Who invited these guys to the party?
A few Tesla owners filed a class-action lawsuit over the rollout of Tesla Autopilot 2.0
A few Tesla owners filed a class-action lawsuit over the rollout of Tesla Autopilot 2.0
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Owners Sue Tesla over Enhanced AP
- Thread starter TexasTeslaRacing
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Tesla Inc.
Canuck
Well-Known Member
This is from paragraph 87 with my emphasis added:
The Plaintiffs really expect us to believe there are thousands of AP2.0 owners who will join this class when 91% of people who own a Tesla would by another one?
It will be interesting to watch.
The Plaintiffs really expect us to believe there are thousands of AP2.0 owners who will join this class when 91% of people who own a Tesla would by another one?
It will be interesting to watch.
From Electrek.co
Update: a Tesla spokesperson sent us the following statement:
This lawsuit is a disingenuous attempt to secure attorney’s fees posing as a legitimate legal action, which is evidenced by the fact that the suit misrepresents many facts. Many of the features this suit claims are “unavailable” are in fact available, with more updates coming every month. We have always been transparent about the fact that Enhanced Autopilot software is a product that would roll out incrementally over time, and that features would continue to be introduced as validation is completed, subject to regulatory approval. Furthermore, we have never claimed our vehicles already have functional “full self-driving capability”, as our website has stated in plain English for all potential customers that “it is not possible to know exactly when each element of the functionality described above will be available, as this is highly dependent on local regulatory approval.” The inaccurate and sensationalistic view of our technology put forth by this group is exactly the kind of misinformation that threatens to harm consumer safety.
Update: a Tesla spokesperson sent us the following statement:
This lawsuit is a disingenuous attempt to secure attorney’s fees posing as a legitimate legal action, which is evidenced by the fact that the suit misrepresents many facts. Many of the features this suit claims are “unavailable” are in fact available, with more updates coming every month. We have always been transparent about the fact that Enhanced Autopilot software is a product that would roll out incrementally over time, and that features would continue to be introduced as validation is completed, subject to regulatory approval. Furthermore, we have never claimed our vehicles already have functional “full self-driving capability”, as our website has stated in plain English for all potential customers that “it is not possible to know exactly when each element of the functionality described above will be available, as this is highly dependent on local regulatory approval.” The inaccurate and sensationalistic view of our technology put forth by this group is exactly the kind of misinformation that threatens to harm consumer safety.
Tam
Well-Known Member
My understanding when ordering the feature is: I am paying for the privilege of being a test pilot to and the promised specs will gradually be achieved as more tests are successfully executed.
I believe there have been legal disclosures to cover Tesla for its imperfect or lack of features during the time of purchase.
It's just like paying your tickets in advance to go to the moon but such trip is not possible just yet. No body forces you to pay for something not possible yet.
I don't think these Tesla owners will be able to prove that they didn't know!
I believe there have been legal disclosures to cover Tesla for its imperfect or lack of features during the time of purchase.
It's just like paying your tickets in advance to go to the moon but such trip is not possible just yet. No body forces you to pay for something not possible yet.
I don't think these Tesla owners will be able to prove that they didn't know!
NikeWings
Active Member
anticitizen13.7
Not posting at TMC after 9/17/2018
This is why we can't have nice things.
There is nothing worse than bottom feeding lawyers trying to extort large payouts while providing zero utility to society.
Did I mention that I generally hate lawyers?
"the car has 691HP"
"It does the quarter mile in 10.9 seconds"
"enhanced autopilot will be release by mid december!"
"full self driving will happen in 3 months maybe, 6 months definitely!"
1 down, 3 to go.
Apparently heartfelt letters from owners can't get them to correct their wild claims before it really bites them hard, then lawsuits it is.
"It does the quarter mile in 10.9 seconds"
"enhanced autopilot will be release by mid december!"
"full self driving will happen in 3 months maybe, 6 months definitely!"
1 down, 3 to go.
Apparently heartfelt letters from owners can't get them to correct their wild claims before it really bites them hard, then lawsuits it is.
A few clarifications:
If a class is certified by a court then everyone defined by the criteria in the suit automatically becomes a member of the class. Those who object can opt out, either to pursue their case individually or because they don't want to pursue the matter at all. Those who don't opt out get whatever benefits are eventually agreed to by the parties or, less typically, awarded by the court.
Tesla currently describes the EAP rollout process as needing extensive development and certification. However, the description was very different when the subject vehicles were sold. At that time, a broad range of features - some now available and some no longer even talked about - were described as needing only final validation, with delivery expected in December 2016.
The materials put out by the law firm seem to confuse and conflate EAP and FSD. They will need to get this straight if they plan to proceed and be taken seriously.
As for hating all lawyers: That's just childish. As in any profession there are good people and bad. Class action suits can be trivial, with tiny benefits for the plaintiffs and huge rewards for the lawyers. But they can also be useful when a corporation genuinely misbehaves and it's not practical for each damaged person to pursue justice on their own.
Safety features like automatic braking for collision avoidance are now on many vehicles costing a fraction of what we paid for our Teslas. It's not at all like buying a ticket on a moon rocket. It's the cost of entry to selling a high end car.
If a class is certified by a court then everyone defined by the criteria in the suit automatically becomes a member of the class. Those who object can opt out, either to pursue their case individually or because they don't want to pursue the matter at all. Those who don't opt out get whatever benefits are eventually agreed to by the parties or, less typically, awarded by the court.
Tesla currently describes the EAP rollout process as needing extensive development and certification. However, the description was very different when the subject vehicles were sold. At that time, a broad range of features - some now available and some no longer even talked about - were described as needing only final validation, with delivery expected in December 2016.
The materials put out by the law firm seem to confuse and conflate EAP and FSD. They will need to get this straight if they plan to proceed and be taken seriously.
As for hating all lawyers: That's just childish. As in any profession there are good people and bad. Class action suits can be trivial, with tiny benefits for the plaintiffs and huge rewards for the lawyers. But they can also be useful when a corporation genuinely misbehaves and it's not practical for each damaged person to pursue justice on their own.
Safety features like automatic braking for collision avoidance are now on many vehicles costing a fraction of what we paid for our Teslas. It's not at all like buying a ticket on a moon rocket. It's the cost of entry to selling a high end car.
NerdUno
Member
Tesla's response does a pretty good job of commingling their FSD and EAP claims, too. No regulatory approval is required for EAP. This will get sorted out in due course, and discovery could be Tesla's worst nightmare. Keep in mind that the top two guys overseeing development have left the company so they will probably sing like canaries.
I disagree with the thread title. It's class action lawyers who are suing a Tesla. In order to do so they needed a few owners to go along for the ride.
Today's Class Action lawfirms are out to generate maximum income at expense of their 'clients'. Often they ignore the best interests of their clients when settling a case.
Nvidia's case concerning notebook chipsets was a prime example. IIRC, right off the top, $25m cash to the law firm before 1 client is serviced. Not billing hours, fixed number extortion. If your $2600 HP notebook/tablet is not functional due to Nvidia's chips, you were offer a very basic 15" non-touch, non-convertible, slower, smaller, $400 notebook or nothing. Others were offered repairs. All funds not distributed to the clients will be kept by the attorneys. It is estimated the suit yielded 90% of the money to the lawyers, and 10% to the clients. It's not an exception, it has become the rule of law in the class action lotto today.
[QUOTE="NerdUno, post: 2065019, member: 55760"This will get sorted out in due course, and discovery could be Tesla's worst nightmare. [/QUOTE]
Discovery is the leverage class action lawyers use for settlement. If a case survives summary judgment and moves to discovery, it will settle virtually every time because the discovery process itself is usually so expensive (and can lead to many new causes of action) that most companies will pay a fairly large settlement just to avoid discovery.
Discovery is the leverage class action lawyers use for settlement. If a case survives summary judgment and moves to discovery, it will settle virtually every time because the discovery process itself is usually so expensive (and can lead to many new causes of action) that most companies will pay a fairly large settlement just to avoid discovery.
NerdUno
Member
Standing up against extortionist-type lawsuits works great when you have nothing to hide. And then there's this case.
Technically something that's coming next month is currently unavailable.
Penny share company over-promising "jam tomorrow" springs to mind (as in Tesla)
Per the other thread there were high expectations (from Tesla's page) of "Enhanced AP" doing certain things by Dec2016. The enhanced meaning above and beyond level 1 AP. But they're not at level 1 AP as we head into April.
They have a small point - whether it's legally a case is debatable. I also expect that it is being done for attorney fee's.
While nobody loves lawyers - "fear of lawyers" and this negative publicity might help Tesla over-promising... and that's a good thing. I like how ambitious the company is - but over-promising something untangeable (not something you physically get) to increase margins (% of people buying a car with EAP years before EAP is available) looks like it's being done to drive sales / meet quarterly sales expectations - and is not a good precedent.
Last edited:
Yeah it's clear now the software wasn't even a glimmer in a programmer's eye when they started selling it. It's also anyone's guess at this point whether the hardware suite in the car is actually capable of delivering the features they promised, even if they had infinite time and infinite talent. Much like P model fiasco, and it's clear now that the hardware couldn't deliver what Tesla's mouth was promising.
But we do know one hard fact, which is that Nvidia claims you need 2x Drive PX2's to achieve full self driving, and Tesla's only come with 1.
Below is what EAP said when I purchased in December 2016. The first two paragraphs are exactly the same as of today. The last one is different because that's the timeline/expectation setting one. Though there is no mention of incremental anything.
The FSD option says exactly the same thing as when I purchased last year, basically, Tesla has no clue when anything related to FSD is coming.
So to me, Tesla didn't break any promises. All they said was, certain features will eventually be available. As far as the December 2016 date, "expected" doesn't mean WILL. Now, of course, the moment a company mentions a feature and a delivery date, we tend to be upset when that doesn't happen. Am I a little irritated because it seems like things are late, sure. Am I LAWSUIT irritated, no.
I do think Tesla needs to use different language to help with setting expectations. I think all of us interpreted this information a little differently, causing a lot of folks to get upset.
The FSD option says exactly the same thing as when I purchased last year, basically, Tesla has no clue when anything related to FSD is coming.
So to me, Tesla didn't break any promises. All they said was, certain features will eventually be available. As far as the December 2016 date, "expected" doesn't mean WILL. Now, of course, the moment a company mentions a feature and a delivery date, we tend to be upset when that doesn't happen. Am I a little irritated because it seems like things are late, sure. Am I LAWSUIT irritated, no.
I do think Tesla needs to use different language to help with setting expectations. I think all of us interpreted this information a little differently, causing a lot of folks to get upset.
Well you could say that, "Your Tesla will...." actually means "Perhaps someday your Tesla will....", and that the December "expectation" just expressed a dream, not a plan. If a judge ever does get to rule on this stuff, the test will be what a reasonable person would conclude from reading the statement, not whether it's possible to find other meanings hidden in the text. [See also: Democrat president: "That depends on what the meaning of is is." Republican president: "Our armada is heading toward North Korea."]
Where we stand now on the features listed above for the December expectation:
- match speed to traffic conditions: Yes, but with big problems like slamming on the brakes for overpasses.
- keep within a lane: Yes, but not if a highway curves sharply, and not at all on local roads, where it routinely weaves like a drunk and jumps the lane lines.
- automatically change lanes without requiring driver input: Works sometimes, but does require driver to hit turn signal
- transition from one freeway to another: No. This will require integration with the nav system. Who's even talking about this now?
- self park...: only parallel parking, and only under very constrained circumstances. (My test drive car (AP1) parked itself head-in at the crowded indoor mall where the Tesla store was located. It was a big selling feature for us.)
- be summoned to and from your garage: Tries to drive into pillars; stymied by a quarter-inch lip on the garage floor
Where we stand now on the features listed above for the December expectation:
- match speed to traffic conditions: Yes, but with big problems like slamming on the brakes for overpasses.
- keep within a lane: Yes, but not if a highway curves sharply, and not at all on local roads, where it routinely weaves like a drunk and jumps the lane lines.
- automatically change lanes without requiring driver input: Works sometimes, but does require driver to hit turn signal
- transition from one freeway to another: No. This will require integration with the nav system. Who's even talking about this now?
- self park...: only parallel parking, and only under very constrained circumstances. (My test drive car (AP1) parked itself head-in at the crowded indoor mall where the Tesla store was located. It was a big selling feature for us.)
- be summoned to and from your garage: Tries to drive into pillars; stymied by a quarter-inch lip on the garage floor
Similar threads
