I think you misread/misunderstood the article, the judge used the TSB's to decide AGAINST Fiat-Crysler's argument. FSA was arguing that they had no knowledge of

I think you misread/misunderstood the article, the judge used the TSB's to decide AGAINST Fiat-Crysler's argument. FSA was arguing that they had no knowledge of the defect, and that the complainant couldn't show otherwise, but TSB's sent to dealerships prove they did know. That's why the case could proceed. > However, he pointed out that Fiat Chrysler had issued two technical service bulletins relating to Pacifica’s PCM software before the plaintiffs had purchased their vehicle, and two more following their purchase. Plus you're also mistaken on TSBs. Technical service bulletins are normally sent to dealerships and other authorized repair centers, they aren't for public consumption (although most leak, if you look on forums, etc). NHTSA notices and TSBs aren't the same thing at all.