claims themselves not being realized and the money paid by consumers for this technology, the bigger issue will be the public perception + tweets + 2016 video etc argued as leading to complacency with Autopilot that then led to injuries and fatalities. And that's much of what is in the courts right now, there are several such cases ranging from individual Tesla owners to a Texas police force suing because officers were injured when a vehicle on Autopilot slammed into one of their cruisers as they were conducting a traffic stop.
Hence the Emergency Responder update, hence the NHTSA questioning Tesla about whether they think the update would have had an impact on any previous accidents, etc etc. This is surely what's feeding into the Department of Justice's requests. This will likely end up being viewed as a scar on the autonomous vehicle industry, and it is what MobilEye tried to distance themselves from when they broke their partnership with Tesla back in the day.
Hence the Emergency Responder update, hence the NHTSA questioning Tesla about whether they think the update would have had an impact on any previous accidents, etc etc. This is surely what's feeding into the Department of Justice's requests. This will likely end up being viewed as a scar on the autonomous vehicle industry, and it is what MobilEye tried to distance themselves from when they broke their partnership with Tesla back in the day.
italian bread
Member
U.S. DOJ Wants Tesla to Hand Over Autopilot, Full Self-Driving Documents
We recently reported that Tesla CEO Elon Musk was directly involved in staging a misleading self-driving video that the automaker produced in 2016. Musk made it clear via email that he wanted the Model X demo vehicle to be better at self-driving than it actually was.“Just want to be absolutely clear that everyone’s top priority is achieving an amazing Autopilot demo drive. Since this is a demo, it is fine to hardcode some of it, since we will backfill with production code late in an OTA update,” Musk wrote in an email. “I will be telling the world that this what the car *will* be able to do, not that it can do this upon receipt.”
Here’s the issue, Musk and Tesla presented that information as if the cars could already do that, and that’s a sure fire way to get in trouble with the government.
ElectricEel
Member
Okay, this is hilarious. Buttt, that Big Mac didn’t cost $12,000 or well $6000 back then…if they charged $30 for a Big Mac you’d be pissed if it came out like slop, and let’s call FSD what it is Slop, charge for what it is. Bet if they charged $1500 no body would say *sugar* lol. Just like you pay $4 for a Big Mac….This is a Big Mac
OxBrew
Active Member
Yeah, but the pretty hamburger idea is irrelevant.
At least you get a hamburger with all the ingredients shown in the add.
Mines not perfect either, and the investigation and a subsequent trial is the only real way to determine if it's a problem or not.
The beef in the patties is only there for legal reasons, the burger is deliciousfying itself.
It is a bit difficult to make an analogy as we're talking about an optional add-on to a product. The product itself is fine, and is improving over time with updates. In fact, it's the best selling product of its kind in history. The optional add-on, however, is causing some issues. For some people it performs well, and for others it performs poorly. Some people feel duped by claims made by the company, and others feel they got exactly what they thought they'd get. Some people feel the add-on is ridiculously overpriced, and others find great value in it. Some claim they would never have purchased the product if it weren't for the optional add-on, and others couldn't care less about the add-on and are just excited about the product itself.
I can't think of an analogy that fits... But I'm curious how this will play out in court. Based on previous comments from others, and the most recent court case that was detailed on these forums, my guess is that Tesla will be forced to offer refunds for the optional add-on, or compensation for the cost of hardware upgrades. I would be surprised and dismayed if courts force Tesla to buy back entire vehicles for anyone who purchased the optional add-on. If courts find Tesla to be in the wrong, the punishment must be painful enough to teach the company a lesson, but not so painful as to irreparably harm the company, which damages other owners who didn't purchase the optional add-on, or those that did purchase and are not experiencing problems with their purchase.
I can speak for myself in saying that I enjoy my car, and the optional add-on, and am having a great experience so far with the ADAS features. I would be just as upset as those who feel cheated if those features were removed or degraded on my vehicle because of their court actions. And that anger would be aimed towards Tesla and those people should that be the outcome. I think courts understand this and will balance their approach to this issue.
I can't think of an analogy that fits... But I'm curious how this will play out in court. Based on previous comments from others, and the most recent court case that was detailed on these forums, my guess is that Tesla will be forced to offer refunds for the optional add-on, or compensation for the cost of hardware upgrades. I would be surprised and dismayed if courts force Tesla to buy back entire vehicles for anyone who purchased the optional add-on. If courts find Tesla to be in the wrong, the punishment must be painful enough to teach the company a lesson, but not so painful as to irreparably harm the company, which damages other owners who didn't purchase the optional add-on, or those that did purchase and are not experiencing problems with their purchase.
I can speak for myself in saying that I enjoy my car, and the optional add-on, and am having a great experience so far with the ADAS features. I would be just as upset as those who feel cheated if those features were removed or degraded on my vehicle because of their court actions. And that anger would be aimed towards Tesla and those people should that be the outcome. I think courts understand this and will balance their approach to this issue.
Similar threads
