Tesla Rip Off- Full Self Driving

[croman]

There is a class action on this but class actions have serious issues with actually benefitting the class vs the experts and attorneys.

 

[yo mama]

Meh. You're paying for an opportunity that FSD *might* become reality during your ownership. Caveat emptor. IMO, that opportunity is priced fairly based on the risk it might *not* materialize during ownership.

FWIW, I took that chance back in 2015 buying the (then unproven) AP1 feature on my leased MS, and that bet worked out great. But I'm not sold on getting the FSD option if I lease another MS.

 

[smac]

Someone who orders FSD is buying an investment.

Which is exactly why consumer finance agreement regulations could kick in.

You have borrowed money to speculate on a future outcome. It's more like taking something on margin than a traditional finance contract, and none of the usual disclaimers for this sort of borrowing will be present in the terms of the finance contract.

 

[dknieriemen]

I you trust Elon, as I do, I think our investment will be worth it. He has not let me down yet.

 

[Uncle Paul]

If you leased your car, you are not out the full 3,000, only the depreciated amount covered by your lease.

When people chose to take the FSD option, you got a vehicle with all the sensors in place to accomplish that goal. Elon mentioned that if additional hardware became necessary to accomplish that goal, they would upgrade as necessary. They posted that this was a goal to be obtained in the future, as software, hardware and governmental permission became available. Buyers were given the choice of buying it at a set price, and notified that if you waited for it to be added later, there would be an additonal $1,000 cost. People made their decisions, and hoped for the best.

FSD will not be here until it is. When it gets here it will make a dramatic difference in the way personal transportation is used. It will revolutionize so many things, and owners will be happy that they only need to push a virtual button to enable it's use.

Tesla intended to develop FSD with Mobile eye. When that partnership fell apart they needed to reset and develop another path. They chose to go with their own Tesla Vision technology, and it looks that while the timeline will be shifted out further, the final product will be dramatically better.

Understand everyone frustration, but predictions, especially about the future, are often frought with challenges.

 

[yo mama]

Which is exactly why consumer finance agreement regulations could kick in.

You have borrowed money to speculate on a future outcome. It's more like taking something on margin than a traditional finance contract, and none of the usual disclaimers for this sort of borrowing will be present in the terms of the finance contract.

No, you paid for hardware (which you physically got) and the opportunity for future software upgrades. If you want the hardware you have to pay for the hardware. The potential future value of that hardware is merely in the eye of the beholder.

I pushed my way to the front of the line for the after-market ludicrous upgrade back in the day, based on speculation and faith. And I have no regrets. I recall there were numerous hand-wringers and fence-sitters back then who wanted more assurances before they shelled out $5k for the uncertain benefits. Well, assurances aren't always available for an early adopters. And for christ's sake, we're only talking about $3k to $4k here.

 

[DJ_S75D]

I thought I had read somewhere that Tesla had sold some or most of their leases in order to raise capital in the short term. If Tesla no longer own the leases, will that affect owners seeking financial compensation for any of the aforementioned reasons? Would this be similar to the housing market crash of 2008 where loans were flawed from the beginning, but then sold to unwitting banks or firms who would have to deal with the fallout?

I'll have to go dig up the source for Tesla selling their leases though... I could be totally wrong about that.

-DJ

 

[Need]

When we bought our MX, our OA told us NOT to get FSD. He said nobody buys it and he thinks we are years from getting it anyway and that was Nov last year. So obviously he is familiar with Elon's time.

 

[oktane]

It certainly doesn't mean squat if Tesla were misleading people which seems almost proven since the videos were faked. No software existed but they didn't tell anyone that. So the contact terms, which don't seem to actually cover failure to deliver due to Tesla failing due to hardware deficiency, are almost irrelevant.

I'm sorry but a fraudulent sale can't be enforced by a purchase agreement. Any half rate lawyer will be able to get a refund, or just file a suit in small claims court and win.

Also I'd recommend a refund of autopilot since it hasn't reached parity yet. That should be worth the small claims court filing fee and satisfaction.

 

[Ben W]

This is completely untrue. There are no legal hurdles in many jurisdictions and there is no federal law prohibiting it. It's just that Tesla has nothing. Don't even dream regulations are affecting anything.

"Research commissioned by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in 2016 found that up to 45 percent of current federal auto regulations may pose major roadblocks to the development and deployment of automated vehicles."

Congress’ Failure to Modernize Auto Safety Regulations Threatens Innovation in Self-Driving Cars

It's possible that some of this applies only to vehicles without a steering wheel, or to operating without a licensed driver, but I don't think Tesla can simply activate Level 4 FSD in the fleet tomorrow, even if it's 100% ready in the lab. Tesla's own Configuration page says the following regarding FSD:

"This functionality is dependent upon extensive software validation and regulatory approval. It is not possible to know exactly when it will be available, as this is highly dependent on local regulatory approval, which may vary widely by jurisdiction."

I do agree with you, however, that the technical barriers will cause more of a delay than the regulatory barriers. But I think both of them will take longer than a 3-year lease.

 

[smac]

And for christ's sake, we're only talking about $3k to $4k here.

Then Tesla should just refund it to anyone that wants their money back.

However, and going back to my original point on lease vehicles. All lease vehicles are owned by the finance company.

The lessee agreed to fair enjoyment of a product with a specified feature set for a set term at a set price per month. We are half way down some of those contract durations and the lessor has not fulfilled their obligation. (N.B. I'm not mentioning Tesla here, rather the lessor) .

TBH I think it would be a fairly clear cut consumer finance dispute between lessor and lessee which, without all the pain of small claims court and/or class action suits, I would imagine would fall into the consumer's favour.

Now how the lessors subsequently go about rectifying the situation with Tesla... meh. up to them.


This is my opinion, offered as a suggestion for owners unhappy with the situation, and for who $3k would be a meaningful amount. I will add to that I'm sure it will end up with argument and counter argument, as AFAIK no-one has sold cars with bundled vaporware on lease terms before. The core question will boil down to who undertook the risk the vaporware materialized, the lessee, lessor, or manufacturer.

 

[boonedocks]

Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on Tesla.

I DID in fact pre-purchase FSD on my March ‘17 delivered S100D. When ordering our X75D, December ‘17 delivery, I did NOT order it. I have little to no faith that Tesla will deliver FSD before either car is well beyond their useable life

 

[AmpedRealtor]

I suggest you get the issue escalated. Give Tesla a choice: Refund or see them in small claims court. I don't know what the limits are where you live, but they may be high enough to recoup your cost. A small claims judge will be very sympathetic to your case and you won't need an attorney. I think you'll win.

 

[yo mama]

Then Tesla should just refund it to anyone that wants their money back.

However, and going back to my original point on lease vehicles. All lease vehicles are owned by the finance company.

The lessee agreed to fair enjoyment of a product with a specified feature set for a set term at a set price per month. We are half way down some of those contract durations and the lessor has not fulfilled their obligation. (N.B. I'm not mentioning Tesla here, rather the lessor) .

TBH I think it would be a fairly clear cut consumer finance dispute between lessor and lessee which, without all the pain of small claims court and/or class action suits, I would imagine would fall into the consumer's favour.

Now how the lessors subsequently go about rectifying the situation with Tesla... meh. up to them.


This is my opinion, offered as a suggestion for owners unhappy with the situation, and for who $3k would be a meaningful amount. I will add to that I'm sure it will end up with argument and counter argument, as AFAIK no-one has sold cars with bundled vaporware on lease terms before. The core question will boil down to who undertook the risk the vaporware materialized, the lessee, lessor, or manufacturer.

Show me where they promised functionality by a certain date, and I'll agree with you. But if all people got was an estimate that was subject to various contingencies, some of which were outside the seller's control, then you'll almost certainly lose. The current disclosures couldn't be clearer that there is no way to know when functionality will be available, or in what jurisdictions.

 

[yo mama]

I suggest you get the issue escalated. Give Tesla a choice: Refund or see them in small claims court. I don't know what the limits are where you live, but they may be high enough to recoup your cost. A small claims judge will be very sympathetic to your case and you won't need an attorney. I think you'll win.

As a half-rate lawyer myself, I respectfully disagree.

 

[jorobsand]

There are Tesla videos showing a Tesla car capable of space flight:

Does this mean I should assume that my car, even though stated nowhere in its contract should also be reasonably capable of space flight? At the end of the day, all that matters is what is in the contract and the associated terms/conditions. Marketing and Elon tweets are not a legal ground to stand on when the contract doesn't commit the functionality by any date/time or promise a refund if not delivered when the terms/conditions are still being met.

 

[McRat]

It appears that unlike California, you can be represented by an attorney in Florida.
So consult a lawyer. You can add legal fees to a Florida Small Claims suit.
The lawyer will normally send Tesla a letter. I have a good hunch it will be settled at that point. Florida is a lot different. Small Claims can get very expensive to litigate from what I see and take a long time.

For California, here's a wild-arse guess how Tesla will proceed if they want to win. (If Tesla is reading, you're welcome!)
They will do as much stalling as possible to try and avoid you filing, then to get the filing rejected if possible. They need to hold off to November.
There is a 2 year statute of limitations on verbal agreements, which they can argue the FSD video and public statements about FSD are, and that part of the contract is disallowed.
Then they will argue what you purchased was in fact a software maintenance agreement, not hardware, which was delivered at point of sale, and is a premium version of AP2 which you also received and received maintenance agreement updates on. So your update contract is still in force, and you've received everything you paid for. You can't get your money back on these if there are no updates, only if they refuse any technical support provisions.

Would they win?

 

[smac]

Show me where they promised functionality by a certain date

The easy one would be for any lease cars ordered over the AP1 to AP2 transition. (and I know this is stepping outside the FSD region into AP/EAP not FSD), fundamentally for the period between AP2 reaching AP1 parity then really the lease company have not delivered for a pro-rata'd amount of the contract.

As for the "reasonable" expectation of what was demonstrated and projected timelines (bear in mind we are already 3 years out from when Elon said the car would drive from your garage on private property to meet you at your doorstep), it will be up to a court to decide if this was achievable within the timescales of the leases sold. (FWIW I think this claim was complete horse_ _ _ _)

 

[Bebop]

Forget self driving. How about getting a partial refund on the Enhanced Autopilot option.

I feel bad for those who have been waiting for almost 1 1/2 years for that to even be a thing. Still not even released to this day.

 

[croman]

There are Tesla videos showing a Tesla car capable of space flight:

Does this mean I should assume that my car, even though stated nowhere in its contract should also be reasonably capable of space flight? At the end of the day, all that matters is what is in the contract and the associated terms/conditions. Marketing and Elon tweets are not a legal ground to stand on when the contract doesn't commit the functionality by any date/time or promise a refund if not delivered when the terms/conditions are still being met.

I'm sorry what contract? Kindly point me to it because I bought it and there is no contract for it. It's an option like 21" wheels. The language in 2016 for FSD and EAP was changed in January 2017 after I purchased and took delivery. That language isn't really enforceable not relevant because Tesla is failing to deliver despite setting consumer expectations. Ex A is the Woz. He would be a compelling consumer who has some serious credibility and credentials and was still fooled. This isn't the 19th century. Consumers have remedies even if it's a pita.