One could be forgiven for thinking that this unsolicited labouring of the point about what WP means, and how it relates to third parties, is in response to this thread, and in particular @edb49 ’s advice.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
My experience taking Tesla to court about FSD
- Thread starter edb49
- Start date
See now that is interesting. I have the emails from a few trade in places and webuycar sites saying zero added for FSD.
I bought from a trade seller and at best I paid a grand for EAP and FSD, probably not even that as it was a very low mileage car.
Tesla would claim the full value in a legal dispute such as this, but in the real world would only offer you a marginal uplift on a car with it optioned at trade in.
Last I checked on a new car order adding FSD as an option made no difference at all to the GFV calculations on the finance part of the ordering process, which arguably speaks volumes.
Last I checked on a new car order adding FSD as an option made no difference at all to the GFV calculations on the finance part of the ordering process, which arguably speaks volumes.
That's very useful - if you're happy you should publish them on this thread so others can make use of it. Ultimately I don't think Tesla would risk having a judge make a decision on this, so people are just looking for some information as to the value. If it's negligible I would deduct £500 from the claim and say the evidence points to near zero. (This is just the pragmatic approach - if you really have the hump with Tesla and your evidence is nil value at trade in, pursue for the whole amount.)
I’d also go looking for Musks quote that FSD makes your car an appreciating asset (if it says what I think it said), and the filing in the US that his Twitter/x account qualifies as official correspondence on behalf of Tesla so it’s a material statement.
Whilst it may seem ludicrous for them to do it, if BMW advertised ‘driving assistance pro makes you car value increase over time” and it didn’t, I think the courts, trading standards and the like would be interested.
Whilst it may seem ludicrous for them to do it, if BMW advertised ‘driving assistance pro makes you car value increase over time” and it didn’t, I think the courts, trading standards and the like would be interested.
speedyranger74
Member
is the newest rebranding from « FSD » to « FSD (Supervised) » a giant admission from Tesla that FSD was misleading for what will never be more than an L2 system?
Any implications for people who purchased a « Full Self Driving » package and now have a (Supervised) moniker attached to it?
I feel it’s a giant backtrack from Legal. Either it’s « Full Self » or it is « Supervised ». Putting the two in the same sentence is trying to misrepresent something but still have some claims mitigation between brackets….
Any implications for people who purchased a « Full Self Driving » package and now have a (Supervised) moniker attached to it?
I feel it’s a giant backtrack from Legal. Either it’s « Full Self » or it is « Supervised ». Putting the two in the same sentence is trying to misrepresent something but still have some claims mitigation between brackets….
‘Comning soon’, the Automated Vehicles Bill [HL] 2023-24 is in its late stages and I can’t see why a new Government wouldn’t (in a post Brexit world) continue with it. Part 4 on Marketing allows the Secretary of State to ban some words (by making regulations) from being used to promote cars that are not autonomous. Expected to include ‘self-driving’, would affect: car manufacturers, dealers, potentially advertorial articles etc.
Does that mean FSD was retrospectively mid-leading, not necessarily. Does it mean Tesla would need to rebrand FSD in the UK, yes. I suspect even FSD (Supervised) would be an issue.
Does that mean FSD was retrospectively mid-leading, not necessarily. Does it mean Tesla would need to rebrand FSD in the UK, yes. I suspect even FSD (Supervised) would be an issue.
Pagemakers
Active Member
I realise that those who took Tesla to court are probably subject to a NDA. Apart from the original poster can you confirm if your efforts have been worthwhile if you’re allowed to do so.
Billbrown1982
TM3 LR 2021 | Red | FSD
I'd say its reasonably obvious. Because there's 2 outcomes out there.
1. People have been offered a deal that comes with a NDA that they have happily accepted.
2. People have been denied and would subsequently be posting about how crappy the situation is, in just about every forum available.
We've not had a tonne of people coming back in here saying how they have not been refunded so....
Pagemakers
Active Member
True. Just ordered a new 3 and I refuse to pay for FSD for a 3rd time considering the turd of the current system. Got a few days off next week. Think it’s time to claim my refund.
speedyranger74
Member
No response to my "reasonable" proposal.
Yesterday I received a letter where I'm informed my Particulars of Claim is missing and I have to send again, by email.
Done.
Yesterday I received a letter where I'm informed my Particulars of Claim is missing and I have to send again, by email.
Done.
Pagemakers
Active Member
I haven’t put in the online claim yet. I received a response to my LBA from Tesla at the end of January. I have been a bit tardy with it, but will be doing it shortly.
As surmised I would suspect that most people have accepted the first offer (settlement & NDA) which is why you’re not hearing about it.
Yes, people who have issued a claim against Tesla have been in touch directly with me. I always say the pragmatic thing to do is settle (for effectively the same value as my claim, e.g. including interest, court fees, etc) with an NDA. I also say stop talking to me if they sign it and keep to the NDA... and these people then go quiet. I am making my own assumptions!
Similar threads
