My personal view is that even though there is a smoking gun, and Tesla is holding it, they MAY have managed to just nip the safety / fire bud quick enough (by knobling charging etc) that there is not sufficient evidence to support the fire risk angle. If that is the case, then the absolutely unavoidable and glaringly obvious issue is the illegality of downgrading the spec of these cars without consent from owners or indeed any official justification. The rest is just shambolic and a shameful disregard for personal property as well as a perfect way to show how much you (don't) respect your clients.
The notion that the downgrades are in anyway in the best interest of owners is laughable.
I don't see any reason to disagree with the illegality of the downgrade, unless you see it as a very short term measure while a solution is found. I don't buy that based on a) the time passed with no official explanation b) the highly suspicious timing of information release relating to the fires and the software release that downgraded the cars.
IF they "nipped" a safety issue in the bud, they are more guilty than ever. manufacturers aren't allowed to hide safety issues, especially with optional updates that owners can't even check their VIN on the NHTSA website to see if it has been addressed, and safety can never downgrade what was paid for. So many crimes hinge on the safety aspect - if it was just theft for no other reason, it's actually better for Tesla.
Effectively almost no one is aware of this issue so their reputation is still mostly intact. That could change of course.
It will. The NHTSA's will go public with an involuntary recall when they have determined the scope. On that subject, how many other owners have been contacted by the NHTSA investigator yet? If you submitted your contact info, they are looking for any pre and post log info you can provide. If you haven't reported your problems to them yet, do it they are actively investigating this right now.
Words like "criminally" and "illegal" are thrown around rather loosely and excessively. Please provide a link to the laws and also the lawyer and court that has interpreted the law. Because I am pretty sure there is no law that speaks specifically to OTA safety updates on an EV. And whatever specific law you are referring to will require some interpretation. We should also find out what law school Tesla's lawyers must have gone to that didn't think of these laws.
There is one link that shows that Tesla is investigating a fire. From over a year ago. The article says essentially nothing except that Tesla investigated a fire - and of course they would. The footage is a little strange don't you think? It seems like a cell phone and cell phones don't go around randomly recording parked cars, do they? So maybe someone was walking by and saw smoke - I think that makes sense. There is very little smoke initially but I could accept that. But then it is the most stable cell phone video I have ever seen. Again for a random person pulling it out of their pocket. I certainly can't shoot that good.
The articles states that there have been 12 fires - majority after accident.
Interesting that there have been zero of these fires in the US. Just interesting. Is China a harsher environment? Perhaps the electricity grid is not as stable? What were the comparable total sales in the US vs China as of 4/2019? Was it 10:1? Certainly when it comes to old Model S's - so you would think we would have fires all over the place.
But either way, Tesla was concerned enough to do something. But it is all a little strange.
I do subscribe to the belief that there is so much money riding on things that I don't believe a thing I see. I could probably get my Tesla to explode in my garage and retire on the short profit. Not to mention the oil interests.
David, EVs are not exempt from the law. Theft, safety, warranty laws etc apply to Tesla just as much as every other car. Tesla broke a ton of laws, theft is a crime and the fact that it was easy for Tesla to steal en mass doesn't make it legal. Warranty and safety crimes aren't excusable either, they multiply the charges against Tesla. Every manufacturer is bound by the same laws. For example, that press release Tesla put out calls attention to their own internal investigation at the same time they say they are taking action to mitigate fires. That is in itself an admission of crime. Tesla had to report their internal investigation to the NHTSA within 5 days of discovering they might have a fire problem - not taking action but simply hearing about a possible problem. The NHTSA must then be the ones that issue the recall notice for any update that might address the issue. Secrecy and lies about safety problems are not legal, it must be public and tracked so anyone at risk can be contacted and if they sell the car the new buyer is informed. Tesla followed none of these laws and directly lied to us when we confronted them, offering many unrelated excuses for the downgrades they committed - which are in themselves theft, a simple crime on its own.
No one loosely throws these words. Tesla acted criminally and irresponsibly. They are acting as a criminal organization even now, actively covering up last year's crimes. We can only debate how criminal they are, they depth of those crimes is a question because they won't tell us whether they stole fcrom owners to save themselves warranty expenses (Magnusson Moss Warranty Act criminal charges if so), skipping every safety and reporting law the NHTSA has to try and avoid recalls (many federal crimes), or just committed theft for no reason (the best possible outcome for Tesla, because simple theft is the fewest number of crimes.
Since you want a list of all of teh crimes Tesla committed, including those specific to how OTA was criminally used:
VIII. CAUSES OF ACTION
COUNT 1 ....................................................................................................................49 VIOLATION OF THE COMPUTER FRAUD AND ABUSE ACT (18 U.S.C. § 1030 et seq.)
COUNT 2 ....................................................................................................................54 VIOLATION OF THE MAGNUSON-MOSS WARRANTY ACT (“MMWA”) (15 U.S.C. § 2301 et seq.)
COUNT 3 ....................................................................................................................56 Case 5:19-cv-04596 Document 1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 2 of 100 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT iii Case No. 5:19-cv-4596 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA’S SONG-BEVERLY CONSUMER WARRANTY ACT (“SONG-BEVERLY”) (Cal. Civ. Code § 1790 et seq.)
COUNT 4 ....................................................................................................................60 VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA’S UNFAIR COMPETITION LAW (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq.)
COUNT 5 ....................................................................................................................62 VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA’S UNFAIR COMPETITION LAW (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq.)
COUNT 6 ....................................................................................................................66 VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA’S CONSUMERS LEGAL REMEDIES ACT (Cal. Civ. Code § 1750 et seq.)
COUNT 7 ....................................................................................................................70 VIOLATIONS OF CALIFORNIA’S FALSE ADVERTISING LAW (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17500, et seq.)
COUNT 8 ....................................................................................................................72 TRESPASS TO CHATTELS (California Law)
COUNT 9 ....................................................................................................................73 COMMON LAW FRAUD (California Law)
COUNT 10 ..................................................................................................................76 CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUD (California Law)
COUNT 11 ..................................................................................................................78 FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT (California Law)
COUNT 12 ..................................................................................................................80 BREACH OF THE DUTY OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING (California Law)
COUNT 13 ..................................................................................................................82 MONEY HAD AND RECEIVED (California Law)
COUNT 14 ..................................................................................................................82 BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY (Cal. Comm. Code § 2313)
COUNT 15 ..................................................................................................................85 BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTIES (Cal. Comm. Code § 2314)
COUNT 16 ..................................................................................................................87 Case 5:19-cv-04596 Document 1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 3 of 100 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT iv Case No. 5:19-cv-4596 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 INTENTIONAL MISREPRESENTATION (Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1709-1710)
COUNT 17 ..................................................................................................................90 NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION (Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1709-1710)
COUNT 18 ..................................................................................................................91 FRAUD BY CONCEALMENT (Cal. Civ. Code § 3294)
COUNT 19 ..................................................................................................................94 QUASI CONTRACT/RESTITUTION/UNJUST ENRICHMENT (California Law)
This list is only the civil laws broken, but you can easily understand that OTA updates used to commit fraud are in themselves violations of several hacking laws. Manufacturers aren't exempt.
Federal charges from the NHTSA and possibly the EPA as well will be larger in scope.
