Lawsuit over FSD claims allowed to proceed

[2101Guy]

Tesla lawsuit claiming Autopilot is 'false advertising' allowed to proceed

A lawsuit against Tesla from two Santa Barbara, California, brothers who claim Autopilot is false advertising is being allowed to proceed to its next phase after the automaker’s several attempts to have it dismissed. Judge Thomas Anderle ruled earlier this week that Alexandro Filippini vs...

www.teslarati.com

 

[Tam]

...

There's an unsuccessful false advertising lawsuit previously:

"The judge also tentatively dismissed Son’s false advertising and breach of warranty claims, finding Tesla’s statements about its braking and collision warning features simply stated the designs were meant to improve safety, not that it would prevent Son’s sudden acceleration incident."

 

[Spuzzz]

Tesla lawsuit claiming Autopilot is 'false advertising' allowed to proceed

A lawsuit against Tesla from two Santa Barbara, California, brothers who claim Autopilot is false advertising is being allowed to proceed to its next phase after the automaker’s several attempts to have it dismissed. Judge Thomas Anderle ruled earlier this week that Alexandro Filippini vs...

www.teslarati.com

the basis of this suit seems to be that the plaintiffs were told by sales staff that their car would eventually become autonomous. If being misled by car salesmen is fruitful as a lawsuit, get ready for an unprecedented clogging of our civil courts.

 

[CapeOne]

the basis of this suit seems to be that the plaintiffs were told by sales staff that their car would eventually become autonomous. If being misled by car salesmen is fruitful as a lawsuit, get ready for an unprecedented clogging of our civil courts.

It could get interesting. Given that the salespeople at Tesla stores/dealerships are employed by Tesla, they are essentially acting directly as agents for Tesla itself. A salesperson at the Cadillac dealership down the street is employed by the dealership, not Cadillac/GM, so the liability angle would be different. In either case, it will often come down to an alleged verbal claim which can be difficult to prove unless it was being made over and over again to many different customers.

 

[glide]

the basis of this suit seems to be that the plaintiffs were told by sales staff that their car would eventually become autonomous. If being misled by car salesmen is fruitful as a lawsuit, get ready for an unprecedented clogging of our civil courts.

Tesla doesn’t have Salespeople. They have sales advisors that work for, and take direction from, Tesla corporate.

That is the difference.

 

[Tam]

the basis of this suit seems to be that the plaintiffs were told by sales staff that their car would eventually become autonomous....

The plaintiffs might be misled but the question for the jury is: Whose fault is that?

The phrase "would eventually become autonomous" is a promise to be fulfilled in the future but the future has no deadline.

Legally, the promise does not have to be fulfilled right at the present when the transaction took place and Tesla has the infinity in the future to meet the deadline when probably everyone on earth will be all dead when the sun will run out of its energy in about 5 billion years from now.

 

[glide]

The plaintiffs might be misled but the question for the jury is: Whose fault is that?

In this case the promise came from a Tesla employee, acting in an official capacity as a representative of the company, so…the answer is Tesla.

 

[PhantomX]

The plaintiffs might be misled but the question for the jury is: Whose fault is that?

The phrase "would eventually become autonomous" is a promise to be fulfilled in the future but the future has no deadline.

Legally, the promise does not have to be fulfilled right at the present when the transaction took place and Tesla has the infinity in the future to meet the deadline when probably everyone on earth will be all dead when the sun will run out of its energy in about 5 billion years from now.

I think an easy way for Tesla to address this is to just let FSD purchase tied to the owner and not the car, and let the owner transfer the FSD license from one car to another. I would think this way the owner cannot argue that FSD was not realized within life of the car, especially for those that leased car with FSD. It gives Tesla a lot more time to mature FSD and not worry about meeting the promise in a short amount of time.

 

[Matias]

Legally, the promise does not have to be fulfilled right at the present when the transaction took place and Tesla has the infinity in the future to meet the deadline when probably everyone on earth will be all dead when the sun will run out of its energy in about 5 billion years from now.

I’m pretty sure, cars don’t last 5 billion years.

 

[Matias]

This page, which is archived 6th of September 2019

Autopilot

Learn how to use Autopilot on the Model S, Model X and Model 3.

web.archive.org

Says

• Coming later this year:
  • Automatic driving on city streets

Isn’t that very clear promise of when buyer will receive

“Automatic driving on city streets”?

So if you bought FSD 2019, you only needed to wait till the end of the year for “Automatic driving on city streets”.

 

[not-Martin]

Given that the salespeople at Tesla stores/dealerships are employed by Tesla, they are essentially acting directly as agents for Tesla itself.

Bingo! That also includes other FSD verbal & tweeted representations made by its CEO, which is also Tesla

 

[rxlawdude]

Bingo! That also includes other FSD verbal & tweeted representations made by its CEO, which is also Tesla

Um, no. Also, has this case been dismissed due to mandatory arbitration, or did these brothers opt-out of mandatory arbitration? I'm not sure that in the year they bought there was an opt-out clause, but they must have been prescient.

 

[not-Martin]

Um, no. Also, has this case been dismissed due to mandatory arbitration, or did these brothers opt-out of mandatory arbitration? I'm not sure that in the year they bought there was an opt-out clause, but they must have been prescient.

Umm, yes. An employee of Tesla is Tesla. Regardless of whether that employee is sales rep Bob Gonzalez or chief exec Elon Musk. When an employee speaks/tweets, Tesla speaks/tweets.

 

[MP3Mike]

Umm, yes. An employee of Tesla is Tesla. Regardless of whether that employee is sales rep Bob Gonzalez or chief exec Elon Musk. When an employee speaks/tweets, Tesla speaks/tweets.

Of course the order agreement, at least currently, contains this clause:

Prior agreements, oral statements, negotiations, communications or representations about the Vehicle sold under this Agreement are superseded by this Agreement.

So pretty much anything Tesla tells you is null and void if it isn't in the order agreement.

 

[rxlawdude]

Of course the order agreement, at least currently, contains this clause:



So pretty much anything Tesla tells you is null and void if it isn't in the order agreement.

Exactly. But many have tried to argue what's clearly within their purchase agreement ("CONTRACT") with Tesla claiming the absurd argument above.

I'm really going to be interested to see if Tesla (a Delaware Corporation with plaintiff in California) removes the case to federal court. Especially over the mandatory arbitration terms as they existed when these brothers bought their Teslas (new from Tesla, presumably).

 

[not-Martin]

Of course the order agreement, at least currently, contains this clause:



So pretty much anything Tesla tells you is null and void if it isn't in the order agreement.

No that’s incorrect. Order agreement clauses do not absolve statutory & common law legal obligations.
Or in more simple terms, a company cannot absolve itself of responsibility by writing something in a contract

 

[rxlawdude]

No that’s incorrect. Order agreement clauses do not absolve statutory & common law legal obligations.
Or in more simple terms, a company cannot absolve itself of responsibility by writing something in a contract

Um, with very few exceptions, courts will look at the four corners of the agreement as the complete and total of parties' meeting of the minds.

Again, it's simple: if you believe what you say and you have paid for FSD, go to Small Claims Court.

If your assertion is correct, the court must find for you. Oddly, no one has reported success.

 

[Matias]

Of course the order agreement, at least currently, contains this clause:



So pretty much anything Tesla tells you is null and void if it isn't in the order agreement.

Does the order agreement say that the car which Tesla sold you has four wheels?

 

[not-Martin]

Um, with very few exceptions, courts will look at the four corners of the agreement as the complete and total of parties' meeting of the minds.

Again, it's simple: if you believe what you say and you have paid for FSD, go to Small Claims Court.

If your assertion is correct, the court must find for you. Oddly, no one has reported success.

I note, as per the thread heading, the judge has allowed the case to proceed implying that, on the surface, the plaintiffs have a legitimate grievance. So we await the outcome, which if successful could encourage others where cost is currently a barrier

 

[Cyberax]

Um, with very few exceptions, courts will look at the four corners of the agreement as the complete and total of parties' meeting of the minds.

That's true. But the agreement does NOT define the FSD in any way. It just says "full self-driving".

In this case the court will have to fall back on how to interpret that given the general knowledge of the parties.