5 ms·
>that’s entirely the fault of executives who didn’t do the minimum due diligence Entirely? Like 100%?
by mathgradthrow 2y ago
>that’s entirely the fault of executives who didn’t do the minimum due diligence
Entirely? Like 100%?
- ghaff 2y agoYes? It was their decision.
- marcosdumay 2y agoI think the GP is trying to say that Tesla shouldn't be allowed to publish wild lies on their marketing material.
- ghaff 2y agoPerhaps. But it was pretty obvious at the time that they were wild lies. Not excusing Tesla but one would hope that very well-paid execs would get it--but that may be optimistic.
- nashashmi 2y agoWell paid executives learned to rely on vendor statements and vendor litigation. They don't question it. If you offer them a magic wheel, they will buy your magic wheel (after you have the right bonding and insurance backings).
- rvnx 2y agoAnd the practice shows that if you have billions it's totally ok to lie or to infringe copyright (e.g. large AI companies, or search engines). It's only a problem if you are poor.
- marcosdumay 2y agoOh, yes. It was blatant incompetence. But more than one part can be guilty.
- pavlov 2y agoThe law is very different when a corporation is lying to retail customers in their marketing material vs. lying to another corporation in a B2B deal. The latter can still be fraud, but the bar is much higher. Hertz would have to show that Tesla actually promised self-driving in a contract.