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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Mining company Vale is turning to Caterpillar to provide this massive, 240-ton battery-electric haul truck in a bid to slash carbon emissions at its mines by 2030.
Caterpillar and Vale have signed an agreement that will see the Brazilian mining company test severe-duty battery electric mining trucks like the 793 BEV (above), as well as V2G/V2x energy transfer systems and alcohol-powered trucks. The test will help Vale make better equipment choices as it works to achieve its goals of reducing direct and indirect carbon emissions 33% by 2030 and eliminating 100% of its net emissions by 2050.
If that sounds weird, consider that most cars and trucks in Brazil run on either pure ethyl alcohol/ethanol (E100) or “gasohol” (E25).
“We are developing a portfolio of options to decarbonize Vale’s operations, including electrification and the use of alternative fuels in the mines. The most viable solutions will be adopted,” explains Ludmila Nascimento, energy and decarbonization director Vale. “We believe that ethanol has great potential to contribute to the 2030 target because it is a fuel that has already been adopted on a large scale in Brazil, with an established supply network, and which requires an active partnership with manufacturers. We stand together to support them in this goal.”
Vale will test a 240-ton Cat 793 battery-electric haul truck at its operations in Minas Gerais, and put energy transfer solutions to a similar tests at Vale’s operations in Pará over the next two-three years. Caterpillar and Vale have also agreed to a joint study on the viability of a dual-fuel (ethanol/diesel) solution for existing ICE-powered assets.
During its debut in 2022, the Cat 793 haul truck was shown on a 4.3-mile test course at the company’s Tucson proving grounds. There, the 240-ton truck was able to achieve a top speed of over 37 mph (60 km/h) fully loaded. Further tests involved the loaded truck climbing a 10% grade for a full kilometer miles at 7.5 mph before unloading and turning around for the descent, using regenerative braking to put energy back into the battery on the way down.
Despite not giving out detailed specs, Caterpillar reps reported that the 793 still had enough charge in its batteries for to complete more testing cycles.
Electrek’s Take
Electric equipment and mining to together like peanut butter and jelly. In confined spaces, the carbon emissions and ear-splitting noise of conventional mining equipment can create dangerous circumstances for miners and operators, and that can lead to injury or long-term disability that’s just going to exacerbate a mining operation’s ability to keep people working and minerals coming out of the ground.
By working with companies like Vale to prove that forward-looking electric equipment can do the job as well as well as (if not better than) their internal combustion counterparts, Caterpillar will go a long way towards converting the ICE faithful.
Argonne National Laboratory is building a new research and development facility to independently test large-scale hydrogen fuel cell systems for heavy-duty and off-road applications with funding from the US Department of Energy.
The US Department of Energy (DOE) is hoping Argonne Nat’l Lab’s extensive fuel cell research experience, which dates back to 1996, will give it unique insights as it evaluates new polymer electrolyte membrane (PEM) fuel cell systems ranging from 150 to 600 kilowatts for use in industrial vehicle and stationary power generation applications.
The new Argonne test facility will help prove (or, it should be said, disprove) the validity of hydrogen as a viable fuel for transportation applications including heavy trucks, railroad locomotives, marine vessels, and heavy machines used in the agriculture, construction, and mining industries.
“The facility will serve as a national resource for analysis and testing of heavy-duty fuel cell systems for developers, technology integrators and end-users in heavy-duty transportation applications including [OTR] trucks, railroad locomotives, marine vessels, aircraft and vehicles used in the agriculture, construction and mining industries,” explains Ted Krause, laboratory relationship manager for Argonne’s hydrogen and fuel cell programs. “The testing infrastructure will help advance fuel cell performance and pave the way toward integrating the technology into all of these transportation applications.”
Speaking of Moog, we talked to some of the engineers being their ZQuip modular battery systems on a HEP-isode of The Heavy Equipment Podcast a few months back. I’ve included it, below, in case that’s something you’d like to check out.
Velocity truck rental is doing its part to help commercial fleets electrify by energizing 47 high-powered charging stations at four strategic dealer locations across Southern California. And they’re doing it now.
The new Velocity Truck Rental & Leasing (VTRL) charging network isn’t some far-off goal being announced for PR purposes. The company says its new chargers are already in the ground, and set to be fully online and energized by the end of this month at at VTRL facilities in Rancho Dominguez (17), Fontana (14), the City of Industry (14), and San Diego (2).
45 120 kW Detroit e-Fill chargers make up the bulk of VTRL’s infrastructure project, while two DCFC stations from ChargePoint get them to 47. All of the chargers, however, where chosen specifically to cater to the needs of medium and heavy-duty battery electric work trucks.
At Velocity, we are not just reacting to the shift towards electric mobility; we are at the forefront with our customers and actively shaping it. By integrating high-powered, commercial-grade charging solutions along key transit corridors, we are ensuring that our customers have the support they need today. This charging infrastructure investment is a testament to our commitment to helping our customers transition smoothly to electromobility solutions and to prepare for compliance with the Advanced Clean Fleets (ACF) regulations.
David Deon, velocity president
Velocity plans to offer flexible charging options to accommodate the needs of different fleets, including both managed, “charging as a service” subscription plans and self-managed/opportunity charging during daily routes. While trucks are charging, drivers and operators will be able to relax in comfortable break rooms equipped with WIFI, television, snacks, water, and restrooms.
Electrek’s Take
While it feels a bit underwhelming to write about trucking companies simply following the letter of the law in California, the rollout of an all-electric, zero-emission commercial trucking fleet remains something that, I think, should be celebrated.