Tesla owner wins ~$10k settlement over Tesla’s full self-driving claims
A Tesla owner in the UK challenged Tesla over its failure to deliver on its full self-driving claims and won a settlement representing a refund of his purchase cost of FSD, with interest, after filing a claim in small claims court.
Tesla’s Full Self-Driving system has been available since 2016, with Tesla stating at the time that all Teslas now have the hardware to fully drive themselves. The system went on sale that year as a $3,000 option, though prices have shifted up and down over time.
But the software… still doesn’t work. While Tesla finally released FSD beta to everyone in the US last year (after gating it behind a “safety score” for about a year), Teslas are still not actually capable of fully driving themselves.
Tesla’s system is still “level 2” on the SAE’s driving automation scale, which means responsibility lies with the driver. Drivers need to pay attention to the vehicle, and should, since FSD can make some pretty dangerous decisions.
The system has raised eyebrows with regulators, lawsuits, and political campaigns all claiming that Tesla advertises the system falsely by calling it full self-driving when it is not.
FSD Beta does deliver on some specific promises that Tesla made – namely, traffic light recognition and automatic driving on city streets. While the latter is not available unsupervised, it has been rolled out to customers – in North America, anyway. FSD Beta has only started being available in a few other territories outside North America earlier this year.
But the UK is not one of those places, and 2023 is not 2019. Which is the source of the claim we’ll be discussing today.
The claim was filed by Tesla owner Edward Butler, who detailed the process in a thread on Tesla Motors Club forum.
Butler purchased a Tesla Model 3 in 2019, along with the Full Self-Driving option at a price of £5800 (about $7,100 USD at today’s rates). He alleged that Tesla has not delivered on specific promises related to its Full Self-Driving option, and thus breached the Consumer Rights Act of 2015. His claim asked for a refund of the price of the system, with interest, and a rollback to eliminate FSD functionality for his vehicle.
Specifically, he cited Tesla’s website which in 2019 stated that traffic light recognition and automatic driving on city streets were “coming later this year.” Since Butler purchased the vehicle entirely from the website and without a test drive, the website description formed part of the purchase contract.
Since then, Tesla has delivered traffic light recognition in the UK, though that feature rolled out in September 2020, after Tesla’s self-imposed deadline. And Tesla has still not yet delivered automatic driving on city streets in the UK, nearly four years later.
Butler notified Tesla of his intent to file, and initially the company denied the claim. Then he filed with the UK courts’ Money Claim Online website, and his case was assigned to his local small claims court.
Once a court date was set, Tesla offered Butler a settlement offer – but initially, that settlement only included a refund of the initial price of the system, with no interest. And worse, for Butler, Tesla added clauses that would restrict him from talking about the settlement or providing anyone else instructions on how to pursue a similar claim.
Butler objected to these restrictions, and told Tesla that he would not accept any claims with these clauses included. After some further back and forth and telling Tesla that he would continue to pursue the court date, Tesla seemingly recognized that his claim was a “slam-dunk,” in Butler’s words, and agreed to the higher amount without the gag clauses included.
Butler says:
From Telsa’s POV, I am the worst type of litigator to take on. I am not a lawyer, but deal with them quite often in my day job so I know enough to put in a small claims action with confidence. The money wasn’t important to me, I felt they’d conned me and I wanted them to do the right thing and put it right. Moreover, because the money wasn’t important to me I was never going to sign up to a non-advice/confidentiality clause, I think it’s important that my experience is out there for others to form their own views from.
The settlement ended up being for £8,015.22, including interest and court fees, which is $9,860USD at today’s exchange rates. As a settlement, this does not set any legal precedents, but it does show that there is a strong case against Tesla, at least in the UK, over violation of UK law in its advertising claims.
Electrek’s Take
This isn’t the first time Tesla has been lost in court over false advertising relating to its self-driving system. Last year, it was ordered to upgrade one driver’s self-driving computer for free after announcing that it would charge owners $1,500 for hardware they already bought.
But small claims is not the most efficient way to hold companies accountable when they make false promises. While it is much cheaper and easier than a traditional lawsuit, because neither side is allowed to bring lawyers and the court filing system is streamlined in comparison, it’s still a roadblock and still requires fees.
It also requires knowledge of the system, which is why Tesla wanted to add a “non-advice” clause to Butler’s settlement. By tamping down on public knowledge of how to file these claims, Tesla can hopefully settle them one by one and not have to pay restitute across its entire customer base, at least 285,000 of which have paid for FSD.
This is why class actions are good at holding companies accountable, because they can combine several claims together. Otherwise, a company isn’t going to care about losing a few thousand dollars here and there – they’ll offer quick settlements and get on with their day.
It’s also why companies prefer binding arbitration clauses, which deprive workers and consumers of their legal right to seek remedy through the legal system or through class action lawsuits. But forced arbitration has been upheld repeatedly by the consumer-hostile “supreme” court of the US, more than half of whom were appointed or confirmed undemocratically, so it stands to reason that they wouldn’t care about what would benefit the public most.
This is relevant because Tesla recently weaseled out of one of these class action lawsuits by claiming successfully in court that all owners must go through arbitration if they want to receive remedy. The court even boneheadedly ruled that one owner who did not accept the arbitration clause was not allowed to sue because they waited too long to do so, even though Tesla’s violation is happening on a continuing basis.
And none of this is great for customer or public perception of Tesla. While they may be profiting off of sales of future software, they could do a lot better for goodwill by offering customers who feel jilted to refund a system which they’ve never been able to use – and may never be able to use over the course of the entire lifetime of the vehicle, given that some have now had FSD functionality for 6 years without it actually being usable yet.
For now, the steps above may not apply to the US the same as they apply to the UK. But if you’re in the UK and want your money back for a non-working Full Self-Driving system, it sounds like the process is relatively simple. Head on over to the Tesla Motors Club forum thread to learn more and see a selection of documents that Butler filed. And if anyone tries the same in the US (or if you have tried it and succeeded in the past), we’d love to hear about it.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
After canceling the upcoming Airflow electric crossover and killing its popular 300 sedan, Chrysler only has one nameplate left in its lineup – but it doesn’t have to be this way. Stellantis already builds a full-size electric sedan that could prove to be a badge-engineered winner.
And, yes – it really should have been the new Chrysler 300. Meet the DS No. 8.
Stellantis’ US brands have had a tough go of the last few years, with Jeep trying and failing to bait luxury buyers willing to part with six-figure sums for a new Grand Wagoneer or generate excitement for the new electric Wagoneer S. The Dodge brand is doing to better with the Charger, a confusing electric muscle car that has, so far, failed to appeal to enthusiasts of any kind. Meanwhile, the lone Chrysler left standing, the Pacifica minivan, made its debut back in 2016. Nearly ten long model years ago.
All the while, Stellantis’ European brands have been forging ahead with desireable EVs – most recently launching the new DS No. 8 high-riding sedan, shown here, back in December … and I’m here to tell you that it really SHOULD have been the new Chrysler 300.
This, but with rich Corinthian leather
With a different grille, a Chrysler badge on the steering wheel, and a few different plastichrome numbers on the back, the DS Automobiles No. 8 could easily be a new-age Chrysler 300. Heck, even the interior’s avant-garde styling and architecturally-inspired stitching could tie-in to the Art Deco-style Chrysler Building in New York, further strengthening the big No. 8’s Chrysler-brand credibility.
Spec-wise, the DS meets the bill, as well. With a 92.7 kWh battery and the standard 230 hp electric motors on board, the electric crossover is good for 750 km (466 miles) of range on the WLTP cycle. With the same battery and a 350 hp dual-motor setup that sacrifices about 40 miles of range for a more sure-footed AWD layout and a 5.4 second 0-60 time that compares nicely to the outgoing Chrysler 300 V8.
The DS offers reasonably rapid 150 kW charging, too, enabling a 10-80% charge (over 300 miles of additional driving range) in less than thirty minutes.
Why it would work
Think of all the reasons the Wagoneer S and Charger Daytona EVs have failed to reach an audience. From the confusing Wagoneer “sub-branding” to the fact that no one was really asking for either an eco-conscious muscle car or a loud EV. On the flip side of that, the 300 is something different.
Since its first iteration seventy years ago, the Chrysler 300 (called the “C-300” back in 1955) has been a forward-looking vehicle. Even the most recent versions, developed off the Mercedes-Benz W210 platform Chrysler inherited while it was part of the “merger of equals” with Mercedes-Benz, looked forward from the malaise-era K-car brand to a bright, Mercedes-infused future.
With the DS No. 8, Chrysler could do it again. It could revive its classic American nameplate on a European-designed platform that wasn’t designed to be a Chrysler, doesn’t look like a Chrysler, and shouldn’t work as a Chrysler, but somehow does. The fact that it could also be the brand’s first successful electric offering in the US would just be a bonus.
Original content from Electrek.
Your personalized solar quotes are easy to compare online and you’ll get access to unbiased Energy Advisors to help you every step of the way. The best part? No one will call you until after you’ve elected to move forward. Get started, hassle-free, by clicking here.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
Powered by tech giant Huawei 5G-Advanced network, a fleet of over 100 Huaneng Ruichi all-electric autonomous haul trucks and heavy equipment assets have been deployed at the Yimin open-pit mine in Inner Mongolia.
With more than 100 units on site, China’s state-backed Huaneng Group officially deployed the world’s largest fleet of unmanned electric mining trucks at the Yimin coal plant in Inner Mongolia this past week. The autonomous trucks use the same Huawei Commercial Vehicle Autonomous Driving Cloud Service (CVADCS) powered by the ame 5G-Advanced (5G-A) network that powers its self-driving car efforts. Huawei says it’s the key to enabling the Yimin mine’s large-scale vehicle-cloud-network synergy.
Huawei is calling the achievement a “world’s first,” saying the new system has improved operator safety at Yimin while setting new benchmarks for AI and autonomous mining.
The autonomous mine project aligns with a broader push by Chinese government and industry to integrate AI and advanced connectivity into traditional industries – an approach we’ve already seen meet with great success in port environments by Hesai and Westwell.
And, if technology like Rocsys’ charging robots take off, these autonomous haul trucks won’t even need anyone to plug them in at the end of their shifts!
For their part, Huaneng Ruichi claims its cabin-less electric offer an industry-leading 90 metric ton rating (that’s about 100 imperial tons) and the ability operate continually in extreme cold temperatures as low as -40° (it’s the same, C or F), while delivering 20% more operational efficiency than a human-driven truck.
The Huawei-issued press release is a bit light on truck specs, but similar 90 tonne electric units claim 350 or 422 kWh LFP battery packs and up to 565 hp from their electric drive motors and some 2,300 Nm (1,700 lb-ft) of tq from 0 rpm.
Huawei executives said the Ruichi trucks reflect the company’s vision for smarter mining operations, with the potential to introduce similar technologies in markets like Africa and Latin America. The 100 asset electric fleet marks the first phase of a plan to deploy 300 autonomous trucks at the Yimin mine by 2028.
Electrek’s Take
From drilling and rigging to heavy haul solutions, companies like Huaneng Group are proving that electric equipment is more than up to the task of moving dirt and pulling stuff out of the ground. At the same time, rising demand for nickel, lithium, and phosphates combined with the natural benefits of electrification are driving the adoption of electric mining machines while a persistent operator shortage is boosting demand for autonomous tech in those machines.
The combined factors listed above are rapidly accelerating the rate at which machines that are already in service are becoming obsolete – and, while some companies are exploring the cost/benefit of converting existing vehicles to electric, the general consensus seems to be that more companies will be be buying more new equipment more often in the years ahead – and more of that equipment will be more and more likely to be autonomous as time goes on.
SOURCES | IMAGES: Huawei, South China Morning Post, and Supply Chain Digital.
If you’re considering going solar, it’s always a good idea to get quotes from a few installers. To make sure you find a trusted, reliable solar installer near you that offers competitive pricing, check out EnergySage, a free service that makes it easy for you to go solar. It has hundreds of pre-vetted solar installers competing for your business, ensuring you get high-quality solutions and save 20-30% compared to going it alone. Plus, it’s free to use, and you won’t get sales calls until you select an installer and share your phone number with them.
Your personalized solar quotes are easy to compare online and you’ll get access to unbiased Energy Advisors to help you every step of the way. Get started here.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
Tesla has started accepting Cybertruck trade-ins, something that wasn’t the case more than a year after deliveries of the electric pickup truck started.
We are starting to see why Tesla didn’t accept its own vehicle as a trade-in: the depreciation is insane.
The Cybertruck has been a commercial flop.
When Tesla started production and deliveries in late 2023, the vehicle was significantly more expensive and had less performance than initially announced.
At one point, Tesla boasted having over 1 million reservations for the electric pickup truck, but only about 40,000 people ended up converting their reservations into orders.
Now, Cybertruck inventory is sitting unsold for months and Tesla is having to offer heavy discounts to move them.
We previously reported that Tesla refused to accept the Cybertruck, its own vehicle, as a trade-in more than a year after starting deliveries.
Tesla didn’t share an explanation at the time, but we assumed that the automaker knew the Cybertruck was depreciating at an incredible rate and didn’t want to be stuck with more trucks than it was already dealing with.
Now, Tesla has started taking Cybertruck trade-ins, at least for the Foundation Series, and it is now providing estimates to Cybertruck owners (via Cybertruck Owners Club):
Tesla sold a brand-new 2024 Cybertruck AWD Foundation Series for $100,000. Now, with only 6,000 miles on the odometer, Tesla is offering $65,400 for it – 34.6% depreciation in just a year.
Pickup trucks generally lose about 20% of their value after a year and 34% after about 3-4 years.
It’s also wroth nothing that Tesla’s online “trade-in estimates” are often higher than the final offer as noted in the footnote o fhte screenshot above.
Electrek’s Take
This is already extremely high depreciation, but Tesla is actually trying to save face with estimates like this one.
As Tesla wouldn’t even accept Cybertruck trade-ins, used car dealers also slowed down their purchases as they also didn’t want to be caught with the trucks sitting on their lots for too long.
On Car Guru, the Cybertruck’s depreciation is actually closer to 45% after a year and that’s more representative of the offers owners should expect from dealers.
That’s entirely Tesla’s fault. The company created no scarcity with the Foundation Series. They built as many as people wanted. In fact, they built too many and ended having to “buff out” the Foundation Series badges on some units to sell them as regular Cybertrucks and as of last month, Tesla still had some Cybertruck Foundations Series in inventory – meaning they have been sitting around for up to 6 months.
Now, Tesla is stuck with thousands of Cybertrucks, early owners are already getting rid of their vehicles at an impressive rate, and the automaker had to slow production to a crawl.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
-
Sports3 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports1 year agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports2 years agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports2 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment2 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment2 years agoGame-changing Lectric XPedition launched as affordable electric cargo bike
-
Business3 years agoBank of England’s extraordinary response to government policy is almost unthinkable | Ed Conway