3 ms·

>lie to customers Is that alleged? I saw only the support telling customers that this is expected. "There is nothing wrong with your car, don't bother comming.

>lie to customers Is that alleged? I saw only the support telling customers that this is expected. "There is nothing wrong with your car, don't bother comming. It is expected that sometimes your car gets galf the range." is not a lie at all. It seems absolutely truthful and in fact the total opposite of exaggerating the range of the car. >We have evidence of Tesla service-cancellation teams. We have evidence of Tesla's software purposefully being inaccurate when above 50% charge, and then slowly becoming more accurate when reaching 50% or less charge. The algorithm claim seems extremely weak. Unless you can get some actual developer to testify that he was explicitly ordered to build the algorithm to report a range which he knew was impossible to reach or something similar, this seems practically irrelevant. The "service-cancellation teams" seem somewhat stranger. I don't think cancelling a service appointment is damning in any way, though.

dragontamer 3y ago
> Is that alleged? The fuel-meter is absolutely lying to you at 50%+. And the customer-service reps know it, and they even have trained responses over this conspiracy.
- constantcrying 3y ago
  No, this is about the claim that representatives told customers that is normal, that their cars have lower ranges than advertised. The allegedy cospiracy would be that Tesla managment and its employees were conspiring to quickly deal with customer complaints. But what is actually illegal there? Note that the representatives were truthful when they dismissed customers. Their cars were not broken.
  - dragontamer 3y ago
    Fraud is illegal. And all fraud is ... is just lying to a degree enough that the courts care. The more-and-more it is proven that your "just lying" is a coordinated effort across your company, the more and more it looks like fraud to ... well everybody.
    - constantcrying 3y ago
      But the suggestion that tesla was lying seems already far fetched. If anything their adertising was misleading. >The more-and-more it is proven that your "just lying" is a coordinated effort across your company, the more and more it looks like fraud to ... well everybody. But there is zero evidence for this. There is no lie here. At best there are misleading statememts about performance.
      - Nullabillity 3y ago
        Intentionally misleading people.. is exactly the definition of lying?
        dragontamer 3y ago
        To be fair, "lying" isn't a legal term. "Fraud" is a legal term, and "intentionally misleading people" is the very definition of Fraud. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fraud https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fraud In fact, it seems like Fraud is still Fraud at the reckless or negligent levels. No intent needed (though I'm sure proving it at the "intent" level will get them more of a case). So... is this Fraud? Well, yes. It would be. But the next step is for these plaintiffs to prove the fraud in court. It seems like they have a strong argument though.
        brandonagr2 3y ago
        There is no fraud or misleading people. The EPA test cycle is an official test, you can run the test and get the same results yourself. It's not fraud that some dumb consumers don't understand what an EPA range estimate means
        user_named 3y ago
        It's fraud. There's already internal leaks documenting Teslas fraud perpetrated on the insistence of Elon.
        3y ago
therouwboat 3y ago
>The algorithm claim seems extremely weak. Unless you can get some actual developer to testify that he was explicitly ordered to build the algorithm to report a range which he knew was impossible to reach or something similar, this seems practically irrelevant. Of course he was ordered to build it that way, it's not like some worker is just going to decide by himself.
- constantcrying 3y ago
  >Of course he was ordered to build it that way Zero evidence for that.
  - dragontamer 3y ago
    https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/tesla-batteries-range/ https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/tesla-ba... > The directive to present the optimistic range estimates came from Tesla Chief Executive Elon Musk, this person said. > “Elon wanted to show good range numbers when fully charged,” the person said, adding: “When you buy a car off the lot seeing 350-mile, 400-mile range, it makes you feel good.” ------- This is evidence, is it not?
    - constantcrying 3y ago
      Certainly not for anything illegal. If you believe Musk on this the lawsuit is practically pointless. Having an optimistic algorithm is not illegal and even alledging that it somehow is seems absurd.
      - dragontamer 3y ago
        > If you believe Musk on this Seriously, you shouldn't believe Musk with regards to lawsuits. If Musk knew anything about law, he wouldn't have been forced to buy Twitter last year. The world was revealed to how ignorant this guy is to the law. ------------------- By the way, this is a civil case, not a criminal case. "Illegal" is almost a non-sequitur. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fraud https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fraud > In civil litigation, allegations of fraud might be based on a misrepresentation of fact that was either intentional or negligent. For a statement to be an intentional misrepresentation, the person who made it must either have known the statement was false or been reckless as to its truth. The speaker must have also intended that the person to whom the statement was made would rely on it. The hearer must then have reasonably relied on the promise and also been harmed because of that reliance. All they have to do to successfully sue here is prove that the other side was "misleading", and that they "knew about being misleading" (intentional), or even the lower-standard of recklessness (they didn't know they were misleading, but they didn't do enough research to prove their own statements true before telling customers). Welcome to Civil Law. The standards are much lower than criminal law. But its just money, so that makes sense.
Nullabillity 3y ago
> Is that alleged? I saw only the support telling customers that this is expected. "There is nothing wrong with your car, don't bother comming. It is expected that sometimes your car gets galf the range." is not a lie at all. It seems absolutely truthful and in fact the total opposite of exaggerating the range of the car. It demonstrates that their original range claim was a lie.

dragontamer 3y ago

> Is that alleged? The fuel-meter is absolutely lying to you at 50%+. And the customer-service reps know it, and they even have trained responses over this conspiracy.

constantcrying 3y ago
No, this is about the claim that representatives told customers that is normal, that their cars have lower ranges than advertised. The allegedy cospiracy would be that Tesla managment and its employees were conspiring to quickly deal with customer complaints. But what is actually illegal there? Note that the representatives were truthful when they dismissed customers. Their cars were not broken.
- dragontamer 3y ago
  Fraud is illegal. And all fraud is ... is just lying to a degree enough that the courts care. The more-and-more it is proven that your "just lying" is a coordinated effort across your company, the more and more it looks like fraud to ... well everybody.
  - constantcrying 3y ago
    But the suggestion that tesla was lying seems already far fetched. If anything their adertising was misleading. >The more-and-more it is proven that your "just lying" is a coordinated effort across your company, the more and more it looks like fraud to ... well everybody. But there is zero evidence for this. There is no lie here. At best there are misleading statememts about performance.
    - Nullabillity 3y ago
      Intentionally misleading people.. is exactly the definition of lying?
      - dragontamer 3y ago
        To be fair, "lying" isn't a legal term. "Fraud" is a legal term, and "intentionally misleading people" is the very definition of Fraud. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fraud https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fraud In fact, it seems like Fraud is still Fraud at the reckless or negligent levels. No intent needed (though I'm sure proving it at the "intent" level will get them more of a case). So... is this Fraud? Well, yes. It would be. But the next step is for these plaintiffs to prove the fraud in court. It seems like they have a strong argument though.
        brandonagr2 3y ago
        There is no fraud or misleading people. The EPA test cycle is an official test, you can run the test and get the same results yourself. It's not fraud that some dumb consumers don't understand what an EPA range estimate means
        user_named 3y ago
        It's fraud. There's already internal leaks documenting Teslas fraud perpetrated on the insistence of Elon.
        3y ago

therouwboat 3y ago

>The algorithm claim seems extremely weak. Unless you can get some actual developer to testify that he was explicitly ordered to build the algorithm to report a range which he knew was impossible to reach or something similar, this seems practically irrelevant. Of course he was ordered to build it that way, it's not like some worker is just going to decide by himself.

constantcrying 3y ago
>Of course he was ordered to build it that way Zero evidence for that.
- dragontamer 3y ago
  https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/tesla-batteries-range/ https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/tesla-ba... > The directive to present the optimistic range estimates came from Tesla Chief Executive Elon Musk, this person said. > “Elon wanted to show good range numbers when fully charged,” the person said, adding: “When you buy a car off the lot seeing 350-mile, 400-mile range, it makes you feel good.” ------- This is evidence, is it not?
  - constantcrying 3y ago
    Certainly not for anything illegal. If you believe Musk on this the lawsuit is practically pointless. Having an optimistic algorithm is not illegal and even alledging that it somehow is seems absurd.
    - dragontamer 3y ago
      > If you believe Musk on this Seriously, you shouldn't believe Musk with regards to lawsuits. If Musk knew anything about law, he wouldn't have been forced to buy Twitter last year. The world was revealed to how ignorant this guy is to the law. ------------------- By the way, this is a civil case, not a criminal case. "Illegal" is almost a non-sequitur. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fraud https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fraud > In civil litigation, allegations of fraud might be based on a misrepresentation of fact that was either intentional or negligent. For a statement to be an intentional misrepresentation, the person who made it must either have known the statement was false or been reckless as to its truth. The speaker must have also intended that the person to whom the statement was made would rely on it. The hearer must then have reasonably relied on the promise and also been harmed because of that reliance. All they have to do to successfully sue here is prove that the other side was "misleading", and that they "knew about being misleading" (intentional), or even the lower-standard of recklessness (they didn't know they were misleading, but they didn't do enough research to prove their own statements true before telling customers). Welcome to Civil Law. The standards are much lower than criminal law. But its just money, so that makes sense.

Nullabillity 3y ago

> Is that alleged? I saw only the support telling customers that this is expected. "There is nothing wrong with your car, don't bother comming. It is expected that sometimes your car gets galf the range." is not a lie at all. It seems absolutely truthful and in fact the total opposite of exaggerating the range of the car. It demonstrates that their original range claim was a lie.