Lawfirm seeking for class action participants

[Canuck]

Certifying the class won't be an issue

I agree that the court certifies the class, but that won't be hard.

It wld pass that standard. But even if it is filed it won't go anywhere.

How can you all claim it will be certified? Anyone can sue Tesla if they want but to have a federal class action certified requires you to meet certain tests. In my view, it would fail on the first part of test in that the class has to have enough members that simply adding each of them as a named party to the lawsuit would be impractical.[8] That requirement usually requires the class to have hundreds of members. Do you all really think this potential class action will get hundreds of members? I highly doubt it. And that's only the first part of the test.

 

[oktane]

Anyone with an AP2 Tesla can be part of the class. If this thing gets settled on behalf of the class, I assume those of you on your high horse will refuse your refund checks because you weren't deceived?

I'm still waiting for the AP2 on my car to be more than just a cool gimmick. Tesla should pay me to be a beta tester not the other way around.

 

[bhzmark]

How can you all claim it will be certified? Anyone can sue Tesla if they want but to have a federal class action certified requires you to meet certain tests. In my view, it would fail on the first part of test in that the class has to have enough members that simply adding each of them as a named party to the lawsuit would be impractical.[8] That requirement usually requires the class to have hundreds of members. Do you all really think this potential class action will get hundreds of members? I highly doubt it. And that's only the first part of the test.

I only meant that it would pass the frivilious standard -- Rule 11.

I agree it is unlikely to get a class certified.

I predict it won't even get filed. I note that it isn't even listed on their website as an active investigation in their list of filed and threatening-to-file matters.

Another explanation is that an atty at the law firm used their VW winnings to get an AP2 and just wanted to light a fire under Tesla to get the updates out. That explanation is most consistent with the facts and the law and assuming smart lawyers.

 

[systemcrashed]

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!

You would need evidence that this "deceptive thought" process/plan took place on behalf of Tesla to be successful. I personally do not believe this was the case.

 

[disagree]

You would need evidence that this "deceptive thought" process/plan took place on behalf of Tesla to be successful. I personally do not believe this was the case.

That's what discovery is for. If nothing comes up there, then I think the suit would likely get tossed. But....

.... apparently someone who is not on good terms with Tesla has a lot of info. I'm sure the Anti-Lawyer brigade is up in arms about Tesla suing Anderson, but I can't seem to find that thread.

 

[bonnie]

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.

There seems to be a misconception among several forum members that 'validation' is just some step. (Not specifically pointing at your post.)

(Disclaimer before any terminology corrections - we all come from different industries. I'm mostly regulated medical device. I'm using the terminology in my field. But whatever the terminology, the steps are the same. So asking we don't get stuck in a terminology discussion . )

Software validation is a subset of design verification - it is the first step of testing an engineering product. Requirements are established early on for the product - software validation means that those requirements have been tested to ensure the finished code does what it is supposed to do. While it is rare to be caught off-guard and have a test fail at this point (most engineers are running tests on their work prior to submitting for validation), it happens. Code from different engineers is interacting and the final software may fail a validation test. If that's the case, then the failure would be fixed and depending on how embedded in the code the specific module might be, one or more test cases will need to be rerun.

System validation is completed after software validation successfully passes. It's similar to software validation - but now the validated software is interacting with previously verified hardware - and new possibilities for failure exist. Again, if there is a failure, it will need to be fixed. And steps will be repeated.

Validation is not just a step, it's the testing designed to uncover failures before product is released. It's not unusual for a failure to be uncovered - and then it needs to be fixed. And then timeline is impacted. "Release expected in December pending validation" is perfectly reasonable in that context.

I'm not saying this is what happened here, but when I saw that statement before placing my order mid-December, I expected a much later release and would have been pleasantly surprised (and happy for the team) had it been released on that timeline. As it stands, I suspect they were all working over the holidays to fix whatever failed validation.

I spent yesterday driving on 17.11.10 and was impressed over some of the questionable circumstances it handled. Kudos to the team for the strides made in recent months. Can't wait for the next iteration .

 

[disagree]

There seems to be a misconception among several forum members that 'validation' is just some step. (Not specifically pointing at your post.)

(Disclaimer before any terminology corrections - we all come from different industries. I'm mostly regulated medical device. I'm using the terminology in my field. But whatever the terminology, the steps are the same. So asking we don't get stuck in a terminology discussion . )

Software validation is a subset of design verification - it is the first step of testing an engineering product. Requirements are established early on for the product - software validation means that those requirements have been tested to ensure the finished code does what it is supposed to do. While it is rare to be caught off-guard and have a test fail at this point (most engineers are running tests on their work prior to submitting for validation), it happens. Code from different engineers is interacting and the final software may fail a validation test. If that's the case, then the failure would be fixed and depending on how embedded in the code the specific module might be, one or more test cases will need to be rerun.

System validation is completed after software validation successfully passes. It's similar to software validation - but now the validated software is interacting with previously verified hardware - and new possibilities for failure exist. Again, if there is a failure, it will need to be fixed. And steps will be repeated.

Validation is not just a step, it's the testing designed to uncover failures before product is released. It's not unusual for a failure to be uncovered - and then it needs to be fixed. And then timeline is impacted. "Release expected in December pending validation" is perfectly reasonable in that context.

I'm not saying this is what happened here, but when I saw that statement before placing my order mid-December, I expected a much later release and would have been pleasantly surprised (and happy for the team) had it been released on that timeline. As it stands, I suspect they were all working over the holidays to fix whatever failed validation.

I spent yesterday driving on 17.11.10 and was impressed over some of the questionable circumstances it handled. Kudos to the team for the strides made in recent months. Can't wait for the next iteration .

No doubt validation is substantial. But that's part of the complaint. Given the substantial failures and distance still from AP1 (six months post announcement) there was no scenario under which there could have been an expectation that the EAP software could be validated in December.

But that's not what they told their customers.

 

[bonnie]

No doubt validation is substantial. But that's part of the complaint. Given the substantial failures and distance still from AP1 (six months post announcement) there was no scenario under which there could have been an expectation that the EAP software could be validated in December.

But that's not what they told their customers.

We will have to disagree @disagree.

 

[oktane]

Care to explain how Tesla showed a video of a car fully-self driving October 2016 when my car April 2017 can't even back out of a garage? You don't think that is deceptive?

 

[bonnie]

Care to explain how Tesla showed a video of a car fully-self driving October 2016 when my car April 2017 can't even back out of a garage? You don't think that is deceptive?

When making your purchase decision, how did you reconcile an edited and controlled video with the explicit knowledge that the software was not yet validated?

In fairness, I get that a lot of people didn't understand how validation could impact a timeline. But if I see a disclaimer like that and I don't know what it means, I ask.

If I were buying a house and I was told it was expected to be completed in December, pending delivery of roofing tiles - you bet I'd be asking for further information.

 

[disagree]

When making your purchase decision, how did you reconcile an edited and controlled video with the explicit knowledge that the software was not yet validated?

In fairness, I get that a lot of people didn't understand how validation could impact a timeline. But if I see a disclaimer like that and I don't know what it means, I ask.

If I were buying a house and I was told it was expected to be completed in December, pending delivery of roofing tiles - you bet I'd be asking for further information.

You're an informed consumer, no doubt.

But Tesla employees were telling people that EAP was coming and almost done and you'd have it "this week" -- as was the CEO. That was our answer to our question about what it meant. There is no requirement that purchasers be familiar with technical lingo. And if technical lingo is being used, but not defined as such, then it is being used equivocally -- which is an element of deception.

But anyway, we've agreed to disagree!

 

[Mark Z]

After seeing the NVIDIA AI computer technology at the Consumer Electronics Show in 2016 and 2017, I have looked forward to Tesla using their technology. Delivered last month, I upgraded to a MS 90D to enjoy the future as it is created. It takes time and deep learning for autonomous driving to be perfected. Enjoy reading this news from NVIDIA and their video: NVIDIA and Bosch Announce AI Self-Driving Car Computer | NVIDIA Blog

Hardware will always be improving, so a camera that scans the driver may be a future standard of excellence until total autonomous driving is available. IMHO, each car manufacturer will be challenged to add hardware as needed. AP1 and AP2 are just the beginning of an exciting journey like 10 years ago when we experienced the first generation of Apple iPhone. Thankfully, the Tesla drivers will get improved software over time, unlike most car companies who would want you to purchase next years model and won't upgrade the software at all.

 

[bonnie]

You're an informed consumer, no doubt.

But Tesla employees were telling people that EAP was coming and almost done and you'd have it "this week" -- as was the CEO. That was our answer to our question about what it meant. There is no requirement that purchasers be familiar with technical lingo. And if technical lingo is being used, but not defined as such, then it is being used equivocally -- which is an element of deception.

But anyway, we've agreed to disagree!

Well at least we agree on the disagree part .

Don't get me wrong, I wish Tesla hadn't created this particular issue by using engineering language. But my point is that when making any purchase, if there is a disclaimer attached to a date (whether or not you understand what that disclaimer means), then the date is at risk.

 

[disagree]

Well at least we agree on the disagree part .

Don't get me wrong, I wish Tesla hadn't created this particular issue by using engineering language. But my point is that when making any purchase, if there is a disclaimer attached to a date (whether or not you understand what that disclaimer means), then the date is at risk.

Agreed?

We all know that expectations are not guarantees. But at the same time we all know that expectations are not merely wishes.

 

[systemcrashed]

Care to explain how Tesla showed a video of a car fully-self driving October 2016 when my car April 2017 can't even back out of a garage? You don't think that is deceptive?

You must be joking? Your car WILL be able to do the same thing the "Prototype" test car did in that video. As was stated in the press release, there are several technical as well as regulatory hurdles that needed to be passed before you can have it. I think the video is evidence AGAINST deception. You can also be sure it will be done BEFORE any other major Automobile manufacturer.

 

[oktane]

Definitely NOT joking. The car was not a prototype. Tesla used hundreds or "retakes" and pieced together a video to make it appear the car was capable of FSD.

Tesla stated software validation was expected to be COMPLETED by December 2016. In order for testing to be completed, the software has to be written by December in the first place, which it was not.

Tesla knew it would be impossible to deliver on their promise because they didn't even have the 300 million mile data they later admitted would be necessary to improve the "neural network."

Is it ethical to get buyers to test drive AP1 cars and not disclose that NONE of the AP1 technology will be included in AP2 cars, and that AP2 won't work at the same level of AP1 for several months, if ever, since AP1 took 10 years to develop?

I'm sorry to say it, but Tesla frequently lies to sell cars. Look what they are doing now with the performance cars - decreasing the power you get when you step on the gas pedal and making it ONLY available using some silly launch mode. Is it acceptable to test drive a 911 Turbo S, purchase the car, and then a few months after delivery they software limit your car by 100 HP?

Pack Performance and Launch Mode Limits

 

[bonnie]

Definitely NOT joking. The car was not a prototype. Tesla used hundreds or "retakes" and pieced together a video to make it appear the car was capable of FSD.

Tesla stated software validation was expected to be COMPLETED by December 2016. In order for testing to be completed, the software has to be written by December in the first place, which it was not.

Tesla knew it would be impossible to deliver on their promise because they didn't even have the 300 million mile data they later admitted would be necessary to improve the "neural network."

Is it ethical to get buyers to test drive AP1 cars and not disclose that NONE of the AP1 technology will be included in AP2 cars, and that AP2 won't work at the same level of AP1 for several months, if ever, since AP1 took 10 years to develop?

I'm sorry to say it, but Tesla frequently lies to sell cars. Look what they are doing now with the performance cars - decreasing the power you get when you step on the gas pedal and making it ONLY available using some silly launch mode. Is it acceptable to test drive a 911 Turbo S, purchase the car, and then a few months after delivery they software limit your car by 100 HP?

Pack Performance and Launch Mode Limits

So much here I disagree with. Read no further. Just hit the 'disagree' button again for my post for daring to have an opinion different from yours. It's okay .

"they software limit your car by 100 HP," preceded by "making it ONLY available using some silly launch mode". So which is it? Available or not available? They also limit the power available to me when I choose Range mode, to help stretch range out. Launch mode is available. I don't see the issue, unless you're just trying to find things to fault them for.

"Tesla stated software validation was expected to be COMPLETED by December 2016". Let me fix your formatting for you. Let's try this: Tesla stated software validation was EXPECTED to be completed by December 2016. See what I did there? Totally changes it from a promise to an expectation made at that point in time.

"AP1 took 10 years to develop." Nope. The obvious overstated drama made by this statement is just a bit much to let go by without comment. AP was first announced Oct 2014. And somehow I doubt they were working on AP software 7 years prior to that - the first Model S wasn't even delivered until June 2012. Hardly '10 years'. Heck, less than 5 years ago, we didn't even know the Supercharger network was coming. As far as you stating that the software wasn't completed by Dec, you don't know that. You're guessing. There could have been a software candidate going into validation & there were some failures - necessitating bug fixes and then repeat validation.​

The rest of it - car was not a prototype, that AP2 buyers did not know it wasn't at parity with AP1 when making the purchase, implying the amount of data to improve a neural network is required to release a product, etc. Really?

 

[McRat]

Definitely NOT joking. The car was not a prototype. Tesla used hundreds or "retakes" and pieced together a video to make it appear the car was capable of FSD.

Tesla stated software validation was expected to be COMPLETED by December 2016. In order for testing to be completed, the software has to be written by December in the first place, which it was not.

Tesla knew it would be impossible to deliver on their promise because they didn't even have the 300 million mile data they later admitted would be necessary to improve the "neural network."

Is it ethical to get buyers to test drive AP1 cars and not disclose that NONE of the AP1 technology will be included in AP2 cars, and that AP2 won't work at the same level of AP1 for several months, if ever, since AP1 took 10 years to develop?

I'm sorry to say it, but Tesla frequently lies to sell cars. Look what they are doing now with the performance cars - decreasing the power you get when you step on the gas pedal and making it ONLY available using some silly launch mode. Is it acceptable to test drive a 911 Turbo S, purchase the car, and then a few months after delivery they software limit your car by 100 HP?

Pack Performance and Launch Mode Limits

Porsche might not reduce peak HP in ALL OFF mode, but they do not approve of you using full horsepower either, at least using it safely such as on a closed course:

"Under a heading of "This Warranty Does Not Cover," Porsche's warranty states: "Abuse, accident, acts of God, competition, racing, track use, or other events. Note 1: Components and or parts that fail during racing or driving events (including Porsche sponsored events) may not be covered by the new car Limited Warranty." This seems a bit hypocritical for an automaker that just built a track at its new Atlanta headquarters and another one in Los Angeles."

Is your new-car warranty good at the race track?

Most mfrs deal with it in the same way. Sell it as a track car, but 'you breaky you fixy' even bone stock on OEM tires.

note that Chevy has been covering track use for a long time now. I have had 3 warranty claims repaired due to track use with Chevrolet and Cadillac's full knowledge of how I used the cars.

 

[oktane]

So much here I disagree with. Read no further. Just hit the 'disagree' button again for my post for daring to have an opinion different from yours. It's okay .

"they software limit your car by 100 HP," preceded by "making it ONLY available using some silly launch mode". So which is it? Available or not available? They also limit the power available to me when I choose Range mode, to help stretch range out. Launch mode is available. I don't see the issue, unless you're just trying to find things to fault them for.

"Tesla stated software validation was expected to be COMPLETED by December 2016". Let me fix your formatting for you. Let's try this: Tesla stated software validation was EXPECTED to be completed by December 2016. See what I did there? Totally changes it from a promise to an expectation made at that point in time.

"AP1 took 10 years to develop." Nope. The obvious overstated drama made by this statement is just a bit much to let go by without comment. AP was first announced Oct 2014. And somehow I doubt they were working on AP software 7 years prior to that - the first Model S wasn't even delivered until June 2012. Hardly '10 years'. Heck, less than 5 years ago, we didn't even know the Supercharger network was coming. As far as you stating that the software wasn't completed by Dec, you don't know that. You're guessing. There could have been a software candidate going into validation & there were some failures - necessitating bug fixes and then repeat validation.​

The rest of it - car was not a prototype, that AP2 buyers did not know it wasn't at parity with AP1 when making the purchase, implying the amount of data to improve a neural network is required to release a product, etc. Really?

You don't see the issue of limiting peak performance at the accelerator pedal? Can I enable launch mode when I'm trying to pass someone on the highway? Do I always want to do some tricky launch mode maneuver every time I want to accelerate quickly? Performance that I could access 100% of the time is now being limited to use , 1% of the time. This performance is what was used to lure me into buying the car, but now it is being restricted AFTER MY CAR WAS PURCHASED. It's bait and switch to protect against warranty claims. The honest thing to do is not mess with the car firmware, and suck it up on battery replacements.

Expected is a transitive verb:
a : to consider probable or certain expect to be forgiven expect that things will improve

You can't "expect" something to be probable or certain to COMPLETE VALIDATION when the software isn't even written yet. How can you consider it probable or certain to complete validation by December, when you haven't even started?

What Tesla should have said: "We don't know when AP2 features will be working, but we will start development December 2016. You can chose to be a beta tester at your own risk and pay us for the privilege."

My understanding is Mobileye worked on AP1 hardware for 10 years. You know the timeline better than I do, however.

 

[Electroman]

My understanding is Mobileye worked on AP1 hardware for 10 years

and so has Nvidia for some time now on the hardware..