20 ms·
Tesla claims California false-advertising law violates First Amendment
- bell-cot 3y agoDaydream: California makes it legal to claim "First Amendment!" when making false statements to Tesla. Including statements made in contracts, employment agreements, etc.
- __m 3y agoThis has to be an onion article
- Akronymus 3y agoEven if it falls under free speech, which it definitely doesn't AFAICT, it'd be essentially the same as allowing any food producer to just forego an ingredients list. Because surely, accurate ingredients are compelled speech and thus a free speech violation.
- macintux 3y agoThe Supreme Court may soon decide to change how regulatory agencies can enforce those practices. https://www.govexec.com/management/2023/11/supreme-court-appears-ready-deal-another-blow-federal-agencies-administrative-powers/392348/ https://www.govexec.com/management/2023/11/supreme-court-app...
- pizza234 3y agoCorrect, this is the part of the article expressing this concept: > Despite Tesla's free speech claim, the US and state governments can enforce laws banning deceptive practices that harm consumers. "Beyond the category of common-law fraud, the Supreme Court has also said that false or misleading commercial speech may be prohibited," a Congressional Research Service report last year stated. "For constitutional purposes, commercial speech is speech that does no more than propose a commercial transaction or that relates solely to the speaker's and audience's economic interests. Accordingly, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) can regulate deceptive commercial speech without violating the First Amendment."
- lelandfe 3y agohttps://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/commercial_speech https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/commercial_speech The very first requirement in the Central Hudson test is that the commercial speech not be misleading. This move from Tesla is either done to waste time or get free advertising. It’s certainly accomplished the latter.
- rchaud 3y ago"Elon the free speech warrior"...feels like I've heard this tune before.
- codedokode 3y agoIt is interesting how widely Constinution and laws can be interpreted. Why not regulate speech that criticizes the government because it causes harm, seeds distrust in government institutions and misleads voters to make the wrong choice.
- andsoitis 3y agoA good starting point for understanding First Amendment constraints on government power to regulate deception is the U.S. Supreme Court's declaration of "common ground" in Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc.: Under the First Amendment there is no such thing as a false idea. However pernicious an opinion may seem, we depend for its correction not on the conscience of judges and juries but on the competition of other ideas. But there is no constitutional value in false statements of fact. Neither the intentional lie nor the careless error materially advances society's interest in "uninhibited, robust, and wide-open" debate on public issues. You can read more about Deception and the First Amendment in this UCLA Law Review article: https://www.uclalawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/34_53UCLALRev11072005-2006.pdf https://www.uclalawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/34_...
- keep_reading 3y agoThey're allowed to put all sorts of things on food packaging because of "free speech". One example is misleading unprotected terms of provenance. e.g., Port wine made in California isn't really Port wine, but it's allowed on the market under that name. Funny enough the only thing that really is protected like this is Scotch Whisky due to a trade agreement that has us hunting down any producer in the USA that advertises an American whiskey as a Scotch whisky. Don't forget that "free range" chicken doesn't mean shit, neither does "grass fed" beef. False advertising on food is everywhere in the USA.
- crazygringo 3y agoNo. None of those have anything to do with the principle of free speech. Port wine has a legal definition in the US. You can't sell it as champagne or as cola. However, it is true that ingredient, food and drink labels may have different definitions from those used in other countries, or from what you personally think they should be. But they still have actual definitions that have to be followed. (Except for subjective, non-technical terms like "tasty", "artisanal", etc.)
- keep_reading 3y ago[flagged]
- crazygringo 3y ago> You should actually read it instead of making retarded statements like "hurr durr you can't sell wine as cola" Please take a look at the HN guidelines. Calling other people's statements "retarded" and being otherwise insulting is very much against them. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- noxer 3y agoSince when is a ingredients list and ad? None of the ads related laws apply to ingredient lists. This utter nonsensical comparison that isn't rooted in any law, just a random idea some journalist apparently had. Also since Tesla does not officially make ads (may have changed recently, probably the reason why they looked into the law), this whole claim relates to the law limiting speech not to anything Tesla ever said in anything that could be considered an ad. The issue here is that the law forbids certain statements. That alone is the issue. Whether or not Tesla could/would/want to make these statements about heir car and if they would be truthful is completely irrelevant. There isn't any allegation that the law was broken, the allegation is that the law limits speech that could be truthful and protected. (I'm not the court I wont decide if this is correct.)
- guax 3y agoOpen Tesla website. Does it show information about a product it's seling? That's an ad. Have they provided information about said products elsewhere? Where those... advertised to people, let's say, via the CEO on a publishing platform?
- kibwen 3y agoNot two seconds ago I just watched Elon Musk break into my house, steal the copper out of my walls, kick my dog, and piss on the ashes of my dead grandma. Fortunately, libel is legal now because idiots continue not to understand how the first amendment works.
- that_guy_iain 3y agoLibel in the US is very hard to fight because the first amendment makes so many things legal, a good example of what is almost certainly legal, your statement about Elon Musk.
- User23 3y agoNo, libel in the US is very hard to fight because Sullivan is terrible jurisprudence.
- blitzar 3y agoHe also entered into a binding verbal agreement to give me $5 billion.
- andsoitis 3y agowhat is the point you're trying to make? it went over my head.
- burnerburnson 3y agoHe's trying to say that California's law banning false advertising must be Constitutional because libel is illegal. It's a non-sequitur though. Libel and false advertising are not the same thing.
- fooker 3y agoWhy would this not be legal? Have you thought throught the consequences of making something like this illegal?
- dwighttk 3y agoI’m guessing you have to be a true believer to be a Tesla lawyer, but I wonder what the paralegals think
- ceejayoz 3y agoDon’t have to be a true believer. Plenty of people willing to spout bullshit for pay.
- soco 3y agoThe lawyers are paid to represent the point of their clients, and that's what they do. What they personally think is definitely not getting on the outside. Or shouldn't.
- lovich 3y agoLet’s just godwins law this immediately. Nazi soldiers were paid to round up undesirables and execute them, and that’s what they did. We still took issue with it. Your argument is fundamentally the same as “just following orders”
- lijok 3y agoI miss the days when the work of lawyers wasn't being scrutinized on social media.. Lawyers represent a client. What they personally believe has nothing to do with it. According to you, if it takes a true believer to be a Tesla lawyer, what does it take to be a public defence lawyer that represents murderers and sexual offenders?
- eropple 3y agoZealous representation is a critical part of the justice system for criminal law as pertains to individuals. Actual people. People who aren't fictional. I've yet to see a good, ethically sound argument that corporations inherently deserve the same. They're not people. They aren't subjected to the same kinds of penalties as people even when they kill people. The stakes are different and so are the affordances a reasonable person can demand. So it seems eminently reasonable to consider the ethics of a lawyer representing a client just as one would consider the ethics of any vendor doing business with a shithead.
- ceejayoz 3y agoPreviously discussed yesterday: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38611432 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38611432
- numpad0 3y agoOT, but there are three Tesla stories on the top page right now. This is advertising.
- pavlov 3y agoIt’s probably organic. It often happens that the HN front page coalesces briefly on a theme. People see an article on a topic, research it a bit, and post what they find (or just repost something they remember from last week). And similarly it gets more upvotes on the “new” page because interest in the topic is active.
- Tangurena2 3y agoThis is called Baader-Meinhof Phenomenon [0][1]. Every time that you buy a new car, you see the same one everywhere you look: "hey! I just read one article about Tesla, here's 3 more!" when there is usually several articles each day about Tesla. Notes: 0 - https://science.howstuffworks.com/life/inside-the-mind/human-brain/baader-meinhof-phenomenon.htm https://science.howstuffworks.com/life/inside-the-mind/human... 1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequency_illusion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequency_illusion
- zitsarethecure 3y agoThere are a surprising number of Apple and Tesla posts lately. While I am not yet convinced it is being outright paid for, but there does seem to be a higher concentration of specific brand advocacy here than there used to be. I wonder if it has to do with so many people also being share holders with a vested interest in their success?
- capableweb 3y ago> I wonder if it has to do with so many people also being share holders with a vested interest in their success? Would also explain why every single "union vs Tesla" story disappears so quickly from the frontpage.
- 3y ago
- figassis 3y ago> The agency argued that a Tesla disclaimer, which says the "features require active driver supervision and do not make the vehicle autonomous," is not enough to make the advertising truthful. The "disclaimer contradicts the original untrue or misleading labels and claims, which is misleading, and does not cure the violation," the DMV said. Is this not the same as saying the fine print does not override marketing claims? Does that not apply to all the cases of sneaky clauses hidden in the TOS by most businesses? Especially wrt privacy and selling data, etc?
- stefan_ 3y agoThere is a difference between the fine print adding conditions and the fine print going "not actually the case jinx". They say the latter is happening by asserting the fine print contradicts the marketing claims.
- adql 3y agoCan we stop treating corporations as people?
- ClumsyPilot 3y agoTreating corporations as people is the biggest own goal of Neoliberalism. Now we are discussing fictional right to free speech of a fictional entity and imagining how it would affect an average Joe. For some reason we have to have the same law regulating speech of an average Joe and of a fictional entity that does not die and is controlled by ever changing charade of shareholders, each holding 1% or whatever.
- cryptos 3y agoNever argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
- ryanklee 3y agoIt's the court's job to argue with idiots. Saves the rest of us some time and grief.
- helf 3y agoThe fact companies in the US have "personhood" is a huge fucking problem with this damn country.
- DannyBee 3y agoThe limits of this kind of commercial speech are very well settled. Misleading commercial speech has no first amendment protection. Tesla is just trying to generate news
- rufius 3y agoAgreed. First amendment protections should only apply to individuals anyway. Tesla doesn’t have a sane argument here since Tesla is not a person. (I recognize there’s a whole bag of worms around corporations and attempts to treat them like individuals in the eyes of the law.)
- Tangurena2 3y agoThe US Supreme Court says that corporations are people, and therefore every civil right that applies to humans applies to corporations. I suppose that will make things easier for aliens (if they ever move to Earth) to have the same civil/legal rights as humans. I guess replicants will all need to incorporate in order to avoid being slaves (to avoid a Bladerunner future).
- jcranmer 3y agoThat's patently false. The Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, for example, doesn't apply to corporations.
- lupusreal 3y agoThe supreme court said that people don't lose their first amendment rights just because they form a political advocacy group.
- hedora 3y agoThey also literally said “corporations are people”.
- 3y ago
- matt3210 3y agoA company is not a person
- bumby 3y agoA company is not a natural person.
- fooker 3y agoIs this Tesla admitting they are guilty of false advertising?
- burnerburnson 3y agoNo. What an ignorant question to ask. Any halfway decent lawyer would pursue all available avenues to defend their client. Challenging the Constitutionality of a law is not an admission that the client has violated said law.
- fooker 3y agoAny halfway decent lawyer would try to prove that their client hasn't violated a law before trying to prove that the law is invalid.
- jmyeet 3y agoAs always, there's no principle involved here. This is just neoliberalism run amok. Deregulation and privatization aren't lofty goals or even efficient. They're simply mechanisms for wealth transfer from the poor to the wealthy, either directly or via the government. Legally, this is a silly argument that will go nowhere. After all, isn't defamation just "free speech"? This is just vice signaling. It's like virtue signaling but instead you're demonstrating your bad character.
- kjksf 3y agoThis is a bad game of telephone where people discussing what they think Tesla lawyers said but not what they really said. 1. Tesla lawyers are not claiming that whatever Tesla said is fine because first amendment. 2. They are claiming that the laws DMV is using to go after tesla is invalid under first amendment. Hopefully you can see the difference and see that everyone here argues 1. but not the 2. The article is pretty clear so draw your conclusion about the state of online discourse.
- qarl 3y agoActually, I'm not seeing much practical difference between the two. Could you elaborate on what you deem is obvious?
- NotYourLawyer 3y agoThe idea is that regardless of the truth/falsity of Tesla’s speech, the law is so broad that it impermissibly restricts lots of true speech.
- qarl 3y agoAh - that makes sense - but does not seem to be OP's original claim.
- cma 3y agoHe charged extra saying there would be a robotaxi network for cars sold in around 2016/2017. It's almost 2024: the cars are getting close to EOL. If the law is struck down couldn't it be done in part?
- hedora 3y agoThey’re also claiming that even though they are continuing to break the law, the statute of limitations starts when the government first noticed the illegal behavior.
- hedora 3y ago
- mavhc 3y agoHave they defined what autonomous means?
- itsoktocry 3y agoAutonomous has a definition, and it's easily understood by normal people: >denoting or performed by a device capable of operating without direct human control. This is in direct contradiction to how Tesla says FSD is to be used: >Full Self-Driving (Beta) is a hands-on feature. Keep your hands on the steering wheel at all times, be mindful of road conditions and surrounding traffic, and always be prepared to take immediate action. The fact that we are still arguing about this, when there are literally autonomous taxis driving around San Francisco, is really strange.
- mavhc 3y agoBut my car can operating without direct human control, just for a limited time/in limited circumstances. Same as Waymo, but their time/circumstance limitations are less
- tibbydudeza 3y agoElon being Elon again - has he paid the Twitter folks and office rentals yet ???.
- dboreham 3y agoThe Big Lebouski defense.
- aa_is_op 3y agoThis case together with Meta's case that the FTC is unconstitutional shows a concerted effort from US big tech to do away with any type of US consumer protections. Truly, a country where corporations have more rights than its citizens.
- pelasaco 3y agoThen in the end is just some retaliation against Musk to make possible US to spy on twitter
- INTPenis 3y agoSo defrauding someone is free speech? This is a hollow argument. Consumer rights should come first in any scenario because consumers are the vast majority. The fact that this is even up for debate shows how much power corporations have in the US.
- _ea1k 3y agoI often defend autopilot's use with real drivers. I've driven with it extensively and have seen how other people actually use the system. There are abuses, but no more than I've seen with other systems. And none of them have been fooled into thinking that it is autonomous when it is not. I've even defended the name Autopilot, since we've accepted names like "ProPILOT" which are no different in my mind. Having said that, Tesla's phrasing for FSD is awful, and horribly misleading. I see the effects of this among non-owners all of the time. They really do think the system is fully self driving, when it is not. The company should be forced to stop this practice. It is deliberately deceptive.
- mrob 3y agoThe obvious solution is to permit corporations the same free speech as natural persons, but revoke their limited liability protections if they tell lies. AFAIK there's no constitutional requirement to let natural persons escape the harm they do by blaming it on a fictitious person. Limited liability is a privilege.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]