Lawfirm seeking for class action participants

[TexLaw]

Man, this is the sort of thing that really gets under my skin for a few reasons. The major reason is that they are trying to sign up for a class action in something that's obviously an individual matter. What marketing was out there at the time of an order? Who relied on it? How much? I have very little doubt that some OAs out there misrepresented what EAP and FSD could and would do, whether because of enthusiasm, deception, mistake of information, or just a slip of the tongue. I also have very little doubt that very many customers heard "they might do this in the future" as "they absolutely will be able to do this right now or by the time you get your car."

It's a "he said, she said, who said, when said." In other words, it's a mess. It's a bloody mess, and that's why it really shouldn't be a class action.

However, it's a class action because people are going to sign up to get what they think is free money when what they really are doing is getting what will be a few hundred bucks for shoving a red hot poker up Tesla's tailpipe (huh?) in order to make some bridge trolls a hundred million dollars richer.

 

[BestRadar]

Man, this is the sort of thing that really gets under my skin for a few reasons. The major reason is that they are trying to sign up for a class action in something that's obviously an individual matter. What marketing was out there at the time of an order? Who relied on it? How much? I have very little doubt that some OAs out there misrepresented what EAP and FSD could and would do, whether because of enthusiasm, deception, mistake of information, or just a slip of the tongue. I also have very little doubt that very many customers heard "they might do this in the future" as "they absolutely will be able to do this right now or by the time you get your car."

It's a "he said, she said, who said, when said." In other words, it's a mess. It's a bloody mess, and that's why it really shouldn't be a class action.

However, it's a class action because people are going to sign up to get what they think is free money when what they really are doing is getting what will be a few hundred bucks for shoving a red hot poker up Tesla's tailpipe (huh?) in order to make some bridge trolls a hundred million dollars richer.

A buy back at full price would be the best outcome for many who would want that. If you look at their last suit Volkswagen had to spend $10B buying back cars because they lied about the vehicles emissions.

 

[stopcrazypp]

A buy back at full price would be the best outcome for many who would want that. If you look at their last suit Volkswagen had to spend $10B buying back cars because they lied about the vehicles emissions.

Well that is largely because the subject vehicles had no remedy that would allow them to be legally operated on public roads, so buyback was the only choice. The ones that did have a fix (the Gen 2 3.0Ls) did not get buybacks.

 

[182RG]

It was always obvious that AP is a work in progress

No, not "always obvious". December 2016 will come back to haunt them.

 

[182RG]

Where is "full self driving" currently permitted?

This is a very stupid class action. Worse, it's not ripe yet.

EAP is ripe, right now, based on the December 2016 wording.

FSD, not so much, but it will be.

 

[BestRadar]

Well that is largely because the subject vehicles had no remedy that would allow them to be legally operated on public roads, so buyback was the only choice. The ones that did have a fix (the Gen 2 3.0Ls) did not get buybacks.

Not entirely true. I had a friend that got his fixed and was given $6000 on top of the repair to compensate him.

 

[BestRadar]

On a different note I have been researching NVidia's progress and they are claiming it would take 2 Drive PX 2's to enable FSD while our vehicles only have one. This leads me to believe if FSD is ever achievable this would require new hardware. They sold the car as being hardware ready yet progress from the manufacture shows otherwise. At CES 2017 NvVidia also displayed a new car supercomputer named Xavier which is where there focus is at the moment.

 

[JohnSnowNW]

On a different note I have been researching NVidia's progress and they are claiming it would take 2 Drive PX 2's to enable FSD while our vehicles only have one. This leads me to believe if FSD is ever achievable this would require new hardware. They sold the car as being hardware ready yet progress from the manufacture shows otherwise. At CES 2017 NvVidia also displayed a new car supercomputer named Xavier which is where there focus is at the moment.

I don't think Nvidia's opinion is anymore relevant than Tesla's...

 

[mmd]

Tesla Autopilot 2 (AP2) Defect | Hagens Berman | National Class Action Litigation Firm based in Seattle, WA

Tesla Autopilot 2.0: law firm attempts class action lawsuit against Tesla over self-driving claims

Don't shoot the messenger!

Does anyone know how many owners have signed up so far?

Here is another one being promoted for a while. I don't know if it materialized, or if it is seeking class action status.
Tesla Autopilot Lawsuit | Tesla Autopilot Accident

 

[Shock-On-T]

No, not "always obvious". December 2016 will come back to haunt them.

This is in the purchase agreement, which every buy accepted:
"Tesla's Enhanced Autopilot software has begun rolling out and features will continue to be introduced as validation is completed, subject to regulatory approval."
Sounds a lot like a work in progress to me, and there are more than enough caveats in this to make the class action a hopeless cause.

 

[182RG]

This is in the purchase agreement, which every buy accepted:
"Tesla's Enhanced Autopilot software has begun rolling out and features will continue to be introduced as validation is completed, subject to regulatory approval."
Sounds a lot like a work in progress to me, and there are more than enough caveats in this to make the class action a hopeless cause.

Again, the wording into January 2017 was NOT this. This has been said over and over again, no matter how badly you want to revise history. This is what the wording was changed to, after they missed "December 2016". Many, many people bought AP2 cars with the expectation of AP1 parity by December 2016.

 

[CurrentRide]

Again, the wording into January 2017 was NOT this. This has been said over and over again, no matter how badly you want to revise history. This is what the wording was changed to, after they missed "December 2016". Many, many people bought AP2 cars with the expectation of AP1 parity by December 2016.

I don't think that the website or the purchase agreement promised "AP1 parity by Dec 2016", just that EAP features would be activated by OTA updates starting Dec 2016. This is an important distinction. When were the very first EAP features activated, even if well below AP1 functionality?

 

[182RG]

I don't think that the website or the purchase agreement promised "AP1 parity by Dec 2016", just that EAP features would be activated by OTA updates starting Dec 2016. This is an important distinction. When were the very first EAP features activated, even if well below AP1 functionality?

Not "EAP features". Not "starting Dec 2016". The exact language was:

Tesla Enhanced Autopilot software is expected to complete validation and be rolled out to your car via an over-the-air update in December 2016, subject to regulatory approval.

Not some "features", not "starting". All of what was listed, in December 2016.

AP1 parity was sold by the sales staff pre-December 2016, while demoing AP1 cars to prospective customers. This has been reported in more than one thread here.

From Jan 2, 2017

 

[McRat]

A buy back at full price would be the best outcome for many who would want that. If you look at their last suit Volkswagen had to spend $10B buying back cars because they lied about the vehicles emissions.

The Volkswagens were not legal for US sale. Volkswagen knew they were not legal to sell and sold them anyways. The deception and falsification of records was not why they must buy back the cars. They cannot pass emissions.

 

[CurrentRide]

Not "EAP features". Not "starting Dec 2016". The exact language was:

Tesla Enhanced Autopilot software is expected to complete validation and be rolled out to your car via an over-the-air update in December 2016, subject to regulatory approval.

Not some "features", not "starting". All of what was listed, in December 2016.

AP1 parity was sold by the sales staff pre-December 2016, while demoing AP1 cars to prospective customers. This has been reported in more than one thread here.

From Jan 2, 2017

View attachment 219393

Nonetheless, there is nothing on the website or purchase agreement that promises AP1 parity by December. This was wishful thinking.

If any element of EAP was turned on in December, Tesla attorneys will argue that that they met their legal obligations, with the expectation that EAP will eventually able to do all of the things mentioned in the second paragraph.

 

[Shock-On-T]

Again, the wording into January 2017 was NOT this. This has been said over and over again, no matter how badly you want to revise history. This is what the wording was changed to, after they missed "December 2016". Many, many people bought AP2 cars with the expectation of AP1 parity by December 2016.

You are right, I'd forgotten it changed.
Mind you, the original statement still doesn't make any guarantee of a December roll-out, just that they 'expect' to roll out at that time.
I'm not trying to be an apologist for Tesla. I just honestly think that there is no case against them.
I also think there's a moral argument that they should be given more leniency than usual, because of their unique challenges and their mission.

 

[disagree]

I don't think Nvidia's opinion is anymore relevant than Tesla's...

Why do you think that? Sure seems counterintuitive.

I don't think that the website or the purchase agreement promised "AP1 parity by Dec 2016", just that EAP features would be activated by OTA updates starting Dec 2016. This is an important distinction. When were the very first EAP features activated, even if well below AP1 functionality?

If you look closely, EAP is explained as a suite of features in addition to those already provided by AP1. Since Tesla's original plan had been to ship early HW2 cars with both HW1 and 2, the option was written to convey that the cars would already have AP1 functionality, and then EAP's added functions would be sent out in a (note "a" - singular) update (note "update" - singular). Unfortunately for consumers, the wording was not changed when the original double hardware plan went down the drain.

What we have then is two issues: they knew they weren't going to have AP1 functionality and didn't remove that from the option description; and it doesn't look like there is any reasonable way to claim that they "expected" to provide "an update" that three months later is not even close to what is described.

 

[disagree]

Nonetheless, there is nothing on the website or purchase agreement that promises AP1 parity by December. This was wishful thinking.

If any element of EAP was turned on in December, Tesla attorneys will argue that that they met their legal obligations, with the expectation that EAP will eventually able to do all of the things mentioned in the second paragraph.

That's not how I'd suggest someone read it. The description is of a suite of new features to add to what Autopilot already is. The admission by Musk that their original plan was to include the Mobile-eye chip makes clear as day that the option was written with that in mind. Nothing in the description mentions it providing the already established features of Autopilot on prior cars. This is what an innocent customer who test drove an AP1 car would understand.

It's pure lunacy and zealotry to think that the original description of EAP is anything other than a massive failure and either intentionally vague or outright false. No chance it holds up. None.

 

[Shock-On-T]

That's not how I'd suggest someone read it. The description is of a suite of new features to add to what Autopilot already is. The admission by Musk that their original plan was to include the Mobile-eye chip makes clear as day that the option was written with that in mind. Nothing in the description mentions it providing the already established features of Autopilot on prior cars. This is what an innocent customer who test drove an AP1 car would understand.

It's pure lunacy and zealotry to think that the original description of EAP is anything other than a massive failure and either intentionally vague or outright false. No chance it holds up. None.

It's just coming later than expected. Chill! It's gonna be great!

 

[JohnSnowNW]

Why do you think that? Sure seems counterintuitive.

Because Nvidia provides processing power, while Tesla provides the software and hardware. They all have to work together to provide FSD, and unless Nvidia is familiar with Tesla's implementation of both then I'd say their opinion is a bit absolutist.

To add, this is how they are marketing the product:

NVIDIA DRIVE™ PX 2 is the open AI car computing platform that enables automakers and their tier 1 suppliers to accelerate production of automated and autonomous vehicles. It scales from a palm-sized, energy efficient module for AutoCruise capabilities, to a powerful AI supercomputer capable of autonomous driving.

Tesla is using the "supercomputer" version of the PX2 platform...and Nvidia certainly hasn't come out against Tesla's claims of FSD with their technology.