How to sue Tesla over historical claims

[seenhear]

Absolutely you have a case for small claims court. Anyone with a 2017 MCU1 car has a case, even if they didn't buy FSD, because they may want to subscribe to FSD (which was my case). But you actually have PAID for FSD.
I would make an appointment for the MCU2 upgrade. In your appointment request, specify you want it so you can run FSD-Supervised (note it's no longer considered "beta").
Once the quote comes for your approval, again request them to waive the cost since your car was sold to you with the promise that it included "all the necessary hardware for full self driving" which is obviously not true.
It may help to include screenshots of these claims/advertising from the Tesla website in the month or 2 ahead of when you bought the car. These can be found on the internet archive (aka "wayback machine").
When they refuse to comp you the upgrade, file for small claims per the OP instructions of this thread.

@pelargir - Alternatively, if you just want to get FSD asap, you could just pay for the MCU upgrade, then go to small claims after the fact. Either way should work. One could argue that the fact that FSD (presumably) got installed just days after the MCU upgrade could be further evidence to the claim that it is part of the "hardware required for full self driving" that was promised as included when you bought the car.

 

[gearchruncher]

@seenhear has given good advice here.
You have one more argument you can use- Elon tweeted that "all FSD capable cars will get a free FSD trial for a month." MCU1 cars did not get the free trial, only MCU2 cars. This seems like additional evidence that MCU1 cars are not "FSD Capable."

I'd give you 80% odds you'll win in court, and if you're willing to do the upgrade out of pocket and then show you got FSD a few days later, the argument that your car did not have all HW needed for FSD is that much stronger. You'll be able to ask Tesla why doing a hardware change in the car immediately led to getting FSD if the previous HW was actually FSD capable, and if they continue to argue that MCU1 was FSD capable, ask them how they define that term if it isn't based on actually having FSD on the car despite it being on literally millions of cars with a slightly different HW configuration.

 

[ComputerVison]

Could someone, OP, or otherwise, please share their court order with me, redacted name is OK. I'd like to include it with my small claims package as persuasive precedent.

 

[gearchruncher]

@ComputerVison - What claim basis are you working on? It's only precedent if you are claiming the same thing.

 

[ComputerVison]

@ComputerVison - What claim basis are you working on? It's only precedent if you are claiming the same thing.

Same as in OP, based on historical claims

 

[gearchruncher]

Same as in OP, based on historical claims

I am the OP.
You're going to need to be a lot more specific than "historical claims." Read my original post in detail, and then explain what your argument to the judge will be. You'll see for instance that I sued on two completely different basis.

 

[ComputerVison]

I am the OP.
You're going to need to be a lot more specific than "historical claims." Read my original post in detail, and then explain what your argument to the judge will be. You'll see for instance that I sued on two completely different basis.

Yes of course, I plan to fully flesh out the argument. Would you mind kindly PM'ing me your court order?

 

[gearchruncher]

Would you mind kindly PM'ing me your court order?

We all need to be in this together and help one another out, and you explaining your position would help everyone. Write out your argument to the court and then I'll give you whichever of my "court orders" is most relevant to your case.

I'm also pretty confused how a judgement from a county court in Washington will help you at all in Canada. Beyond that, all it says is that the judge finds for me against Tesla for false advertising and breech of warranty, none of the details of the case are in the judgement.

 

[ComputerVison]

We all need to be in this together and help one another out, and you explaining your position would help everyone. Write out your argument to the court and then I'll give you whichever of my "court orders" is most relevant to your case.

I'm also pretty confused how a judgement from a county court in Washington will help you at all in Canada. Beyond that, all it says is that the judge finds for me against Tesla for false advertising and breech of warranty, none of the details of the case are in the judgement.

I'm not looking for an argument, I appreciate what you have already shared. American courts and Canadian courts share the common law owing to shared British heritage. A decision of a county court in Washington would not be a binding precedent upon a Canadian court; however, a Canadian court may consider the decision persuasive given the similar facts and similar laws.

I presume the judge's order elaborated the facts, their decision and rational, rather than providing a two sentence default judgement. If it is the latter, then the decision would not be helpful. If the former, then it will be immensely helpful.

 

[pelargir]

I successfully served Tesla last week and filed the proof with the clerk of court. This week, someone from Tesla Litigation contacted me via email and wants to talk over the phone. Did this happen to any of you? If so, what did you do and how did it turn out?

 

[gearchruncher]

This week, someone from Tesla Litigation contacted me via email and wants to talk over the phone. Did this happen to any of you? If so, what did you do and how did it turn out?

I have not heard of this before. Maybe Tesla is finally understanding that just ignoring these cases isn't going to go well long term. This must be the "hard core street fighter litigation team" Elon hired a year back

I'd personally take the call and at least see what they are wanting to know and offering. In general, court cases are not "gotcha" situations and the judges tend to look favorably on the parties trying to resolve it ahead of time, and negatively if you absolutely refuse to engage when the other party reaches out. Being honest with your claim with Tesla and seeing if they want to resolve it out of court is good. You don't have to tell them all the evidence you have, just see what they are offering, and get a sense of if they are trying to settle or are going to flight you to the end.

If you're willing to share, what claim are you suing over?

 

[pelargir]

I have not heard of this before. Maybe Tesla is finally understanding that just ignoring these cases isn't going to go well long term. This must be the "hard core street fighter litigation team" Elon hired a year back

<snip>

If you're willing to share, what claim are you suing over?

Thanks for the feedback. I plan on talking with him today.

I opened the case because we bought FSD shortly after we bought our MCU1 car in 2017 and it was sold to us under the assumption that "all hardware necessary for FSD" was already included with the car. We were told that buying the FSD package would "future-proof" the car and ensure we continue receiving regular software updates. Well, our "regular software updates" stopped in 2022.

Now that FSD is in wide release, I'm being told that we need to either (a) keep waiting an indefinite period of time for FSD for MCU1 to become available again, or (2) pay $2k to upgrade to MCU2, at which point I'll get FSD right away. The claim I'm making is that MCU2 is part of the "hardware necessary for FSD" and, barring them being able to give me a definite date on which FSD for MCU1 will be available, they owe me $2k so I can upgrade my car to get the FSD features which I was originally promised.

We missed getting MCU2 by 3 months (we bought in late 2017) and it appears most (if not all) MCU2 cars are now getting FSD.

Nobody at Tesla has been able to tell me when FSD for MCU1 will be available again. They just tell me to "keep waiting." Our car is 7 years old. Meanwhile, cars that were sold just 3 months after ours are getting the FSD for which they paid. How much longer do we have to wait?

That's the gist of it.

 

[seenhear]

I successfully served Tesla last week and filed the proof with the clerk of court. This week, someone from Tesla Litigation contacted me via email and wants to talk over the phone. Did this happen to any of you? If so, what did you do and how did it turn out?

WOW... that's really interesting that they responded and want to talk. Please keep us posted on how the conversation goes and what they ask/offer, if you can.

My car was also a late 2017 purchase - Built in Sept, sold to me in October. It was MCU1, but I got it upgraded without cost. We're not sure if that was a mistake on Tesla's part, or intentional. My story is here if you read my comments/posts in this thread. I was preparing (gathering evidence) to go the small-claims court route. They had agreed to upgrade the FSD computer to HW3, but not the MCU1 to MCU2. But when I picked up my car they had upgraded everything free of charge. And my claim wasn't even based on having purchased FSD! I was telling them that I simply wanted to try it out via subscription, and my car was supposed to have all the hardware per the advertising in 2016 and onward. I have since purchased FSD.

 

[gearchruncher]

The claim I'm making is that MCU2 is part of the "hardware necessary for FSD" and, barring them being able to give me a definite date on which FSD for MCU1 will be available, they owe me $2k so I can upgrade my car to get the FSD features which I was originally promised.

Sounds like a solid claim. Look forward to hearing what they propose when you talk to them.

 

[hybridbear]

Thanks for the feedback. I plan on talking with him today.

I opened the case because we bought FSD shortly after we bought our MCU1 car in 2017 and it was sold to us under the assumption that "all hardware necessary for FSD" was already included with the car. We were told that buying the FSD package would "future-proof" the car and ensure we continue receiving regular software updates. Well, our "regular software updates" stopped in 2022.

Now that FSD is in wide release, I'm being told that we need to either (a) keep waiting an indefinite period of time for FSD for MCU1 to become available again, or (2) pay $2k to upgrade to MCU2, at which point I'll get FSD right away. The claim I'm making is that MCU2 is part of the "hardware necessary for FSD" and, barring them being able to give me a definite date on which FSD for MCU1 will be available, they owe me $2k so I can upgrade my car to get the FSD features which I was originally promised.

We missed getting MCU2 by 3 months (we bought in late 2017) and it appears most (if not all) MCU2 cars are now getting FSD.

Nobody at Tesla has been able to tell me when FSD for MCU1 will be available again. They just tell me to "keep waiting." Our car is 7 years old. Meanwhile, cars that were sold just 3 months after ours are getting the FSD for which they paid. How much longer do we have to wait?

That's the gist of it.

What happened when you talked to the Tesla employee yesterday?

 

[pelargir]

I was shocked. They offered to settle for the cost of the upgrade plus the court fees if I dismiss the case. They sent over the paperwork today. The guy who I spoke with seemed very understanding of my situation and was not confrontational at all. He suggested I proceed with paying for the upgrade myself since that would ensure full warranty coverage on the new MCU, and they will mail me a check for the cost plus court fees.

The only question I have at this point is about the dismissal. They specifically requested the case be dismissed "with prejudice" which apparently means I can't open another case against them for the same thing. But I need to do some research to find out just how broad that restriction is. For example, if I buy a new Tesla and they pull something like this again (namely, make a promise that certain hardware is included and later renege on that promise) does that mean I can't open a case for the new Tesla? I would assume it doesn't, but I'm not sure.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

I was shocked. They offered to settle for the cost of the upgrade plus the court fees if I dismiss the case. They sent over the paperwork today. The guy who I spoke with seemed very understanding of my situation and was not confrontational at all. He suggested I proceed with paying for the upgrade myself since that would ensure full warranty coverage on the new MCU, and they will mail me a check for the cost plus court fees.

The only question I have at this point is about the dismissal. They specifically requested the case be dismissed "with prejudice" which apparently means I can't open another case against them for the same thing. But I need to do some research to find out just how broad that restriction is. For example, if I buy a new Tesla and they pull something like this again (namely, make a promise that certain hardware is included and later renege on that promise) does that mean I can't open a case for the new Tesla? I would assume it doesn't, but I'm not sure.

The hardcore legal team is finally at work and living up to Elon’s promise of not fighting battles when they are wrong. This is bullish for Tesla.

 

[JHCCAZ]

I was shocked. They offered to settle for the cost of the upgrade plus the court fees if I dismiss the case. They sent over the paperwork today. The guy who I spoke with seemed very understanding of my situation and was not confrontational at all. He suggested I proceed with paying for the upgrade myself since that would ensure full warranty coverage on the new MCU, and they will mail me a check for the cost plus court fees.

The only question I have at this point is about the dismissal. They specifically requested the case be dismissed "with prejudice" which apparently means I can't open another case against them for the same thing. But I need to do some research to find out just how broad that restriction is. For example, if I buy a new Tesla and they pull something like this again (namely, make a promise that certain hardware is included and later renege on that promise) does that mean I can't open a case for the new Tesla? I would assume it doesn't, but I'm not sure.

I think you're right to find out how broad that is, and perhaps you could renegotiate the prejudice provision if you don't agree. Sorry I can't give you any advice but there might be legal professionals here who know.

I thought they might ask you to keep it quiet and/or sign an NDA; it's interesting (and good) that they didn't try that.

 

[seenhear]

I was shocked. They offered to settle for the cost of the upgrade plus the court fees if I dismiss the case. They sent over the paperwork today. The guy who I spoke with seemed very understanding of my situation and was not confrontational at all. He suggested I proceed with paying for the upgrade myself since that would ensure full warranty coverage on the new MCU, and they will mail me a check for the cost plus court fees.

The only question I have at this point is about the dismissal. They specifically requested the case be dismissed "with prejudice" which apparently means I can't open another case against them for the same thing. But I need to do some research to find out just how broad that restriction is. For example, if I buy a new Tesla and they pull something like this again (namely, make a promise that certain hardware is included and later renege on that promise) does that mean I can't open a case for the new Tesla? I would assume it doesn't, but I'm not sure.

This is a fantastic development, for all of us! Congrats too.

I would enlist the services of an appropriate lawyer to review the documents/offer Tesla have put forth, so that you fully understand what you are signing. If the "prejudice" clause is unacceptable, send them a counter offer, that protects you for future Tesla purchase, but not this current car.

Add your legal fees to the settlement amount.

 

[JHCCAZ]

Add your legal fees to the settlement amount.

I thought one of the points of small claims court is that there are no attorneys involved. I'm not sure whether that includes a rule of no claims consideration for outside attorney legal fees, but it might(?)