Lawfirm seeking for class action participants

[disagree]

Unbelievable, he/she doesn't even have an AP2 car yet he is calling the lawsuit frivolous?! LOL! Not sure how I missed that important detail. It's easy to be unsympathetic when the problem doesn't effect you.

I think they generally are affected. There is an obvious pattern to the post-bombing by people who want to excuse Tesla from accountability: longtime fans of the brand, AP1 owners, TSLA investors, and people who welcome abusive relationships. There is an identity or fiscal relationship with the brand that would be impacted by a successful suit. Thus the rabid, defensive posturing. It's perfectly understandable, but nonetheless disheartening.

 

[hill]

Did you order a HW2 car in October 2016?

nope .... 1st week of November? Yep

 

[bonnie]

I think they generally are affected. There is an obvious pattern to the post-bombing by people who want to excuse Tesla from accountability: longtime fans of the brand, AP1 owners, TSLA investors, and people who welcome abusive relationships. There is an identity or fiscal relationship with the brand that would be impacted by a successful suit. Thus the rabid, defensive posturing. It's perfectly understandable, but nonetheless disheartening.

Aww c'mon. Let's not twist things around to fit a story line. So as to your assumptions of those who don't think a lawsuit of this type would have merit ...

√ - Fan of the brand, yes. (Based on six years of interaction with them.) Blindly follow? You haven't seen some of the emails I've sent.
X - AP1 owner. Nope, I have AP2. Ordered mid-December 2016. Zero regrets.
√ - Investor, yep. I invested because I was so impressed with the product and the people. So I went in big. I've never regretted that.
X - Person who welcomes abusive relationships: Nope. You must be new here. ​

I'm not particularly worried over the impact of a lawsuit. When you buy in just under $30/share, it's kind of irrelevant.

 

[disagree]

Aww c'mon. Let's not twist things around to fit a story line. So as to your assumptions of those who don't think a lawsuit of this type would have merit ...

√ - Fan of the brand, yes. (Based on six years of interaction with them.) Blindly follow? You haven't seen some of the emails I've sent.
X - AP1 owner. Nope, I have AP2. Ordered mid-December 2016. Zero regrets.
√ - Investor, yep. I invested because I was so impressed with the product and the people. So I went in big. I've never regretted that.
X - Person who welcomes abusive relationships: Nope. You must be new here. ​

I'm not particularly worried over the impact of a lawsuit. When you buy in just under $30/share, it's kind of irrelevant.

I'll remind you that we've agreed to disagree!

 

[systemcrashed]

@disagree It is safe to say you will continue to disagree with everyone and everything, Which on its face, diminishes your argument "For the most part" No?

 

[hill]

VW, Toyota/Lexus, GM, Ford, Hyundai, Mitzu, Nissan et al, have all been successfully sued, or settled out, for their various issues. Stuff happens - negligently and/or volitionally. In a perfect world Tesla products would be different. Already tesla has settled out with at least one northern european country's owners iirc (not AP2) - so rather than speculate, it would be best just to wait & see. These thoughts, from an owner of both post September 2016 S & X orders, both purchased after being told by sales critters (not just omitted) that the safety features would be up & running (no mention of maybe still running flaky) 'soon'. Objectively, ½ year & more is not soon - regardless of whether you either purchase or leased. If AP2 was running within 2 months? ... 3 months? Maybe that's tantamount to being timely. In our case, one of our Teslas was purchased & one was leased. So with that being the case, one could say we have a dog in the fight. Still - we'll just wait & see. Even if we were to rant about all this - it'd make little difference - other than to become one of several pariahs here. No thanks.

.

 

[oktane]

I'm not particularly worried over the impact of a lawsuit. When you buy in just under $30/share, it's kind of irrelevant.

I can tell you're a nice person. I appreciate you disclosing your conflict of interest, and congratulations on your portfolio. Never hurts to take some chips off the table....

 

[disagree]

Aww c'mon. Let's not twist things around to fit a story line. So as to your assumptions of those who don't think a lawsuit of this type would have merit ...

√ - Fan of the brand, yes. (Based on six years of interaction with them.) Blindly follow? You haven't seen some of the emails I've sent.
X - AP1 owner. Nope, I have AP2. Ordered mid-December 2016. Zero regrets.
√ - Investor, yep. I invested because I was so impressed with the product and the people. So I went in big. I've never regretted that.
X - Person who welcomes abusive relationships: Nope. You must be new here. ​

I'm not particularly worried over the impact of a lawsuit. When you buy in just under $30/share, it's kind of irrelevant.

This is exhausting. We are like never ever getting back together.

I can see that I could have been more clear with what I was saying. You seem to think I thought every naysayer met all 4 conditions, whereas I was actually thinking like this:

There are five senses: sight, smell, taste, touch, and hearing. Something is a sense by being one of those things.

There are four types of people crying, gnashing their teeth, rending their clothes, and beating their breasts about other people feeling defrauded: fans, owners of AP1, investors, and people who like abusive relationships (e.g. hillbilly elegy-types, if the concept of loving one's oppressor is too difficult for some to grasp). It was a taxonomic approach. Bonnie, that you meet two of these and think the lawsuit is merit-less? Well, it's proof in the pudding. It's not a refutation.

 

[bonnie]

This is exhausting. We are like never ever getting back together.

I can see that I could have been more clear with what I was saying. You seem to think I thought every naysayer met all 4 conditions, whereas I was actually thinking like this:

There are five senses: sight, smell, taste, touch, and hearing. Something is a sense by being one of those things.

There are four types of people crying, gnashing their teeth, rending their clothes, and beating their breasts about other people feeling defrauded: fans, owners of AP1, investors, and people who like abusive relationships (e.g. hillbilly elegy-types, if the concept of loving one's oppressor is too difficult for some to grasp). It was a taxonomic approach. Bonnie, that you meet two of these and think the lawsuit is merit-less? Well, it's proof in the pudding. It's not a refutation.

Thank god we've agreed to disagree.

 

[NikeWings]

 

[Shateam]

Is this a first for EAP? Definitely not helpful...

Hagens Berman: Tesla Owners Hit Automaker with Class-Action Lawsuit for Nonfunctional Autopilot and Missing Standard Safety Features

 

[lunitiks]

You can read the whole complaint in here
A few Tesla owners filed a class-action lawsuit over the rollout of Tesla Autopilot 2.0 [Updated]

 

[Tangible]

The Electrek article is wrong or misleading on several points:

References to the suit being by "a few" Tesla owners shows a misunderstanding of the Class Action process. Even in classes with millions of members there are always just a few "named plaintiffs" with which the process begins.

Electrek quotes the current Web description of EAP on Tesla's site, without noting that the description was radically different when the subject vehicles were sold. Both versions are quoted earlier in this thread.

On the other hand, the law firm's description of the alleged problem shows it is confused about the difference between EAP and full self-driving. The latter was always portrayed by Tesla as having unknown delivery dates and capabilities. Hopefully the actual suit, which I haven't read, gets it right.

 

[googlepeakoil]

I don't think they would win, but that would be a nice warning to Tesla. You cannot just make assumptions and charge premium prices for a feature that doesn't exist. They use regulatory approval as an excuse.
For someone leasing the car, this is a visible extra cost.

If the law firm is looking for a case that they can win, I'd suggest them to look at P85D HP claims and P90D quarter mile times and power reductions. They can start reading here: Pack Performance and Launch Mode Limits

Or maybe dishonest battery capacities? Tesla Motors: PLEASE stop lying about specifications (60 to 75 upgrade)

I'd add - launching AP2 hardware that's below the capability of AP1 hardware - and it being behind for 9-15 months (i'm not clear on the details myself as I don't have a Tesla yet). There was the promise it would eventually overtake AP1.
Also were the people with AP1 told BTW your version of the hardware is never going to be good enough for self-driving as we don't have enough cameras and the side sensors dont have sufficient range (they apparently have double the range in AP2). Was AP1 over-promised when Tesla knew AP2 was going to be required? Is AP1 advancements still going to happen?

 

[bhzmark]

This is a good story from the complaint:

New Jersey Plaintiff Tom Milone. When starting to shop for a new vehicle Plaintiff Milone watched the Tesla video online that many of Tom’s friends were talking about. It showed a Tesla Model S that can drive itself and is still on the Tesla website. Tom understood the video to explain that a driver was just in the vehicle for legal purposes and that this vehicle could drive anyone from point A to B and even let the occupants out and go park itself. The website even mentioned that using a self-driving Tesla for car sharing and ride hailing for friends and family would be fine and details on the ride sharing would be released next year. Tom was amazed at the video and noticed that all literature he had seen said that these features would be released December 2016. Having a sick mother-in-law that always needed to be picked up and brought to doctor appointments, food stores, etc., Tom thought he would have great use of this full self-driving system.​

Too bad for Tom Milone in NJ -- being stupid doesn't give you cause of action.

The Electrek article is wrong or misleading on several points:

References to the suit being by "a few" Tesla owners shows a misunderstanding of the Class Action process. Even in classes with millions of members there are always just a few "named plaintiffs" with which the process begins.

It is perfectly accurate to state, what is true, that "a few," in case three, Tesla owners are suing. That their lawyers claim that they meet the class action certification requirements, and indeed even if they were certified, doesn't mean that the lawsuit is by any more than the named plaintiffs.

Tesla really needs to recognize that their consumer base is expanding, and now includes more people with limited reading comprehension, with no attention to detail, and they see wrongs and complaints everywhere they look.

And some plaintiffs lawyers, instead of focusing exclusively on trying to protect consumers from real significant physical and monetary harms, will simply harass businesses where they think that they extort a payout. I wasn't in favor of tort reform much until this lawsuit was filed. This clearly shows that the incentives in the tort system need significant reform.

Meanwhile, the complaint is full of lies and obvious deliberate misrepresentations suggesting a real lack of ethics. Let's see if Steve Berman doesn't eventually go the way of other plaintiffs attys who get to greedy in targeting defendants like Bill Lerach Leading Class-Action Lawyer Is Sentenced to Two Years in Kickback Scheme

 

[BestRadar]

I think it really comes down to promised safety features: Tesla sold the car with Safety Features advertised as available in December 2016 and then later changed their wording months later after they did not deliver most items.

 

[googlepeakoil]

We purchased our S 100D last week - in Texas.

The only reference to EAP or FSD in our Purchase Agreement is the line items on the vehicle configuration page, showing we paid $8K for those two items.

Otherwise, there isn't another reference to EAP or FSD in the rest of the agreement. The agreement does have the typical boilerplate term that states the Purchase Agreement is the only legally binding agreement we have with Tesla, and that any other documents or representations are superseded by the agreement.

Any discussion of EAP/FSD details was only in writing on the Tesla website - which is not part of the Purchase Agreement.

What's surprising is that Tesla didn't put in any terms related to EAP or FSD - even something basic like "The purchased vehicle configuration contains options that are not currently available, and if Tesla is unable to deliver those options, the customer will be entitled only to a refund of the purchase price for those options. For options available for purchase with this vehicle, but not selected in the configuration, Tesla does not guarantee those options will be available for future purchase or what the upgrade price may be for purchasing the options."

Even with the uncertainty of EAP/FSD, we chose to place our bets on Tesla - and that they'll eventually figure this out.

Ok, one question. Given recent price changes for "Tesla flick a switch software changes" with high prices attached - will you feel a bit miffed if (like the circa $9000 upgrade from a S60 -> S75) if, in 5 years (and at the same time as it is finally ok'd technically and legally) that they reduce that "after sale price" to only $2000 for the upgrade?

 

[googlepeakoil]

As a late 2016 buyer I was greatly influenced by the statement that EAP was expected to "complete validation" in December, just a few weeks after I committed to the purchase. I inferred from that that all the prerequisite steps - designing the system, writing the code, unit and system test - had already been completed, leaving only "validation", whatever that may be.

Was that said explicitly? No. Was it a reasonable inference? I believe yes.

Before attacking my reading comprehension skills, as seems to be fashionable here, imagine this husband-wife dialog:

-------------------

"Honey, we're going to be late for the show!"

"Stop worrying , I'll be down as soon as I get my earrings on!"

Ah, he thinks to himself. Putting on the earrings is the last thing she does. We'll be on our way in a minute.

Hah, she thinks to herself, rising from the bed. It's a good thing he didn't ask if I've showered, dressed, and done my makeup!

-----------------------

Apologies for the gender stereotyped role play; it was the first thing that came to mind.

My point is: I relied on Tesla to describe the situation accurately before requiring me to commit, rather than use language whose effect, and possibly intent, was to create a false impression about the actual status of these future deliverables.

I like the analogy. I've always thought AP was far from perfect. Elon thought it could be roled out when it was safer than the average car. But really it needs to be close to flawless - otherwise you open yourself to criticism in that one in a million case when a child is dressed in fancy dress as a cow and the car thinks its ok to hit it rather than take aversive action - or a stop sign has graffiti on it and the car ignores it. Or the side of a lorry is so bright that it looks like the sky / an overhead cable. There will always be bad-bad scenarios where there might be 2 obstacles in the way and collision with something is inevitable. And bad publicity follows lawsuits. And asking people to pay $9000 for something that might be 5 years away (technically and legally) is a bit much. Oh, and then when it finally comes along the company changes it's mind and discounts it to $2000 a few month later (the S60-S75 extreme discount has set a precedent imho).

 

[googlepeakoil]

I'm curious if anyone saw the 2h30m video of Tesla at the last investment meeting saying. "LOL back when we started Tesla we hardly knew what we were doing, how hard things would be, to transform a Elise into a Tesla, to bring a car to market - wow, what fools we were... etc." ie. a LOT of self-deprication.
Now transfer that to Elon talking about how "easy" it is to bring full AP to market - promises of this long list by Dec2016, cross-country driving by X, full use of 8 cameras and radar by X... and well you might want to read all promises about how soon AP2 will reach level 4,5 with a shipping container of salt.
I believe Tesla will be on time with Model 3 (as a simple car). But IMHO it's going to be soooooooooo late with those Dec2016 targets, and 5 years to AP level 4 on all roads. Given what other car companies are doing (today's Electrek article and last weeks about most companies being ahead of it) it also doesn't seem to be even ahead of the competition in AP.

 

[oktane]

It's not called being stupid when the plaintiff believed exactly what a multibillion dollar company scammed him into believing. It's called fraud and there is no doubt that many other Tesla owners will agree with this plaintiff, including me. Tesla needs to seriously reevaluate its marketing practices and refund customers if they wish.

The bad part is that the law firm will make tens of millions of dollars and customers will receive next to nothing and Tesla will pay through the nose. Would have been better for customers and for Tesla for Tesla to simply help the customers directly who are effected by this. This lesson should be part of a business class called United Airlines 101.

Not sure how reading comprehension is involved in watching a fake self driving video without any written disclaimers. Amazing that you fail to see how Tesla has caused customers monetary harm.

My recollection is that you don't have an AP2 car regardless so this should not effect you.

This is a good story from the complaint:

New Jersey Plaintiff Tom Milone. When starting to shop for a new vehicle Plaintiff Milone watched the Tesla video online that many of Tom’s friends were talking about. It showed a Tesla Model S that can drive itself and is still on the Tesla website. Tom understood the video to explain that a driver was just in the vehicle for legal purposes and that this vehicle could drive anyone from point A to B and even let the occupants out and go park itself. The website even mentioned that using a self-driving Tesla for car sharing and ride hailing for friends and family would be fine and details on the ride sharing would be released next year. Tom was amazed at the video and noticed that all literature he had seen said that these features would be released December 2016. Having a sick mother-in-law that always needed to be picked up and brought to doctor appointments, food stores, etc., Tom thought he would have great use of this full self-driving system.​

Too bad for Tom Milone in NJ -- being stupid doesn't give you cause of action.



It is perfectly accurate to state, what is true, that "a few," in case three, Tesla owners are suing. That their lawyers claim that they meet the class action certification requirements, and indeed even if they were certified, doesn't mean that the lawsuit is by any more than the named plaintiffs.

Tesla really needs to recognize that their consumer base is expanding, and now includes more people with limited reading comprehension, with no attention to detail, and they see wrongs and complaints everywhere they look.

And some plaintiffs lawyers, instead of focusing exclusively on trying to protect consumers from real significant physical and monetary harms, will simply harass businesses where they think that they extort a payout. I wasn't in favor of tort reform much until this lawsuit was filed. This clearly shows that the incentives in the tort system need significant reform.

Meanwhile, the complaint is full of lies and obvious deliberate misrepresentations suggesting a real lack of ethics. Let's see if Steve Berman doesn't eventually go the way of other plaintiffs attys who get to greedy in targeting defendants like Bill Lerach Leading Class-Action Lawyer Is Sentenced to Two Years in Kickback Scheme