>In its defense, Tesla lawyers said that “mere failure to realize a long-term, aspirational goal is not fraud.”<p>I wonder what percentage of FSD purchasers believed that they were paying $15k for a "long-term, aspirational goal"?
It would have been fine were it not for The Sink Man’s aggressive insistence that it be called something it objectively is not and his assertions that his pipe dream would work imminently.<p>He sold “Full Self Driving” when he had nothing close. Abstractly speaking he sold a thing he didn’t have, one which every expert agreed he wouldn’t be able to deliver (some say ever, more optimistic people say not soon) and which he proved to be unable to make.<p>That’s Theranos level fraud. It’s not that blood testing is impossible, it’s that they sold a thing that’s not possible and swore up and down that you had, and people paid for it under false pretenses.<p>Refunding everyone who bought FSD and accurately labeling it (Dangerously incomplete driver assist perhaps?) should be the very least they are required to do.
Requiring the sink man to stop lying about it and putting some real teeth behind the requirement is probably reasonable too (we found that multi million dollar fines just make him laugh, but a billion dollar penalty makes him sit up. Just putting that out there)
Tesla's claims are close to Theranos claims to have tech that it did not have. Why isn't Tesla guilty of fraud? Do they have a clause in their contract that saves them?
When I paid for FSD, the language on the website was something to the effect of “exit to exit highway driving.” It has very reliably done that for me for ~20k miles. I do agree that the name and the hyperbole from Musk are problematic, but it’s far from a fraud in my eyes.
>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.