A case in California court over whether Tesla deceived customers with its statements about full self-driving technology will go forward, bucking Tesla’s attempts to get the case to be thrown out before trial, a California judge ruled today.
Today, an administrative judge ruled that the DMV case will head to a full trial.
Tesla had also argued that the case violates its free speech rights, which famously do not apply to false advertising, as has been recognized time and time again by courts.
At issue is Tesla’s long history of referring to its driver-assist software as “Autopilot” and “Full Self-Driving.” These two pieces of software are related but distinct, with autopilot being an earlier, less-capable, and less-expensive version than FSD. FSD currently costs $8,000, though prices have changed over time and some owners paid up to $15,000 for it.
The argument is that the first feature name, Autopilot, has a colloquial understanding that a driver need not pay attention to the road. However, Tesla has long stated that “autopilot” is meant to refer to the similar piloting software on airplanes, which still require attentive pilots to be at the helm.
Full Self-Driving is a much clearer name, though, which doesn’t just imply but flatly states that the car will be able to drive itself fully. Tesla CEO Elon Musk has repeatedly claimed that Teslas will be able to drive themselves in the near future for over a decade now, but those claims have not materialized.
While FSD has been improving and more capabilities have been added over that time, it still cannot drive itself and requires active driver attention.
So, perhaps the company wanted to emphasize to newer drivers that they still need to be in the car to use it – or perhaps the language change was in light of the two false advertising cases that are currently working their way through the courts.
While we don’t know the outcome of these FSD cases yet, some owners have had success bringing individual false advertising claims to Tesla over FSD.