3 ms·

I don’t understand why this requires a California law to address? Why hasn’t the FTC intervened? A quick search reveals that it is ‘on their radar’ as of this p

I don’t understand why this requires a California law to address? Why hasn’t the FTC intervened? A quick search reveals that it is ‘on their radar’ as of this past June, but as other commenters have pointed out, the claim has been used for more than 5 years. Perhaps they need a more sensitive radar. https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/tesla-autopilot-concerns-are-us-agencys-radar-chair-says-2022-06-09/ https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/tesla-...

coffeeblack 4y ago
[flagged]
- calgarymicro 4y ago
  Being "pretty clear" in the fine print doesn't help when your product is called "Full Self Driving". > But Musk bought Twitter. The bill was introduced in mid-February and was presumably drafted over the preceding months. Musk made his very first Tweet about buying Twitter in mid-April. Not sure what connection you're trying to make here.
  - dmix 4y ago
    > Being "pretty clear" in the fine print doesn't help when your product is called "Full Self Driving". The likely chose the FSD branding with good intentions. Tesla just had some over-optimistic projections of what it will be in the near future and they weren't the only ones being optimistic in 2015-2016 when it launched (you can find plenty of Youtube interviews from other car companies at the time projecting <=2025). The plan was to always call it in "beta" and an early ~$2-10k(?) investment for the future offering that wasn't yet ready. The only problem is when those projections turned out to be heavily optimistic after ~2-3yrs in they should have rebranded it... but chose to stick with it for whatever reason.
    - pnt12 4y ago
      That's a very charitable interpretation. Another, which I find more likely when there's lots of money involved, is that there was deception to feed the hype machine which caused profits of millions.
- stuart78 4y ago
  If it was simply ‘self-driving’ there would seem to be more wiggle room, but the inclusion of ‘full’ to the claim makes a much more specific promise of the degree of autonomy drivers should expect. Adding more specific detailed language elsewhere should explain a marketing claim, not contradict it.

coffeeblack 4y ago

[flagged]

calgarymicro 4y ago
Being "pretty clear" in the fine print doesn't help when your product is called "Full Self Driving". > But Musk bought Twitter. The bill was introduced in mid-February and was presumably drafted over the preceding months. Musk made his very first Tweet about buying Twitter in mid-April. Not sure what connection you're trying to make here.
- dmix 4y ago
  > Being "pretty clear" in the fine print doesn't help when your product is called "Full Self Driving". The likely chose the FSD branding with good intentions. Tesla just had some over-optimistic projections of what it will be in the near future and they weren't the only ones being optimistic in 2015-2016 when it launched (you can find plenty of Youtube interviews from other car companies at the time projecting <=2025). The plan was to always call it in "beta" and an early ~$2-10k(?) investment for the future offering that wasn't yet ready. The only problem is when those projections turned out to be heavily optimistic after ~2-3yrs in they should have rebranded it... but chose to stick with it for whatever reason.
  - pnt12 4y ago
    That's a very charitable interpretation. Another, which I find more likely when there's lots of money involved, is that there was deception to feed the hype machine which caused profits of millions.
stuart78 4y ago
If it was simply ‘self-driving’ there would seem to be more wiggle room, but the inclusion of ‘full’ to the claim makes a much more specific promise of the degree of autonomy drivers should expect. Adding more specific detailed language elsewhere should explain a marketing claim, not contradict it.