Overpaid for FSD, No Early Access - Class Action Time?

[kbecks13]

For this topic, the key excerpt is:

"Customers who previously purchased Full Self-Driving will receive an invitation to Tesla’s Early Access Program (EAP). EAP members are invited to experience and provide feedback on new features and functionality before they are rolled out to other customers."

That is the promise to prior FSD buyers. I recommend limiting your class action lawsuit to getting access to the Early Access Program, plus monetary damages for lack of access in the intervening months.

I appreciate you not being a troll and actually having a conversation with us on this!

Internet


Stop basing your information on someone's personal twitter account. these are not Teslas official posts.

On the contrary, Elon and Tesla have stated that his Twitter can and is used for official company statements. This is in writing and filed with the SEC.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

I went ahead and grabbed it from the Wayback machine:

I left the initial part in there to provide context

Wait...are you guys the same person?

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

putting FSD people at the front of the line when something goes to general release, but the FSD-overpayers don't get any sort of priority within that group. It may literally be the only thing they've followed through on when it comes to FSD

Hmm...so maybe that is what they mean when they say the program is full! Everyone is already in it who should be in it. Maybe there is no reason to complain at all!

I mean, I have no way to judge, but if I perceived that I was getting updates earlier than most people consistently, I would say to myself "Early Access Program secured!"

The Early Access Program is at capacity and the program is no longer accepting additional participants. Should we expand the program, participants will be invited based on a number of factors including car configuration, location and delivery date."

Maybe they just forgot to mention in that email that you were already part of the Early Access Program? Though I agree that one could argue that you kind of deserve really early access (all the people making money off of clicks on videos of early (terrible) releases of Smart Summon), since that's kind of what was promised.

 

[run-the-joules]

Hmm...so maybe that is what they mean when they say the program is full! Everyone is already in it who should be in it. Maybe there is no reason to complain at all!

I mean, I have no way to judge, but if I perceived that I was getting updates earlier than most people consistently, I would say to myself "Early Access Program secured.

nah, it’s a separate beast. Truly early builds, the ability to give feedback that might actually be read, etc

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

nah, it’s a separate beast. Truly early builds, the ability to give feedback that might actually be read, etc

Probably NDA to sign too for these early builds. And they specifically say in the blog that you should be able to provide feedback on early releases. So I guess that rules out the possibility that Early Access is secured.

Anyway, best to keep the focus on that. There's definitely no refund promised or implied as I read it.

 

[kbecks13]

A guy cant eve post personal opinions on social media without having trolls trying to sue them.

You seriously think the below posts are an "opinion"? What are you smoking?

The man is the CEO of the company and uses his Twitter to release official company information per SEC guidelines that Twitter is an official form of communication. Further, if it was his opinion, why did they actually give refunds to some people per his tweet?

Elon Musk on Twitter

Upgrading to Autopilot and Full Self-Driving Capability

 

[run-the-joules]

Probably NDA to sign too for these early builds. And they specifically say in the blog that you should be able to provide feedback on early releases. So I guess that rules out the possibility that Early Access is secured.

Anyway, best to keep the focus on that. There's definitely no refund promised or implied as I read it.

Yeah I can understand how some might interpret the wording in a way to imply refunds, but the blog post is very explicit about the invitation to the early access program.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

De-escalate...de-escalate....de-escalate...

 

[kbecks13]

De-escalate...de-escalate....de-escalate...

Just for you

All i'm asking on this thread is for people to actually get up to speed with what @run-the-joules and myself are trying to say. I think many people see the title of the thread and immediately get defensive cuz i said "class action". Please read the early posts and understand what we are talking about as it is quite a bit different than previous "price change" posts we've seen on here.

I will not engage anymore personal attack type posts, sorry for going to that place.

 

[SlimJim]

By now everyone should have learned the lesson.
1. Being an early adopter means you will pay more.
2. Tesla is not a non-profit organization.

 

[CHINI]

I am willing to wait for FSD, Tesla will get there. I have FAITH! Now Tesla..... Take MY Money for the TRUCK. I am going to Starlink and saying BYE BYE to COMCAST.

You know its 5+ years away, right?

 

[Knightshade]

So the problem with a class action lawsuit over not being invited to EAP is this.

What, in specific financial terms, are the damages for which you are asking for compensation?

How much money is NOT being in EAP costing you?

Because I think it's $0.00

Which is about what you can expect from a lawsuit over it.


You'd maybe have a case if they'd told you you get access to EAP as part of your purchase before you made the purchase- since you could claim you would've paid less without that added "benefit"

But since it was a promise made only to those who had already purchased without that being a factor- again- how can you show any actual financial damage for which you deserve compensation?

 

[kbecks13]

But since it was a promise made only to those who had already purchased without that being a factor- again- how can you show any actual financial damage for which you deserve compensation?

First of all, I appreciate the high quality reply without insults or personal attacks.

I suppose i would say the financial damages were that we were advertised to pre-order something for $3K with written mention that it would cost more if ordered post-delivery. There was then a sale, before the item was actually "available", where other customers were able to pre-order the feature for $2K which is in contradiction to what i agreed to upon original purchase (i was told it would cost more later). Therefore, i was mislead into paying an additional $1K to pre-order at an early point in time. Time of value of money on the $2K + $1K is the impact to me personally.

 

[Knightshade]

First of all, I appreciate the high quality reply without insults or personal attacks.

I suppose i would say the financial damages were that we were advertised to pre-order something for $3K with written mention that it would cost more if ordered post-delivery. There was then a sale, before the item was actually "available", where other customers were able to pre-order the feature for $2K which is in contradiction to what i agreed to upon original purchase (i was told it would cost more later). Therefore, i was mislead into paying an additional $1K to pre-order at an early point in time. Time of value of money on the $2K + $1K is the impact to me personally.

Ah- now that's a totally separate issue from the EAP invitation.

And, potentially, a much better basis for a lawsuit too.


I do wonder if anyone has the exact wording they used to use during purchase on this though.

Because I think what it really said was something like "$3000" then under that "$5000 post delivery"

Which is just telling you the price of either way of buying right at that moment. A price they're always free to change either end of at any time.

Rather than the wording folks keep suggesting they saw of something like:

"FSD costs $3000 pre-delivery, but will always cost more than that post-delivery"


That last one is a lot better basis for a lawsuit- but I don't think Tesla ever actually wrote that on the website?


EDIT- yeah, pic added... it's the first one... no promise it would "always" cost more later- just that it cost more post-delivery RIGHT NOW when making the purchase.

 

[Wizard2416]

Bring on the hate and disagree votes, i don't even care at this point lol I honestly cannot think of another product where customers were lied to like this.

I don't think now one lied to you to buy the product. He just offered that retroactive payment and it just didn't apply to you.

/facepalm

 

[kbecks13]

I don't think now one lied to you to buy the product. He just offered that retroactive payment and it just didn't apply to you.

No...They said "it will cost more later" and then guess what, it cost LESS later. It's not about the retroactive payment to others really.

Which is just telling you the price of either way of buying right at that moment. A price they're always free to change either end of at any time.

Rather than the wording folks keep suggesting they saw of something like:

"FSD costs $3000 pre-delivery, but will always cost more than that post-delivery"

Oh come on, that's quite a stretch but i suppose technically that's a point (i just don't subscribe to it personally).

shake weights don’t help you get in shape at all...

LOL this is the type of trolling that we all enjoy cheers

 

[Wizard2416]

No...They said "it will cost more later" and then guess what, it cost LESS later. It's not about the retroactive payment to others really.

Not really. Right now counts as "later" and is indeed more than $3000 dollars.

Since there's no end date, you can't measure it with your normal standards because even if it didn't apply to you back then, it does now hence your whole argument becomes null.

Is hard to make everyone happy but that's life.

 

[qdeathstar]

A one-way tweet does not represent a binding agreement.

Musk has gotten into trouble in the past for his tweets.... i don’t think it’s a contract but there are other issues like false advertising... a lot of companies have been sued for making false claims....

 

[Knightshade]

No...They said "it will cost more later" and then guess what, it cost LESS later. It's not about the retroactive payment to others really.

I'm not sure they did say that though.

That's why I asked if anyone had the exact wording used during the sale... which I then found myself and posted... and sure enough they don't quite say what you suggest they do.

They are essentially saying "Right now, it's $3000 pre-delivery, and $5000 post delivery"

Nothing in those terms say those prices are "forever"

Oh come on, that's quite a stretch but i suppose technically that's a point (i just don't subscribe to it personally).

On such technicalities does the law turn.



Let me try and give you an example.

Let's say you order some food at a restaurant.

On Monday the menu says:

Burger $5
Fries $3
Burger and Fries combo $7

You buy the combo...it's $1 cheaper. It says right there on the menu if you buy the Burger now and come back later to get the fries it will cost you more right?


But then you go back Tuesday and there's a sign saying there's a sale on Fries, and they're only $1.50 now.


Does the restaurant owe you money?


If not, neither does Tesla.

 

[Knightshade]

Musk has gotten into trouble in the past for his tweets.... i don’t think it’s a contract but there are other issues like false advertising...

False advertising is generally litigated on the idea of making a false claim to induce a sale.

In this case folks are citing a claim made well after the sale- meaning you didn't rely on those terms when you chose to buy the product.