MASTER THREAD: FSD Subscription Available 16 Jul 2021

[Fourdoor]

Again, if you believe anyone who bought FSD has a case, test the belief in Small Claims Court and report back.

Anyone buying after the announcement that all cars were already FSD-Ready (hardware wise) and got FSD 2.x likely has a viable argument for getting the FSD subscription without a hardware charge. Sometimes it seems Tesla is its own worst PR department.

I am not going to test anything in small claims court... I DON'T HAVE A DOG IN THIS FIGHT.

It looks like you agree with me on the FSD 2.5 people having a viable argument... now YOU convince Knightshade of this so we can move on

Keith

Hmmm, seems like you agree with me on this... was the thumbs down just reflex action?

 

[rxlawdude]

I am not going to test anything in small claims court... I DON'T HAVE A DOG IN THIS FIGHT.

It looks like you agree with me on the FSD 2.5 people having a viable argument... now YOU convince Knightshade of this so we can move on

Keith

Hmmm, seems like you agree with me on this... was the thumbs down just reflex action?

It was a partial disagree. ;-)

 

[stopcrazypp]

Dude you can sue for anything, the question is whether you can convince a judge (or however these lawsuits work) that you were led to believe happy meals would make you happy, radio flyer wagons would pick up radiowaves and fly, or diaper genies would grant you wishes.

Those seem like a real stretch and the products in question don't cost an individual thousands of dollars or come with safety implications.

Between Tesla's FSD descriptions and Elon putting timeframes on many of these things via social media, I believe you'd have a much easier time convincing a judge/others that you were sold a product with a promise of future functionality that hasn't materialized and quite possibly won't materialize within the lifetime of the vehicles. Those would probably be considered forward-looking statements, which are regulated through securities law and a huge risk in the business world although I don't know what the implications may be of engaging in them on social media rather than through official business channels.

Considering Elon's power and influence via social media and Tesla's lack of a PR department, I think that would also be easy to convince people of.

I touched on this, but it would seem to me companies typically aren't liable for public forward looking statements to the consumers in a "false advertising" sense, mostly to the investors and SEC. For example, I have yet to see FTC take issue with tweets by CEOs or even companies, although SEC definitely have. Also, when it's been demonstrated time and time again that Elon's time estimates aren't believable or accurate (such that it's well established that you have to add a lot to the estimates given), that will probably will aid Tesla's case (that most people are aware they are optimistic).

I don't think they have as much significance as the timing shown on the order page, and even then, from the AP2 lawsuit, what the end user gets in compensation, is a pittance ($20-$280 depending on when you bought it).

 

[AKinDC]

Sorry if this has been discussed...don't want to go back and reach 31 pages...but I'm surprised they're not offering a free month to try and draw people in.

 

[gearchruncher]

Anyone buying after the announcement that all cars were already FSD-Ready (hardware wise) and got FSD 2.x likely has a viable argument for getting the FSD subscription without a hardware charge. Sometimes it seems Tesla is its own worst PR department.

I guess the tides are turning....?????

If you only paid for EAP, you don't qualify for HW3. It's pretty simple. If you paid for FSD, of course Tesla is currently obligated to update you to HW3 and any other hardware necessary for all FSD functions as generally released (beta, GA, etc.).

Tesla is under no legal obligation, dude. Myself and others have given you the green light to sue the hell out of Tesla. I assume you'll engage an attorney that knows the difference between advertising words of puffery and contractual OBLIGATION.

See, using a term like "guarantees" re FSD just shows how far off the range your point is. Scan and post your purchase agreement where there was any guarantee made in writing as to when FSD would install in your car. Then you'd have a point.

You really ougt to talk with a defamation attorney before stating and repeating a demonstrably false statement.

 

[GlmnAlyAirCar]

Lets do this by plausible analogy.

Actually, an even better (and real life) analogy is the Pentium floating point unit issue from around 1994 or so. After intel discovered a bug in the hardware, they offered to replace customers’ CPUs if they could demonstrate the need for having an accurate FPU. After much outrage, intel relented and replaced it for any customers who requested it.

 

[qdeathstar]

It wouldn't.... but even going with that- all FSD buyers get free hardware.

If you don't buy FSD, your cars ability to run FSD is irrelevant, so they have no need to give you free hardware.



I dunno how this is confusing to anybody.

Imagine this in court:


YOUR HONOR THEY PROMISED MY CAR COULD RUN THE FSD PACKAGE THEY SELL!

Ok... did you buy the FSD package and find you can't run it?

NO! WHY WOULD THAT MATTER?!

Case dismissed for lack of standing.

I think that if Tesla said all cars have fsd hardware, all cars should have fsd hardware.

 

[gearchruncher]

I think that if Tesla said all cars have fsd hardware, all cars should have fsd hardware.

But it's perfectly clear that they mean FSD purchase hardware, not FSD subscription hardware because those are obviously totally different things, even though the HW part numbers, SW build numbers, and feature sets are identical. Case rejected.

 

[qdeathstar]

But it's perfectly clear that they mean FSD purchase hardware, not FSD subscription hardware because those are obviously totally different things, even though the HW part numbers, SW build numbers, and feature sets are identical. Case rejected.

I got no idea what you are trying to say brah, lay off the sauce...

 

[rxlawdude]

I got no idea what you are trying to say brah, lay off the sauce...

You know what they say about trying to have a battle of wits with the unarmed? I can't see the other party's posts, but I've tangled with that ignored user in the past.

You'd best study the classical educational video of Monty Python's Argument Clinic, because the results will be just as unsatisfying.

 

[gearchruncher]

I can't see the other party's posts, but I've tangled with that ignored user in the past.

You can't disagree with a post you can't see, yet....

You can't even see quoted things if you have ignore on. This is what you would see:

Someday you'll explain to me how a contract where I pay $5K for something and the other company never has to deliver anything is a valid contract.

 

[gearchruncher]

I got no idea what you are trying to say brah, lay off the sauce...

Sorry, should have added a /s tag. I thought it was clear I was channeling @Knightshade - who constantly argues that all Tesla promised was the ability to BUY FSD, not subscribe to FSD, and they are clearly different products and no court would ever hear such a case.

I'm fully on your side and @rxlawdude here- there is a case here for anyone that has HW2/2.5, where Tesla clearly said the cars contained the HW needed for FSD capability, and it's clear they do not.

 

[Gor-Gor]

You can't disagree with a post you can't see, and you disagreed with my post, everyone can see that. Two days ago you responded to one of my posts. Stop telling everyone you have ignored me as a way to attack me, it only harms your credibility.

View attachment 687525

Someday you'll explain to me how a contract where I pay $5K for something and the other company never has to deliver anything is a valid contract.

Have you paid for something, or are you merely arguing the point? I may have missed where you've actually purchased FSD.

 

[gearchruncher]

Have you paid for something, or are you merely arguing the point? I may have missed where you've actually purchased FSD.

I have been smart enough to avoid purchasing FSD so far, but I have been interested in Tesla's exposure on their FSD claims over the years. I have friends with FSD. Historically, @rxlawdude has argued that Tesla's "contract" is ironclad in never having to deliver FSD as described in 2016, and has indicated that only a fool with no understanding of the law would believe that any kind of case could be successfully filed against Tesla for their lack of delivery. I have been interested in why that would be a valid contract, as that could definitely change my view of a lot of the FSD situation, but that's when he stopped discussing it and pretending he has me on ignore (he's mentioned having me on ignore about 3 times now while responding to things he can't see).

It's interesting now that we're in full agreement on the subscription issue, they promised FSD hardware here and do have some exposure as people take this to court.

And as an FYI, I have a 2017 and 2018 car, both well before any of the 2019 changes to the FSD description.

 

[Skotty]

At the moment, this would be a huge rip off. But then, so is $10K for the non-subscription version.

 

[rxlawdude]

Have you paid for something, or are you merely arguing the point? I may have missed where you've actually purchased FSD.

"I'm sorry, you're not allowed to argue unless you've paid."
(GOAT British comedy group)

 

[Gor-Gor]

"I'm sorry, you're not allowed to argue unless you've paid."
(GOAT British comedy group)

Nice. However, I'm merely trying to see where @gearchruncher is coming from. I haven't paid for FSD as a whole, or a subscription yet but I do feel that those who've paid for FSD have gotten screwed.

EAP should be available to everyone as that's clearly where the current abilities lie with the software, hence no sale for me.

 

[Knightshade]

You are assuming that additional sensors will not be needed in the future. Or that existing sensors may have to be moved to be more effective.

Not only did nothing in my post assume that- in other threads I've expressed the view they might well need more sensors.

Ironically- exactly the ones you mention- side/forward cameras on the front fenders to have cross traffic visibility ahead of the current B-piliar cams used for that.

That's when we start talking about "spinal transplants" as wiring harnesses do not exist in those locations today. That's when it gets too expensive to retrofit a new system into existing cars.

This is assuming facts without evidence. The cameras they use, assuming they can use the same ones are very cheap. Wires are pretty cheap too.

And any new fenders that have mounting for the cameras they'd have to make for all new cars anyway.

So retrofits might well be cheaper than refunding buyers with interest.


That said- this is also why I suggested they changed the promised features in March 2019.

Only the folks who bought before that would be entitled to refunds, or free HW retrofits, if it turns out they are needed for anything more than the L2 city streets feature promised to the later buyers.

I have been smart enough to avoid purchasing FSD so far

Which means you're smart enough to not even have standing to sue.

Again consider the legal argument you'd be making....

"Your honor, I demand to be made whole from the damages suffered by not being able to use a thing I never even bought"

I have been interested in why that would be a valid contract, as that could definitely change my view of a lot of the FSD situation

For the pre 3/19 folks I assume you mean?

Teslas wording on delivering more features, later, could be read in the context of best-effort and/or good faith execution.

They are working on it. As long as they can demonstrate they're still working on it- and you agreed to a contract where they TOLD YOU IN WRITING they had NO IDEA when any given part would be working and available (and they DID tell you that if you'd been an actual buyer) then the contract is perfectly valid.

You agreed to buy something KNOWING you'd get it when it was done, and they had no idea when it'd be done.

So if they're still working on it in good faith- you have no breach of the valid contract.


If they ever admitted they can't do it... (or thorough discovery you found out internally they had admitted that) then you WOULD have a breach.

Sorry, should have added a /s tag. I thought it was clear I was channeling @Knightshade - who constantly argues that all Tesla promised was the ability to BUY FSD, not subscribe to FSD

Given buying FSD was the only thing that existed in the period being discussed, that's the only ability they could have promised

Unless you think Elon has a time machine...


wait.... DO you think Elon has a time machine?

 

[qdeathstar]

@Knightshade my bro, do you think Tesla said all model 3 cars produced would have fsd hardware or not? I mean, cause there is a quote...

 

[GlockWorkOrnge]

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”?

It says that right now--coming later this year. There is nothing definite about Full Self Driving other than it's not here presently.

I guess you're right and I'm wrong, your legal education far surpassing mine and all the thousands of lawyers who might have thought about taking the kind of action you've suggested but haven't, despite all the publicity and business and $ they'd get by doing it ("want to sue Tesla for broken promises? I'm your guy!").

You should probably just write and file the complaint yourself. You'd probably jackpot it with your skill and acumen.

Or you can all bang your wooden spoons on your high chairs and cry about First World Problems. If you buy a piece of technology today based on promises of software upgrades later, you're asking to be let down. That never ends well.