But neither Musk nor the lawyers say which regulators they’re talking about. In its motion to dismiss, Tesla lawyers note that Musk often has said regulatory approval will be necessary before actual autonomy can be deployed.
#TESLA FSD FULL#
The lawsuit highlights the multiple revisions of Musk’s statements over the years that full autonomy would be achieved in three months, or six months, or the end of the year (in any given year) or the next year. Tesla workers later revealed that the video was fabricated, done in multiple takes, with the driving system’s failures removed, including a crash into a fence.
#TESLA FSD PROFESSIONAL#
A former Tesla engineer, she claims she was defamed by Tesla in 2017, damaging her professional reputation, but through a series of procedural arguments Tesla lawyers have kept the case out of public court. The case of Cristina Balan, as chronicled by The Times, is perhaps the most famous example. The private arbitration move is often Tesla’s first reaction against public court lawsuits. Thousands of lawsuits have been filed against Tesla and Musk.
#TESLA FSD TRIAL#
While a public trial could reveal testimony from current or former Tesla employees on the state of Tesla’s automated technology development at any given time, arbitration would keep that testimony secret. The motion to dismiss the case rests mainly on Tesla’s contention that the papers customers signed when they bought their cars obligate them to individually file claims through the private arbitration system.Ī public trial allows for customers to file as a large group, known as a class arbitration means each customer would be on his or her own. Tesla lawyers are attempting to prevent that information from going public. If the case goes forward, it could lead to deposition of Tesla employees who helped develop the technology and reveal what Musk knew and didn’t know about its true capabilities when he made numerous forecasts over the years - including the prediction that there would be a million Tesla robotaxis on the road by the end of 2020, that customers could make $30,000 a year hiring them out, and that their cars would appreciate in value.
The main plaintiff is Briggs Matsko, a resident of Rancho Murieta, Calif. In its defense, Tesla lawyers said that “mere failure to realize a long-term, aspirational goal is not fraud.” That argument is contained in a motion to dismiss the case that was filed last week in U.S. No Tesla on the road today is capable of full self-driving, and yet Tesla sells what it calls a Full Self-Driving Capability for $15,000.
They claim they were ripped off, duped by statements from co-founder and Chief Executive Elon Musk and marketing materials from Tesla over the last six years suggesting full-fledged autonomous driving was imminent. The electric car company is facing a class-action lawsuit from Autopilot and Full Self-Driving (FSD) technology customers.
Tesla’s Full Self-Driving technology may be a failure, Tesla lawyers admit - but it’s not a fraud.
0 kommentar(er)
