Has anyone sued Tesla for FSD costs?

[Cardo]

Take this scenario for Tesla. Not sure how likely it is.

Plaintiff A orders a car, thinking it had functional USS, and in turn summon, remote parking etc. Finding out it is not functional, sues and wins whatever the court decides is fair recompense - maybe even the full value paid for the car if the car is returned.

Two weeks later - Plaintiff B - exactly same situation - court could decide not even to have a full hearing to save court time, as the circumstances as set out in the court bundle from each side are so similar? Irrespective that it is listed for a different judge in a different County Court?

Plaintiff B could then appeal the court’s decision, which kicks it up a notch. In seriousness and cost…

 

[Durzel]

Playing Devil's Advocate for a moment..

I don't recall anywhere on the order page or anywhere else mentioning ultrasonics. It's not one of the options listed on my order agreement.

I - like many others - took it as read the car had them when I ordered because pretty much everything does now, especially at that level. But it could perhaps be argued by Tesla that ultrasonics weren't explicitly specified as an feature the car had when purchased, even on my car today (if they disabled them).

 

[edb49]

Playing Devil's Advocate for a moment..

I don't recall anywhere on the order page or anywhere else mentioning ultrasonics. It's not one of the options listed on my order agreement.

I - like many others - took it as read the car had them when I ordered because pretty much everything does now, especially at that level. But it could perhaps be argued by Tesla that ultrasonics weren't explicitly specified as an feature the car had when purchased, even on my car today (if they disabled them).

This is an argument Tesla would need to run pass a judge. More fundamentally, you ordered a car with parking assist, and Tesla delivered something without. I doubt a district circuit judge would look kindly on Tesla trying to weasel their way out of it.

 

[WllXM]

This is an argument Tesla would need to run pass a judge. More fundamentally, you ordered a car with parking assist, and Tesla delivered something without. I doubt a district circuit judge would look kindly on Tesla trying to weasel their way out of it.

Well, some people in 2018 did order a car with "Full Self Driving" functionality, no asterisks, city streets coming by year-end.... A judge hasn't put Elon in jail over that yet..

 

[MrBadger]

Playing Devil's Advocate for a moment..

I don't recall anywhere on the order page or anywhere else mentioning ultrasonics. It's not one of the options listed on my order agreement.

I - like many others - took it as read the car had them when I ordered because pretty much everything does now, especially at that level. But it could perhaps be argued by Tesla that ultrasonics weren't explicitly specified as an feature the car had when purchased, even on my car today (if they disabled them).

It doesn't have to be specifically on the order agreement. Anything [edit] official [/edit] that might be said to have influenced the purchasers decision to buy effectively becomes part of the offer to sell, which includes the sensor diagrams on the Tesla website (that included USS and Radar at various points in time) and, imho, anything from CEO/investor days, some of which were clear that Tesla were aiming for L5 - not that I want L5 but I wouldn't turn it down, but it would have been nice to have had L3.

 

[D.E.]

The purchaser could have declined the car without ultrasonics but chose to accept it. It depends on whether the lack of ultrasonics was made known to the purchaser at the time of delivery.

 

[D.E.]

Musk claimed delivery of FSD within the year but I’m sure the car paperwork made no such claim, it’ll be argued the paperwork made it plain that it was not yet available. I’ll bet the paperwork you signed takes priority. So it was known at the time of purchase of FSD that the final version of the software wasn’t then available, and there was no firm date promised in the paperwork. It’ll be argued that Musk’s public claims were an opinion. I don’t see the plaintiffs winning in court.

In the past Tesla has declined future sales to those deemed counterproductive to Tesla. I’ll bet a suit, whether successful or not, would earn you a position on that list.

 

[CWT3LR]

Musk claimed delivery of FSD within the year but I’m sure the car paperwork made no such claim, it’ll be argued the paperwork made it plain that it was not yet available. I’ll bet the paperwork you signed takes priority. So it was known at the time of purchase of FSD that the final version of the software wasn’t then available, and there was no firm date promised in the paperwork. It’ll be argued that Musk’s public claims were an opinion. I don’t see the plaintiffs winning in court.

Ah yes, another cousin from the colonies blessing us with their opinion of what might happen under UK law. Thanks so much.

 

[D.E.]

Ah yes, another cousin from the colonies blessing us with their opinion of what might happen under UK law. Thanks so much.

Not every denizen of the “colonies” was born in that “colony”. You might keep that in mind when so snidely dismissing the comments of others.

 

[MrBadger]

Musk claimed delivery of FSD within the year but I’m sure the car paperwork made no such claim, it’ll be argued the paperwork made it plain that it was not yet available.

If Musk made a claim then it can be used as part of an expectation as to what to expect. It doesn't have to be in the paperwork. But as it happens, the official website at point of sale said Autosteer on City Streets by end of year - which was back in 2019. So that promise was pretty well laid out.

 

[GlynG]

Any claims, statements, or promises made by Musk are relevant - he's the CEO of the company, also the high profile face of it, so I cant see any Court accepting those comments as a private opinion. Tesla don't do advertising or any Marketing therefore people get to know about Tesla and their future developments from other sources - and the biggest source is Musk.
He's not a lowly employee, he is in a position to know He tells us Robotaxi, the cars finding their own parking place, their current website shows their cars doing stuff that they cant do - like auto park and Summon - it isn't identified on the site that these functions only work for those with USS - and in the UK they are piss poor in operation.

@D.E. If your comment regarding Tesla having a "naughty list" is true, whereby Tesla will refuse to sell a vehicle to anyone that has or makes a negative view of Tesla then I think Tesla will be in deep *sugar* in the UK - he will be seriously underestimating the British psyche, Anyone that tries to limit free speech by intimated threats to dissuade anyone instigating legal action against Tesla will be like red rag to a bull.
And didn't Musk say he bought Twitter to ensure free speech?
DE - you are not in the UK, how preposterous for you to interpret just how Tesla presented their vehicles to us with your assumptions. I have FSD - Now I'm not stupid, but I believed the rhetoric of what we would have in the future, I did think the claims were a little optimistic and like all marketing a fair bit of bullshit but expected the feature would have some benefits, would enhance the vehicle, would improve its saleability when the times comes to sell it - but its a complete waste of £6800 - Do you really think anyone would shell out that kind of money for FSD if they suspected Summon will only work if your stood right next to the drivers door, press the button and about 2 minutes later the lights flash, the steering goes from side to side - then the car moves forward at the pace of a snail for about 3 feet and then quits.

Now going back to basic features, Tesla cant even get the wipers to work properly, The auto High Beam just dazzles other drivers.

Clearly, the comment made by @CWT3LR to your post angered you enough to reply and criticise what you regarded as his snide comments, On balance his comments were about right, but you felt your original post telling us what our interpretation of Tesla's claims, comments and promises were, were simply our misinterpretation without any knowledge of what we were told.

Perhaps in the USA your cars perform differently to ours, You have different laws, I wouldn't dream of trying to tell you how you should react to any event that occurs - much less than going on a US website and telling everyone they are wrong.

Final point, People in the UK that first learned of USS depletion at the point of picking up their cars would indeed have had the option to reject, but after waiting for so long and in some cases 9 months, sold their previous car, do you think anyone would reject at that late stage? and what about the contract - initially to supply with a parking system. One party in a contract cant unilaterally choose which bits of the contract they want to abide by, and in the UK the law will support adherence to the agreed contract or a financial penalty imposed.

 

[Sean.]

In the past Tesla has declined future sales to those deemed counterproductive to Tesla. I’ll bet a suit, whether successful or not, would earn you a position on that list.

 

[CWT3LR]

Clearly, the comment made by @CWT3LR to your post angered you enough to reply and criticise what you regarded as his snide comments, On balance his comments were about right, but you felt your original post telling us what our interpretation of Tesla's claims, comments and promises were, were simply our misinterpretation without any knowledge of what we were told.

Perhaps in the USA your cars perform differently to ours, You have different laws, I wouldn't dream of trying to tell you how you should react to any event that occurs - much less than going on a US website and telling everyone they are wrong.

@GlynG You give me too much credit Glyn. I wanted the comment to be offensive.

I am fed up of US dwelling Musk cheerleaders telling we thick Brits we are wrong every time we have the temerity to point out how much stronger UK consumer and contract law protections are. And that they claim that the functionality they get in the US, designed for US roads and US regulations, must be the same worldwide with no understanding of how limited the functionality is for people elsewhere. The one constant worldwide is the ridiculous claims that Musk and his acolytes have made - with faked videos, mocked-up visual depictions and very public "demonstrations" at product days and the like leaving an expectation that sadly will bnever be fulfilled.

Perhaps my tolerance of the bullshite that they come up with is much lower than most people's?

 

[GlynG]

I knew exactly how you wanted your comment taken, I do understand the British wit and sarcasm.

 

[Casss]

Perhaps my tolerance of the bullshite that they come up with is much lower than most people's?

Sometimes we're too stoic for our own good... *gestures vaguely at everything*

 

[Billbrown1982]

@GlynG You give me too much credit Glyn. I wanted the comment to be offensive.

I am fed up of US dwelling Musk cheerleaders telling we thick Brits we are wrong every time we have the temerity to point out how much stronger UK consumer and contract law protections are. And that they claim that the functionality they get in the US, designed for US roads and US regulations, must be the same worldwide with no understanding of how limited the functionality is for people elsewhere. The one constant worldwide is the ridiculous claims that Musk and his acolytes have made - with faked videos, mocked-up visual depictions and very public "demonstrations" at product days and the like leaving an expectation that sadly will bnever be fulfilled.

Perhaps my tolerance of the bullshite that they come up with is much lower than most people's?

While I totally agree quite often that our US based cousins tend to stick their heads into our threads with totally irrelevant responses and/or biased opinions, I gotta say guys in this case I think your ire is misdirected. What D.E was saying is hardly outside the realms of possibility even in our little corner of the globe and I feel like your taking out your frustrations on the wrong target here.

 

[NewbieT]

I can’t think of many examples of a business being vindictive and taking punitive action against a customer. Pub landlord barring someone?

I can’t see that kind of behaviour being good for reputation. Legality? I guess if you managed to place an order and Tesla subsequently ‘realised’ and then cancelled it that could be breech of contract?

 

[The_Cable_Guy]

As said above I sold my car 3 weeks before delivery after waiting about 9 months, was greeted by the tick box choice of no USS, did I have a choice, yes I could of rejected the car, did I want to, probably ye. But given the fact I had waited 9 months for the car and I was not on other waiting lists for an EV with other manufacturers I had to swallow the bitter pill. Is it a deal breaker, no, has it put me off buying another Tesla, yes, saying your going to provide something I’ve ordered and delivering something else which doesn’t work at all or ever will as well is 100% mis sale of goods.

 

[D.E.]

Clearly, the comment made by @CWT3LR to your post angered you enough to reply and criticise what you regarded as his snide comments, On balance his comments were about right, but you felt your original post telling us what our interpretation of Tesla's claims, comments and promises were, were simply our misinterpretation without any knowledge of what we were told.

The annoying part was his taking a discussion of the merits of a suit and making it personal. And then being so wrong in his attempt.

It seems to me that when instigating a suit, regardless of venue, one should be aware of the likely arguments from the other side. These arguments have been made before. Mr. Personal Comments apparently had no interest in the suit implications, but instead takes such arguments personally. So he isn’t suing, he’s grandstanding.

It’s been said that Musk’s comments are enough to launch a successful action in Wales. I don’t know whether that’s true, but I’d suggest one read the paperwork looking for a phrase that the paperwork represents the entirety of the transaction and other claims are not to be regarded as such. That might be important If trying to hold Tesla’s feet to the fire.

And if he thinks this is a local action, he should think again. When one sues the richest man and the largest car company, one should expect the other side will have a raft of the finest attorneys, including a top Welsh firm. And they will know every word on every document that bears signatures.

My comments may be appropriate to a proposed suit but here they aren’t welcome, so I’ll leave it with you.

 

[MrBadger]

It’s been said that Musk’s comments are enough to launch a successful action in Wales. I don’t know whether that’s true, but I’d suggest one read the paperwork looking for a phrase that the paperwork represents the entirety of the transaction and other claims are not to be regarded as such. That might be important If trying to hold Tesla’s feet to the fire.

Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org