Generically, claimants often tell the court how things should work because that's what they understood. In this case, they thought they should not have to steer nor brake because they thought that's what they paid Autopilot for. In the legal world, the legal definition is prioritized and not that from the claimants. In the audio, they re-defined Tesla's design as "Tesla didn't know what are the glitches" which is contrary to what Tesla has listed many limitations in owner's manual. They also re-defined the purpose of autopilot erroneously as "so that you don't have to put your hands on the steering wheel" which again is in conflict with owner's manual's as well the instrument clusters' instructions. They seem to claim that Autopilot should be defined as self-driving as they erroneously define it with no need to shift the responsibility of braking and steering to a driver. "Autopilot driving for you." It's just like when there's a disclosure that parking is free on Sunday only and a claimant says that he understood that it should be free on weekdays. Just because he redefines the terms or he just misunderstands the disclosure, generically, the court would not uphold the definition from the customer and would uphold the company's terms. Of course, there are rare cases that a claimant can win and get the parking rule to change to free parking everyday but that would be an exception.