Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Yellow screen? Force Tesla to Replace it!

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Anyone familiar with how class action lawsuits work and why this issue does not have one thus far?
I've reached out to multiple firms. My guess is that the firms are mostly not interested because of the binding arbitration clause in the mvpa. I would gladly participate as another plaintiff if anyone can find a firm willing to take the case on. I have plenty of evidence to provide, beyond even what is posted.


(note: there are Two different types of arbitration in the Mvpa.
1. Non-binding, that is the NCDS one we have been utilizing
2. Binding, this is most lilely through Jams)
 
  • Like
Reactions: GazUK67
Anyone familiar with how class action lawsuits work and why this issue does not have one thus far?

They mainly move money to the lawyers. In this case it seems like it would be waste since Tesla will already do the right thing with just a little effort in going to arbitration.

That shouldn't be necessary and hopefully Tesla will start doing it without arbitration.
 
They mainly move money to the lawyers. In this case it seems like it would be waste since Tesla will already do the right thing with just a little effort in going to arbitration.

That shouldn't be necessary and hopefully Tesla will start doing it without arbitration.

I agree with @MP3Mike on this one. I don’t think it’s necessary to go beyond arbitration and hopefully, not all of us will have to take that route. I have the yellow border (bad version), but my car is leased. I haven’t yet explored if/how that complicates things. For now, I’m assuming they could argue it’s still their property (it is a Tesla lease). Should I choose to buy it out, that would change. So, for now, I’m advocating and waiting.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VT_EE and MP3Mike
We recently scheduled an appointment with mobile service to have our yellow touchscreen replaced. We've waited nearly a year, all the while being told that "a fix is coming" and that we "need to be patient." Very frustrating. Tesla texted today saying the tooling for the fix wasn't available yet. They cancelled the appointment. I ended up on the phone w/someone from mobile service and these are the "answers" they provided to my questions:

When is tooling available?
Don't know.

What causes the displays to yellow?
Don't know, maybe combination of heat + sunlight.

Are new S/X still being built with defective displays?
Don't know.

Can you replace our display?
Yes, but you have to pay and we can't guarantee the new display won't have the same problem.

Does the UV fix work 100% of the time?
Don't know.

Is the UV fix considered a warranty repair or goodwill?
Goodwill.

So that's where we're at now. Normally I'd proceed with arbitration but if they're just going to put another defective display in that's not going to get us anywhere. It was incredibly frustrating how little information the guy provided, but even more frustrating was his attitude. No apology, no sense that he was truly concerned about what was happening. Just a sense that I was bothering him and that he was being gracious even being willing to talk with me and offer an unverified fix at an undetermined future date.

That is a really appalling response from Tesla Service... does not bode well for Tesla going forward.
 
I lost my arbitration case. The arbiter said the warranty specifically calls out sunlight damage as not covered, and that I didn’t disprove that the display was damaged by sun light.

I guess this is what Tesla is banking on. That there will be some winners and some losers. I’m either a terrible debater, or drew the unlucky arbiter card. Best of luck to everyone else.
 
and that I didn’t disprove that the display was damaged by sun light.
Seems that it ought to be the other way around. They should have to prove that you operated the car in a non normal environment and over exposed the display to unforeseen or unnatural conditions.

And did you ask specifically how this applied to a screen inside a car protected by UV filtering glass? Also there are a number of posts on TMC with people who have yellow borders who are in very northern climates, the car is just a few months old, or was rarely parked outside.

Is there any way you can challenge a decision?
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: DCEV and FlatSix911
I lost my arbitration case. The arbiter said the warranty specifically calls out sunlight damage as not covered, and that I didn’t disprove that the display was damaged by sun light.

Ouch, sorry to hear that.

Did Tesla provide evidence that sunlight caused the damage?
I have no legal background, but from a quick internet search - google “burden of proof on warranties” - the overall consensus would seem that generally, to avoid its obligation under the warranty policy, the insurer bears the burden of proving a misrepresentation or violation of the warranty.

Did Tesla provide this evidence during the call?
And if they did show proof, I would have responded that a reasonable person would not think sunlight would damage components meant to be used in the sun (cars drive outside) and no warning was given to me that my car was only meant for night time driving.

The arbiter’s decision is puzzling, basically determining that any piece of the car that sunlight touches is not a warranty item. If your paint turns a different color from sunlight, not covered. If your rubber seals melt under sunlight, not covered.

Just a crappy situation - other owners are going in with identical complaints but getting differing resolutions.
 
I lost my arbitration case. The arbiter said the warranty specifically calls out sunlight damage as not covered, and that I didn’t disprove that the display was damaged by sun light.

I guess this is what Tesla is banking on. That there will be some winners and some losers. I’m either a terrible debater, or drew the unlucky arbiter card. Best of luck to everyone else.
Wow! Elon is a genius in making money (by getting people into buying a product and then weaseling out of paying to fix it if it breaks under warranty) . If you car has ever been exposed to the sun, ANYTHING that breaks could be called sun damage. A wheel fell off - sun damage, sun did shine on the wheels. Brakes don't work - your rim's don't completely cover the calipers and rotors, sun damage. Your battery is dead, well, you can't prove you didn't park over a puddle and sun rays reflected off the water surface and shined on the battery, etc, etc.

How long before the term "Elon scheme" makes it into the urban dictionary, akin to "Ponzi scheme".

You got Elon-schemed @wildag. I've been to damn busy to file for arbitration, but temped to just pay a lawyer to do it instead (yes, I know it might cost me more than a $1,300 for screen replacement, but now it's the principle).
 
I lost my arbitration case. The arbiter said the warranty specifically calls out sunlight damage as not covered, and that I didn’t disprove that the display was damaged by sun light.

I guess this is what Tesla is banking on. That there will be some winners and some losers. I’m either a terrible debater, or drew the unlucky arbiter card. Best of luck to everyone else.
I don’t understand, was there wording in the warranty, at the time you bought the car, that sunlight could damage the screen?

Either way, as others have said, I’d think the burden of proof for misuse falls on Tesla. With the UV filtering of the windows and roof, short of driving around with your windows open, I don’t see how this is your responsibility.

Beyond that, to assume that any interior component within the passenger compartment of a car driven anywhere outside of a garage, can be so adversely affected by sunlight and becomes the responsibility of the owner, leaves a normal person speechless.
 
Last edited:
I lost my arbitration case. The arbiter said the warranty specifically calls out sunlight damage as not covered, and that I didn’t disprove that the display was damaged by sun light.

I guess this is what Tesla is banking on. That there will be some winners and some losers. I’m either a terrible debater, or drew the unlucky arbiter card. Best of luck to everyone else.
Did you do docs only?

You can also refile if you add in additional evidence:

"Remedies Post-Decision: After the Arbitrator’s decision is rendered, you will receive a letter from NCDS indicating that if you are dissatisfied with the decision, the Manufacturer’s intended actions, or eventual performance, you may pursue other legal remedies, including Small Claims Court. You may refile a new claim, provided you have acquired new evidence since the last hearing decision was issued, and the vehicle is still covered under the applicable warranty. "
 
At the advice of someone else here, I asked:

* Is the vehicle designed to be operated in sunlight?
* Does the owners manual state that the vehicle should not be operated in sunlight?
* Are there any recommendations in any Tesla owner's manual regarding protecting the MCU from normal exposure to sunlight?

Obviously, "no" to all.

The Tesla Warranty, Exclusions, does say in one bullet "The environment or an act of God, including but not limited to, exposure to sunlight, airborne chemicals..."

In my decision, the arbitrator said of the decision in my favor "...I have reached this decision because the Customer has proven the existence of a nonconformity.". That's basically it - not sure if that means something in legal or arbitration terms but that's the entire basis for his decision. The dictionary definition of "nonconformity" is "failure or refusal to conform to a prevailing rule or practice.". Honestly, that makes it sound quite subjective, which I guess it is. Is it common or prevailing practice for an auto maker to exclude something such as this from warranty? Most would say emphatically "No".

And I was also surprised that in my face-to-face meeting, the 50 or so pages of documentation I had acquired (and 10 or so from Tesla) were not examined at all, unless Tesla or I brought up a point from them in our oral arguments. I assume, but have no indication, that the arbitrator ever looked at them, let alone understood what he was looking at. Many were quotes from this forum on the topic. That makes me wonder of the value of a "documents only" review.
 
I lost my arbitration case. The arbiter said the warranty specifically calls out sunlight damage as not covered, and that I didn’t disprove that the display was damaged by sun light.

I would think the fact that some people have reported new screens have come out of the box, having never been installed in a car, with the yellow border disproves that sunlight is the cause.
 
In my decision, the arbitrator said of the decision in my favor "...I have reached this decision because the Customer has proven the existence of a nonconformity.". That's basically it.

Ironically, the denial decision I received started with the same sentence. “Customer proved there is a non-conformity”. But the arbiter went many steps further and concluded that the non-conformity wasn’t covered under the warranty. So it seems non-conformity is defined just as “something isn’t ideal”.
 
Ironically, the denial decision I received started with the same sentence. “Customer proved there is a non-conformity”. But the arbiter went many steps further and concluded that the non-conformity wasn’t covered under the warranty. So it seems non-conformity is defined just as “something isn’t ideal”.

Sorry your case didn't go the way you wanted. I'm quite frankly surprised by the decision you were handed. How is someone supposed to prove that sunlight did not cause the issue? The burden of proof that sunlight is the cause should be on Tesla.

If you go back to testhrowaway's documents in the first post Tesla argued that the issue was caused "due to exposure to temperature, humidity, and oxygen over time". I wonder if the "engineers" determined sometime after then that the real cause was "sunlight" because that is explicitly mentioned in the warranty. I don't believe the excuse that this is caused by sunlight one bit. Tesla has been unwilling to provide any proof to back up their claims and "sunlight" is so broad that it doesn't narrow down what actually caused the issue (was it just heat? UV?).
 
  • Like
Reactions: MP3Mike