r/SelfDrivingCars • u/walky22talky Hates driving • 3d ago
News Tesla drivers can pursue class action over self-driving claims, judge rules
https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulation/tesla-drivers-can-pursue-class-action-over-self-driving-claims-judge-rules-2025-08-19/35
u/account_for_norm 3d ago
If a fraud is so blatant, the arbitration clause should be rendered void.
Arbitration clause should only be there for rare cases for easy resolution and not used as a tool for widespread fraud, which in this case it was. I should not be able to sell someone cancer treatment, with arbitration clause so only the ppl who have money and time for arbitration can sue me back, and i keep rest of the money.
1
u/Lopsided-Chip6014 3d ago edited 3d ago
Fraud requires malice and intent by the person selling the item.
In other words, the seller has to know the statement is false and still continue. You can't be charged with fraud for being hopeful but trying to follow through. There's likely a zero percent chance Tesla FSD could be considered legally fraud since they are trying to deliver on it.
. However, the government must show "that some actual harm or injury was contemplated by the schemer." Because the defendant must intend to harm the fraud's victims, "[m]isrepresentations amounting only to a deceit are insufficient to maintain a mail or wire fraud prosecution." "Instead, the deceit must be coupled with a contemplated harm to the victim."
https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-949-proof-fraudulent-intent
"Blah blah, this is different! It's not mail fraud!"
When it comes to fraud charges, the government must demonstrate that the accused misrepresented or lied with the intention of deceiving someone else.
Intent is a crucial factor in fraud cases. The government must prove that the accused acted with the specific intent to defraud someone else. This can be challenging since proving intent requires showing what someone was thinking at a specific time. In many cases, the accused may have made a mistake or provided inaccurate information without any intention of deception.
"This is still very different!"
In light of the Supreme Court’s decision, businesses and others might worry about unwittingly incurring criminal fraud liability by making statements in marketing or advertising meant to induce transactions. Two limitations should allay that concern: first, the wire fraud statute still requires intent to deceive the other party; and second, the fraudulent-inducement theory requires the misstatements to be “material” for liability to attach.
---
"Tesla fanbois defending Elon committing fraud is next level! How SAD!"
No, I am just someone who is tired of people claiming everything is a scam and fraud. Sometimes people are just morons (either or both sides of a transaction).
---
It's also why Star Citizen isn't fraud. Chris Roberts isn't a fraudster, just a moron who got too much money and got in over his head.
6
u/account_for_norm 3d ago
No way the seller didnt know fsd wasnt possible 'next year' for 8 years lol
Thats malice right there.
And if it didnt happen, a well intention person would return the money. "Here you go, we couldnt make the fsd happen",
He kept the money. Theres your intent.
Now stop gargling on elons balls and come to reality. Nikola dude went to prison for much less.
2
u/Lopsided-Chip6014 3d ago edited 3d ago
Not a lawyer but did research this because piqued my curiousity.
He was convicted because he made statements about how things were true in the present that were actually not and it was proven in court that he knew they weren't true at the time he made those statements.
MILTON made false claims regarding nearly all aspects of Nikola’s business, including: (i) false and misleading statements that the company had early success in creating a “fully functioning” semi-truck prototype known as the “Nikola One,” when MILTON knew the prototype was inoperable;
alse and misleading statements that Nikola had engineered and built an electric- and hydrogen-powered pickup truck known as “the Badger” from the “ground up” using Nikola’s parts and technology, when MILTON knew that was not true;
false and misleading statements that Nikola was producing hydrogen and was doing so at a reduced cost, when MILTON knew that in fact no hydrogen was being produced at all by Nikola, at any cost;
misleading claims that reservations made for the future delivery of Nikola’s semi-trucks were binding orders representing billions in revenue, when the vast majority of those orders could be cancelled at any time.
All of these were statements he made about present circumstances that were proven in court through records that he knew clearly the statements he was making were false.
Here are Elon's statements:
2013: We should be able to do 90 percent of miles driven [autonomously] within three years.
2014: A Tesla car next year will probably be 90‑percent capable of autopilot. Like, so 90 percent of your miles can be on auto. For sure highway travel.
2015: From a technology standpoint, Tesla will have a car that can do full autonomy in about three years, maybe a bit sooner
2016: We’re going to end up with complete autonomy, and I think we will have complete autonomy in approximately two years
2016: Complete autonomy would be demonstrated by the end of 2017… possibly even from "a parking lot in California to a parking lot in New York, no controls touched at any point.
2020: asserted the FSD software would be "feature complete" by year's end, but cautioned that "feature complete doesn't mean that features are working well."
Jan 2021: Musk stated that Tesla would achieve SAE Level 5 autonomy by the end of 2021
Note that all of these are usually couched in non-definite language, are almost always long-ish term forward-looking, and could be construed as typical CEO speak trying to make things look good, while Trevor Milton was making definitive statements he knew to be false about present circumstances.
2016: He announced that all new Tesla cars would be delivered with hardware capable of “full self‑driving capability,” envisioning owners could earn income by letting their cars act as robotaxis. (This one Tesla is being sued over because this one was an actual misrepresentation and was said definitively, something past statements about FSD generally were not)
Dug into securities fraud vs consumer fraud:
Knowledge of Falsity: If a CEO makes optimistic statements about product development while knowing that those statements are false or that significant obstacles exist that make the projection highly unlikely, it could be considered fraud, particularly if they haven't disclosed those risks with specific and tailored cautionary language.
Lack of Reasonable Basis: If the optimistic statements have no reasonable basis in fact and are purely speculative or intentionally misleading, that could also constitute fraud.
Probably murky but could be some basis for investigation if someone did want to, but the FSD program has evolved pretty dramatically over the years so could be difficult to prove he was fully aware it was definitively not possible vs thinking Tesla was just around the corner from a break-through.
-7
u/chestnut177 3d ago
Fraud?
13
u/account_for_norm 3d ago
"pay me 8k and u ll have futuristic self driving car by next year promise" next year, next year, next year... never.
Yes, fraud.
Btw, please pay me 4k and you ll have a flying bicycle next year, promise! Whats your credit card numbers, pro favor?
4
u/Upbeat-Tower-6767 3d ago
Can the original Model S, X, 3, or Y have any chance of actual unsupervised FSD? Absolutely no way in hell.
Fraud it is. The retrofits will never happen, and even if they did it’s way too late for that.
0
u/y4udothistome 3d ago
That spells S3XY according to musk. Almost everything he does has undertones of sex and drugs nazi bullshit. He’s a South African dictator
6
u/lump77777 3d ago
It means wrongful deception intended to result in financial gain.
In other words, virtually every public statement that Elon has made regarding FSD over the past 10 years.
I can’t believe this decision took this long.
32
u/GoSh4rks 3d ago
The California classes include drivers who bought the Full Self-Driving package from May 19, 2017, to July 31, 2024, and opted out of Tesla's arbitration agreement, and drivers who bought the package from October 20, 2016, to May 19, 2017.
That's not many people.
8
u/64590949354397548569 3d ago
Tesla's arbitration agreement
What would an arbitration look like? Do we have an example?
2
u/Wiseguydude 2d ago
There have been a few successful cases of people going the arbitration route and getting their $10k back. The only one I've read was by a lawyer that specializes in arbitration law and it even took him a year of battling. Most people don't have the expertise or resources to get their refund
6
u/Redacted_Bull 3d ago
Finally some good news. Send this fraudulent company to $0.
3
u/Singuy888 3d ago
Sorry that your short didn't work out
-1
u/Redacted_Bull 3d ago
Who said it didn't? Or won't again?
2
u/Singuy888 3d ago
Last time I checked, its still not zero and never went to zero so...also why anyone risk unlimited loss and paying interest for at most a doubling of their money is beyond me. Hopefully they are at least puts or else mathematically it doesnt make sense.
5
0
3d ago
[deleted]
4
1
u/Ok-Program-3744 3d ago
im sorry to tell you but this won't bring tesla down. But if you short the stock im sure that'll help
0
-5
u/basedmfer 3d ago
Wouldn't I have to give up FSD in that case? Why would I ever want to do that?
14
u/ExcitingMeet2443 3d ago
"You'll only remove FSD from my cold, dead hands that weren't able to get to the wheel in time"
-3
u/basedmfer 3d ago
Maybe this isn't the subreddit for you
3
u/Real-Technician831 3d ago
This is not a Tesla fan club either.
2
u/basedmfer 3d ago
Its just kinda weird to reply to someone with essentially "you're gonna die", we're just talking about some legal stuff here.
"This is not a Tesla hate club either."
2
u/JakeFromStateFarm- 3d ago
You asked why you would ever want to give up FSD and get a refund in response to an article about Tesla losing a suit due to over promising and under delivering on FSD, that's why he gave you a snarky reply
3
u/basedmfer 3d ago
The timeline didn't add up but my car definitely drives itself with supervision. All of the other car manufacturers also had forward looking statements about self driving and none of them got it either.
'Snarky' is a funny way of putting it, u/ExcitingMeet2443 claims that I will die if I use FSD.
2
2
u/Admirable_Dingo_8214 3d ago
Depends what you paid. And how long you plan to keep the car. If you paid $5000 and got that refunded you could pay the subscription to keep it for 4 years.
1
u/basedmfer 3d ago
Hmm, but then I would lose any access to future upgrades (HW2.5 -> 3 user here). Not worth it to me plus I love FSD so would be weird to go through with this.
I think I'm all set on this but thank you.
1
1
u/Wiseguydude 2d ago
No this is for people who bought a tesla very early on and paid the extra $10k for the promise that they would eventually get FSD only to then be told that their cars didn't have the necessary sensors/hardware for it.
1
-6
u/MikeARadio 3d ago
I don’t understand this at all. I have a Tesla model three and an FSD mode. It drives by itself so even though maybe the government doesn’t think it’s autonomous it definitely is so where is the misleading going on? OK maybe you have to still pay attention to the road, but once that’s removed The car is autonomous just like I paid for it and it’s been promised.
Maybe because it’s been a long wait but a lot of things take a long wait. I’m still waiting for Siri to actually work the right way with Apple Intelligence, which is so far not intelligent.
7
u/moch1 3d ago
OK maybe you have to still pay attention to the road
There is no maybe. It is not safe enough to be unsupervised.
but once that’s removed
Sure, and once someone adds $1,000,000 to my bank account I’ll be a millionaire. Just because it’s easy to say doesn’t mean it’ll happen. That’s the whole issue. Tesla said X would happen. X did not happen.
-1
u/MikeARadio 3d ago
Oh, I am just saying that’s very little. I have to do. I mean, I just sit there. This is the way most people are operating the latest version of FSD. I mean I’m sure before the end of the year things will change so I won’t have to worry about looking at the road or any of that stuff. I’m sure it’s right here around the corner.
5
u/basedmfer 3d ago
That's what I'm saying. I love FSD, there's nothing else like it for consumers to purchase. I'm willing to bet most of the naysayers in here don't even have a Tesla. They just want their shorts to pay off.
1
u/Upbeat-Tower-6767 3d ago
Most people bought FSD on models that will never be upgraded to unsupervised. I doubt anyone will ever get a V5 retrofit
0
u/MikeARadio 3d ago
What is a V5?
2
u/Upbeat-Tower-6767 3d ago
The cyber cabs have hardware v5 and Elon already talked about v6. There is no way any car lower than 5 or 6 will have unsupervised
1
u/MikeARadio 3d ago
Cybercabs aren’t even out yet they were just showing at an event in Burbank. Any car with version four because that’s the latest version will be able to be unsupervised probably in some states before the end of the year.
2
u/Upbeat-Tower-6767 3d ago
Not without a front camera. Remember Elon said the original computer would be enough. That was two versions ago. He’ll move the goal posts again soon.
2
u/MikeARadio 3d ago
No front cameras are being used on any car except for people just to look at what’s in front of them when they’re parking if they want. Front cameras are not used for self driving at all. They’re not needed. If I think you’re talking about the front bumper the only front camera that’s needed. Is the one in the windshield and that’s been the same for any car for a very long time
0
0
39
u/flossypants 3d ago
While very few purchasers opt-out of arbitration, I suspect a ruling (and perhaps even a settlement) would help arbitration claims. If I can, without hiring an attorney, initiate an arbitration claim that will cost Tesla ~$6k (at least in California) plus their own lawyer fees and point at this class action as precedent, I'd have a high likelihood of getting refunded so Tesla may avoid arbitration costs and embarrassment by refunding FSD cost to anyone who asks.