I have two Teslas, an X and a 3. The MCU was for the X (which also added HW3), HW3 was for the 3.
But to be clear- Tesla charges you more for MCU2 if you don't have HW3, again, proving that there are damages if the car doesn't have the FSD computer.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
How to sue Tesla over historical claims
- Thread starter gearchruncher
- Start date
But to be clear- Tesla charges you more for MCU2 if you don't have HW3, again, proving that there are damages if the car doesn't have the FSD computer.
Courts hate forcing people or companies to do things- this is called "specific performance." This is what was coming up with the Elon / Twitter trial before he gave in and just bought it- could the courts force him to buy it?
They much prefer just dealing in money.
I said: "Tesla charges $1000 for HW3, but that should be free because it was advertised as part of the car."
Court says: "Tesla, pay $1K + tax"
Court doesn't say: "Tesla, give the plaintiff HW3 for free"
If I want HW3 at that point, I pay Tesla $1K. The exact same $1K they gave me.
Same with MCU2:
Me: "Tesla wants $2,750 to upgrade my car to keep it working the same way as when I bought it"
Court: "Give plaintiff $2,750 + tax"
All of this is completely independent of if you subscribed to FSD. If you did subscribe to FSD, then they would still owe you that because they already charged you for it. In that case, it would be "Tesla wants $2,250 to upgrade the hardware in my car so that I can use FSD, which they sold me for $X,000 6 years ago, and told me the car had "all hardware required." I would like that hardware at no charge."
Court: Yep, that makes sense.
The MCU1 / FSD Combo is one people should absolutely sue over right now. It's ridiculous. Tesla sold you a car with all hardware needed for FSD, charged you for the FSD SW option, and now tells you that to use FSD, you have to buy hardware!???
What if the I price goes up to $3k before you upgrade? Can you go back and get more money or is that claim done with?
Not going to claim to be an expert with that, but I would expect not. The case is analyzed at the moment it occurs in front of the judge, and you can't generally sue for the same thing twice.
For me, the correct path was to actually pay out of pocket for the MCU2 upgrade because the car was just not enjoyable without it. I then sued for what I actually paid.
If you're really not wanting to pay out of pocket unless you win, you sue for the amount it is on the day you sue, update the claim with the judge if the price goes up between filing and the hearing, and then if you win, sign up for the upgrade as you are walking out of the court.
Also helps to get a quote from Tesla just a few days before you walk into court.
I was talking to some automotive litigators (who drive Teslas) about this and they made some interesting comments:
- Detroit automotive manufacturers have networks of lawyers and those lawyers do show up in small claims court.
- Tesla doesn’t build a network like that because Elon doesn’t value lawyers as part of his business model. (Like he doesn’t value public relations)
- If Tesla changed their model, many good lawyers wouldn’t work for them while they use use “fraudulent inducement” to sell FSD.
- The fraudulent inducement is based on Elon’s declarative statements that aren’t carefully worded (not enough “ifs”)
- Elon would make Tesla a tough client to work for in general
- Courts have heisrchies. States have their own below federal court. Small claims court verdicts are never “controlling” presidents. But you can always reference another case, even a small claims case in another state. Once you have identical facts on multiple cases that one can reference, the argument becomes more persuasive.
Last edited:
This part in particular:
(moderator edit)
- If Tesla changed their model, many good lawyers wouldn’t work for them while they use use “fraudulent inducement” to sell FSD.
- The fraudulent inducement is based on Elon’s declarative statements that aren’t carefully worded (not enough “ifs”)
(moderator edit)
Last edited by a moderator:
I was told most states do allow attorneys in small claims court and that, in those that don’t, Detroit firms have employees represent them, sometimes in-house counsel. Although ironically California and Michigan are two of the few states that don’t allow attorneys in small claims court. Maybe Nebraska as well.
There are a lot of large states that don't allow attorneys in any way. WA (where I sued), CA, VA, MD at a quick search. But agree that it's not "most."
But even if they allow lawyers. a lot of process is simplified and judges have a lot of discretion to balance the tables.
You can also generally hire a lawyer to join you in small claims cheap- some even on commission.
But the real point here is that this is yet another place where Elon's tweets and words don't match reality. Elon has a statements like:
Meanwhile, Tesla's job postings for Lawyers are pretty boring corporate employment, real estate, and government jobs:
And Tesla has had 6 general council leaders in the last 10 years, 3 in just the last 2...
Wait until everyone that bought post April 2019 realizes that Tesla changed their language on FSD and all they are owed is "city streets autosteer" which is what FSD beta has already been for the last year.
Gearcruncher is the FSD hero. Keeping big corporations honest. Holding CEO’s accountable. If there was a poster of the month parking spot for this sub form? Gearcruncher would get it.
If a LOT more people did this? I suspect Elon (and others like him. Assuming there are others like him.) would learn the hard way to make sure your mouth (or keyboard) doesn’t write checks that your ass can’t deliver.
(moderator note: I don’t know about that poster of the month award but you’ve won the “create extra work for the moderator” poster of the month award by requiring the most edited posts. So far you’re 5x anyone else. No, there is no cash prize.)
If a LOT more people did this? I suspect Elon (and others like him. Assuming there are others like him.) would learn the hard way to make sure your mouth (or keyboard) doesn’t write checks that your ass can’t deliver.
(moderator note: I don’t know about that poster of the month award but you’ve won the “create extra work for the moderator” poster of the month award by requiring the most edited posts. So far you’re 5x anyone else. No, there is no cash prize.)
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes, it was a win for gearchruncher, no one said otherwise. What he erroneous claimed, was that because he one, it meant that a judge agreed that his claims were accurate and true. That is not the case.
By the looks of it you successfully misrepresented your case, and Tesla didn't show up to defend.
HW2.x cars get a free upgrade to HW3.0 if you buy FSD. If you don't have FSD, you don't get the upgrade. If you get the FSD subscription, Tesla requires you to buy the upgrade for 1K, since you can cancel the subscription after 1 month and not pony up the full amount required to make the upgrade worthwhile.
MCU1 is compatible with HW3.0 and FSD, but lacks some visualisations. MCU2 is not a requirement for FSD and HW3.0.
HW2.x cars get a free upgrade to HW3.0 if you buy FSD. If you don't have FSD, you don't get the upgrade. If you get the FSD subscription, Tesla requires you to buy the upgrade for 1K, since you can cancel the subscription after 1 month and not pony up the full amount required to make the upgrade worthwhile.
MCU1 is compatible with HW3.0 and FSD, but lacks some visualisations. MCU2 is not a requirement for FSD and HW3.0.
You say this like it's an undisputed fact, but it's not, it's a Tesla policy, and policies can be wrong (and 100% are in this case)
I bought a car before HW3 even existed. Tesla advertised the car as "having all hardware needed for FSD." The HW3 upgrade policy came into effect AFTER the car was purchased.
The judge found that them requiring $1000 for a HARDWARE UPGRADE to subscribe to FSD constituted false advertising.
If Tesla felt this was easily defendable, they should have shown up. They would have needed to explain how FSD was different than FSD. It was their choice to offer subscriptions to FSD. It was their choice not to show up to court. And their leader says they show up every time they are right, and zero times when they are wrong... Tesla's decision to not show is 100% their fault, and could easily be seen as not having a sufficient legal basis to defend.
Even without the "buying" FSD question, the fact the car couldn't do stop light chimes because it doesn't have the "FSD Computer" would constitute damages.
My MCU2 claim was based on the fact that MCU1 could no longer do what it was advertised to do- voice recognition and mapping. Tesla acknowledged this was a SW bug with no known resolution date, and wanted $2,000 to solve it with MCU2, despite the car being under warranty.
However, not a single person with MCU1 has received FSD, so I'd like to see Tesla say in a court of law under oath that MCU1 is compatible with FSD. They also charge more to upgrade MCU2 if you have HW2/2.5, so if all you want is MCU2, you still have to pay more because the car doesn't have HW3. Which are damages for false advertising as well...
Last edited:
Go pull the court transcript before you assume what happened in court and what the judge asked and what evidence I showed.
The judge literally found "false advertising" and "breech of warranty" on my judgement as the rationale. Not "default."
The judge did find my claims "accurate and true" because I provided evidence. It's not may fault, nor is it any proof my evidence was not sufficient, just because Tesla ignored their civic and corporate duty and didn't even try and defend.
This is EXACTLY what Tesla wants people to think- because they didn't show, it means you can't assume anything about the evidence or precedent. When it's equally likely that they didn't show because the evidence I had was overwhelming and it was pointless to show.
None of this matters though. What matters is that people can go sue Tesla for a variety of things in small claims, and there is a good chance they will win. More people should, instead of just complaining online. I was told online that if I ever did go to court, Tesla's lawyers would show up and crush me and it would be dismissed by a Judge that laughed me out of court. Yet zero of that happened. The exact reverse happened.
Last edited:
I bought my Model X in 2017, with HW2.0. My wife bought in 2019 a Model 3 with HW2.5. We bought both with 'FSD', and both cars got a free upgrade to HW3.0.
No. Your car didn't come with all hardware necessary for FSD, since you didn't buy FSD. It seems you wanted to add the FSD subscription once it became available, and yes, in that scenario Tesla's policy is to ask you $1000 for the upgrade, since you would be free to cancel the FSD subscription after one month, and gain a free hardware upgrade on Tesla's expense afterwards.
They didn't show up, which obviously makes it easier for you to represent the circumstances in your favour. The judge never heard the other party's arguments.
That's possible. I know of a case in the Netherlands where someone wasn't happy with the capabilities of FSD and wanted to have the sale of the complete car annulled. Obviously that isn't small claims, Tesla did show up and they lost. But another case in Germany, Tesla showed up and Tesla lost, having to refund the car.
The advertisement on Tesla's site on the day I bought the car:
Not "All cars that buy FSD." ALL CARS produced in their factory. My car was produced in their factory. It does not have the HW needed for FSD. End of story.
Yep, which I should be able to do because "All Tesla vehicles produced in our factory have the hardware needed for full self-driving capability." It's not my fault that Tesla offers a 1 month subscription with no minimum period, but it's also irrelevant as there are features tied to HW3 that you get even without FSD. Tesla's policy is irrelevant because it goes against their initial advertising used to sell the car originally. And the judge agreed.
@gearchruncher
No need to explain yourself. You won THOUSANDS from Tesla as ordered by a court of law. Tesla lost.
You..WON. Let the haters (attempt) to hate.
And more importantly, you opted to share the details of your hard work, and your victory here for others, to leverage as appropriate if they choose to fight false advertising/misrepresentation.
A true selfless act.
THANK YOU
(I hope there is nothing in this post that “requires” moderator editing)
No need to explain yourself. You won THOUSANDS from Tesla as ordered by a court of law. Tesla lost.
You..WON. Let the haters (attempt) to hate.
And more importantly, you opted to share the details of your hard work, and your victory here for others, to leverage as appropriate if they choose to fight false advertising/misrepresentation.
A true selfless act.
THANK YOU
(I hope there is nothing in this post that “requires” moderator editing)
Similar threads
