7 ms·
Tesla owner won $10k in court for Tesla's FSD lies. Tesla is still fighting him
- fhn 6mo ago"court made a judgment in his favor in the amount of $10,672.88, the amount Gawiser paid for FSD, including taxes and court fees." should include interest as well
- walrus01 6mo agoTo be truly fair should also adjust for inflation of US dollar of $10672 at the time he purchased it vs. April 2026. For instance CPI inflation calculator says 10672 in Jan. 2022 is $12,534.44 today.
- linsomniac 6mo agoI'm of the opinion that it'd be fair to treat that money as an investment in Tesla at that time. In my case, the $8K in Dec 2016 would translate to them being on the hook for ~$260K today. Which is why I think Tesla shouldn't be slow-rolling their doing whatever is necessary to get those of us who pre-bought FSD up to the HW4 level. HW4 won't physically fit in a 2016 Model S? Give us a 2026 Model X (they dropped Model S), and you're still $160K ahead. I've been surprised that there hasn't been a major class action about the FSD. I've been very happy with the car, but the FSD was outright fraud.
- FireBeyond 6mo ago> it'd be fair to treat that money as an investment in Tesla at that time Garbage. It was never advertised as that, and all the subsequent "clarifications" or "scoping" of FSD have been because Tesla has been dragged kicking and screaming into adding them, by lawyers, by attorneys general, by the NHTSA, etc. "The car CAN (emphasis mine) drive itself. The driver is only in the seat for legal purposes." is how it was sold, not "invest in the vision of a FSD future". Then there was "well, providing regulators allow us", then "well, once we actually finally finish the software", and all that garbage. I don't see how you reconcile "it'd be fair to consider it an investment" with "outright fraud". Even if you ignore my lens, it's not "fair" to rope some into an "outright fraud" "investment".
- dlcarrier 6mo agoInflation is part of interest; you don't get reimbursed for both separately.
- grodriguez100 6mo agoThe 6.75% interest applies from the date of judgement to the date of payment by Tesla but the inflation (from date of purchase to date of judgement) is not accounted for.
- dlcarrier 6mo agoInflation is why the awarded interest rate is 6.75%. That rate was determined by the Consumer Credit Commissioner of Texas, which calculated it using the federal reserve rate, which itself is selected to meet an inflation goal, incorporating current inflation levels as well as the predicted inflationary effect of changing the server rate. If inflation was zero, the interest rate would have been lower. If inflation were double, that rate would be higher. Interest is awarded to counter the affects of inflation and the loss of opportunity cost. They aren't accounted for individually, instead inflation is part of the equation.
- grodriguez100 6mo agoYes, this is correct. I meant that the ruling awarded interest from the date of judgement to the date of payment but does not account for Inflation between the date of purchase and the date of judgement. I didn’t mean to imply that interest and inflation are unrelated, I was referring to the two different time periods. Sorry if that wasn’t clear.
- Schiendelman 6mo agoI think this is right. It incentivizes those harmed to take action early, which helps protect others as well.
- bobro 6mo agoThe judgement also includes interest, 6.75% per year.
- ndkap 6mo agoIt starts from the day of judgement
- KumaBear 6mo agoEarning calls are when CEO’s are telling the truth about their products. Knowing Tesla’s history of making payments he won’t see a dime. I’m no lawyer but he should set up a publicity stunt like the man who seized Bank of America’s equipment in order to get paid in full the same day. (George and Ora Lee, successfully seized assets from a Bank of America branch after the bank wrongly foreclosed on their home)
- xnx 6mo ago> George and Ora Lee, successfully seized assets from a Bank of America branch after the bank wrongly foreclosed on their home This is the type of person that deserves to have a statue in public
- jer0me 6mo agoI think you mean Warren and Maureen Nyerges: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/couple-almost-forecloses-on-bank-of-america-06-06-2011/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/couple-almost-forecloses-on-ban... George and Ora Lee appear to be a couple who died hours apart in 2016 after being married for 58 years.
- CamperBob2 6mo ago"Yeah, so they won't be giving the Bank of America any more trouble, capisce?" -- Bank of America
- sanex 6mo agoBoA having roots in the Bank of Italy makes this even funnier.
- EFreethought 6mo agoActually it does not have roots in Bank of Italy. In 2000, NationsBank in Charlotte bought Bank of America. They used the BofA name, but the NB people ran things. Hugh McColl had been the CEO of NB for years, and he was CEO of BofA for a year. The next CEO, Ken Lewis, was also from NB. I worked for BofA in Chicago from 2001 to 2009. I talked to people in Charlotte all the time. I almost never talked to people in California. Now that I think about it, I dealt with people in a lot of regions of the US, but almost nobody on the West Coast.
- asdG17l 6mo agoBut remember folks that Musk wants the best for humanity, is a humanist, wants to help all people and the future will be so awesome that no one will have to work and everyone will live in a penthouse. His X says so daily, so it must be true.
- nubinetwork 6mo agoBe smart and take a free battery.
- ezfe 6mo agoWhat do you mean by that?
- nubinetwork 6mo ago> Gawiser filed a “writ of execution” (another $240 in court fees) just yesterday, which would allow Texas law enforcement to seize and sell off enough of Tesla’s property as would be required to pay the judgment against them. Since they probably won't do business with anyone who owns that car anymore, take a battery and run.
- charcircuit 6mo agoFrom what I've seen on YouTube the cars do drive themselves. This seems more like the type of thing with AI where people change the goal posts of what AI means. Just because a car did not slow down in a school zone, that doesn't mean that the car wasn't driving itself.
- loloquwowndueo 6mo agoBy that logic it’s ok if the car slams itself against a concrete wall - just because it failed to stop in time doesn’t mean it wasn’t driving itself. Self driving cars are supposed to obey the same rules as human drivers.
- RajT88 6mo agoTesla FSD is vulnerable to RoadRunner and Wile E. Coyote style tricks.
- deleted 6mo ago[deleted]
- qingcharles 6mo agoFortunately the ACME products are flawed and subject to their own litigation, see e.g. Coyote vs. ACME (2026).
- iknowstuff 6mo agoit's not. that vid was using autopilot, not fsd, and subsequent videos using actual new FSD were fine
- Marsymars 6mo ago> it's not. "Tesla FSD is invulnerable to tricks" is a pretty strong claim.
- iknowstuff 6mo ago
- the__alchemist 6mo agoThe "Full" in "Full Self Driving" was one of the giveaways. It's like packaged food labeled with "Real" ("Real cheese" etc)
- Neywiny 6mo agoNot sure I agree with your second sentence, at least in the US. I may see "cheese product" or "dairy product" or "cheese flavor" but if it says real cheese, it's real cheese. My favorite example was seeing "onion (then in tiny text 'flavored') rings"
- beAbU 6mo agoNo, you see, if it says "cheese" then I would assume it's real cheese. If it says "real cheese" I'm immediately suspicious.
- gregschlom 6mo agoThe point is that if you have to say it's made with real cheese, the food is complete junk. Even though the cheese may technically be real.
- elif 6mo agoThey even banned the term "soy milk" It's now called "non dairy soy beverage" on every carton.
- vel0city 6mo agoWe should just put non-dairy on all beverages that are non-dairy. Non-dairy Mountain Dew. Non-dairy sweetened lemon beverage. Non-dairy gin. Non-dairy water.
- fc417fc802 6mo agoShould probably also mark gluten and lead while you're at it, among other things. Also what about radioactive isotope content? We know how important that is thanks to Intel.
- joshribakoff 6mo agoI recovered ~$250,000 under beverly song act (California lemon law). (My principal and interest back for multiple vehicles) I repeatedly complained it was activating “emergency lane departure” while driving manually, even after disabling the setting. This had the effect of the vehicles swerving towards cross walks or walls. Clearly a software issue but they played dumb and forced me to book service visits and refused to provide loaners. Each time they returned the vehicle(s) with a short resolution of “expected characteristic”. I read my purchase agreement, emailed them, and simply stated they are obliged to buy back my fleet given its a hazard to public safety. They obliged without discussion. There were also other persistent issues with the vehicle beyond the software but i suspect the software put them into a double bind where if they “fix” it they create more liability via accidental disengagements.
- SilverElfin 6mo agoI’ve had this type of issue on multiple European car brands. Software issues with driver assistance features, which they keep ignoring. Things like sudden unexplained braking, not showing down due to cars stopped ahead, swerving randomly... I accepted it because getting them to cover anything, even physical things, even under warranty. They just come up with self serving guidelines and excuses. Glad you had success. Did it require lawyers?
- lokar 6mo agoI (also in CA) lemon returned a Mercedes EV. Same kind of thing, they could not fix repeated software issues w/ the collision avoidance features. I called them up, gave a short explanation, and they sent me to their vendor who handles the returns, no issues. Full price (including tax etc) back. AIUI, they know not to fight, since in CA when they loose, they pay your legal fees.
- SilverElfin 6mo agoI just got repeated run arounds from the euro brands - like they can’t reproduce it or that it was determined to be a non issue. The dealers would just eventually give me the phone number for the corporate line if I wanted to push more. But it wasn’t even some kind of support phone number - literally just a generic corporate number. So basically they were telling me to go away. Oh and top of that they charged me for diagnostic time.
- bdcravens 6mo agoIt's not him they're fighting, it's precedence and the impending flood of lawsuits.
- walrus01 6mo agoI look forward to the day when this goes further up the hierarchy of US domestic courts, and some final decision is reached ordering Tesla to pay back the money every purchaser of "full self driving" paid for something that is clearly not level 4 or level 5 autonomy.
- tencentshill 6mo agoThis is a solved problem. They have plenty of bagholders willing to donate to the cause.
- dmix 6mo agoIt's a small claims court, there is no precedence. Tesla didn't even reply so it just went to default judgement The article says there's already been other small claims over this where they settled, such as in 2023 in the UK also for $10k
- Schiendelman 6mo agoPrecedent. Please please let's not change English to conflate those two words.
- bdcravens 6mo agoYou're right, thanks for the catch.
- Schiendelman 6mo agoThank you too! I appreciate it. :)
- wrs 6mo agoThat idea of a simultaneous small claims day is brilliant. I hope somebody is vibecoding that site up right now.
- JumpCrisscross 6mo agoIs there a fuck-you option by which a large company can force escalating costs on you through small claims? Can they, for example, remove it to a federal court?
- jfim 6mo agoI don't think they can, but at the same time they can appeal a judgement that's unfavorable to them. Appeals in small claims allow for having attorneys present, at least in California, and it's another day in court that you'll have to argue your case.
- xoa 6mo ago>Is there a fuck-you option by which a large company can force escalating costs on you through small claims? It'll vary by state, in general I don't think so? Or at least not if (as apparently was the case here) they don't have anything preventing it in some contractual agreement. In some states a party can appeal to a superior court, but that's not a new trial redo, the judge simply reviews what happened and see if it looks reasonably kosher. If it was they still lose. The big check on small claims cases is, well, that they're small claims. Nobody could go after a full refund for the cost of a vehicle there for example. If you look at the maximum amounts by state [0], in lots of them even the $10k here would be above the limit (Kentucky is still at $2500 max). My state also was quite low until fairly recently, just because there's no automatic adjustment for inflation and $2500 in 1980 went a lot further than now and state legislature hadn't gotten around to adjusting it up for decades. And in small claims the winner can generally recover reasonable costs and fees on top of damages (as happened here). And it's 50 different states a company with a national problem would have to get separate attorneys for to deal with. It's one of the few places where the asymmetry is somewhat more towards companies, without any need for the plaintiff to get a lawyer themselves and given that they're almost always going to be physically much closer, it's just a lot more costly for a company to drag it out. They're not going to be setting any useful precedent vs any other small claims, and the max amount is small enough that it's rarely going to be worth it if their claims are weak. Someone angry enough to go to small claims is much more likely to stick to it through sheer bloody mindedness, which is basically all they actually need. I think normally companies simply just don't create enough of a small claims problem for themselves for any of this to be more than a rounding error. Elon Musk may have somehow managed it though? ---- 0: https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/small-claims-suits-how-much-30031.html https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/small-claims-suits-h...
- romaaeterna 6mo ago[flagged]
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 6mo agoAsk the editor of HN
- hamasho 6mo agoSo I skimmed several articles and the reasons why the Theranos CEO was sentenced to 11 years are 1. The scale of the fraud was too big 2. From emails it seemed she intentionally tricked investors 3. The product, medical equipment, endangered patients. I think this can be applied to Tesla too (though I'm not sure there is enough evidence of 2). Shouldn't someone in charge be sentenced to at least a few years?
- justapassenger 6mo ago2 more, most important reasons she was sentenced: 1. She stopped making money for rich people. 2. She herself wasn’t rich enough. Leon is too rich, and he keeps on making money for the right people.
- disqard 6mo agoRight, I've also heard your (1) above expressed as "she basically stole from the wrong set of people -- rich and powerful". Kinda-sorta off-topic (but not really), it reminds me of Charlie Javice. She sold a database of college loan applicants to JP Morgan for $175 million -- it later turned out that she had fabricated most of that data.
- Pxtl 6mo agoThink about who she ripped off and the difference will be obvious.
- argomo 6mo agoI'd say repeatedly forecasting "full self driving next year" every year for a decade qualifies Tesla for #2.
- helsinkiandrew 6mo agoI think the big difference is that criminal wire fraud depends on a "clear scheme to defraud with intent". Tesla/Musk can argue that they thought they would delivery - They've been making claims that FSD was coming for years and have been slowly making deliveries towards FSD, its just that its harder/taken longer than expected and without a smoking gun (email chains like in the Holmes case) it would be very hard to prove. They may have committed false advertising or "failed to deliver on contract" but they are civil matters, which could still involve big payouts, but not prison time.
- sergiotapia 6mo ago[dead]
- vzaliva 6mo agoHe should publish a "bring Tesla to small court" kit, with all documents other people in the similar situation can use to sue them.
- 6gvONxR4sf7o 6mo agoWhy just the $10k? Could you get a full refund? If I order a $12 burrito and you give me a $10 sandwich, I would feel owed my $12 back, not the $2 difference in price.
- Marsymars 6mo agoYou should have the option of getting the $12 back provided you also return the sandwich. You don't get a free sandwich out of the deal unless the seller cares about good will.
- dlcarrier 6mo agoThe reimbursement covers the add-on. It's more like ordering a $10 sandwich and a $2 bag of chips, then not receiving the bag of chips and getting your $2 back.
- stahtops 6mo agoSome people only bought the sandwich because of the chips. If chips weren't offered they would have bought lunch from someone else across the street.
- 827a 6mo agoThe real problem, which I think the article does a poor job of making clear: Tesla sold millions of cars before the current generation Hardware 4 vehicles with $10,000 full self driving packages which never really materialized convincingly ‘full’ self-driving capability. There’s fair arguments for the HW4 vehicles not having FSD either, maybe because it needs to be supervised or isn’t perfect or whatever. But the HW4 experience is good enough that I don’t think many HW4 owners are angry; it’s by far the best consumer self driving experience you can buy, and is very good. It’s the HW3 owners that got screwed and absolutely deserve money back.
- testing22321 6mo agoOn the recent earnings call they did finally acknowledge they will have to upgrade the hardware in HW3 cars so they can fully self drive. The flayed the solution of “popup factories” in cities across the US to carry out the upgrade.
- FireBeyond 6mo agoEven then they're playing fuck fuck games. People have pushed on this and been told "We won't actually upgrade your hardware until you pay for FSD first" which is also horseshit. It wasn't "contains all the hardware necessary for FSD, provided you've bought it", it was "contains all the hardware necessary for FSD, full stop". I get why Tesla will resist this, but a part of me admires the pettiness (but reasonableness) of a bunch of owners demanding the hardware upgrade and then never buying FSD.
- fouc 6mo agoSeems like HW3 has been pretty good since FSD v12.3+ came out. If we describe HW4 as 99% of the way to true FSD, then HW3 is probably 95% of the way. Though approaching 100% (maybe 2x the human standard) is going to be exponentially harder to get to.
- Schiendelman 6mo agoI'm reminded of the adage about getting 80% of the way through shipping a product, and then doing the other 80%...
- jqpabc123 6mo agoBottom line: FSD was a fraud.
- antonvs 6mo agoYou all don’t understand. FSD works fine as long as you evaluate it 5 years in the future. No I don’t mean 2031, because in 2031 you need to evaluate it in 2036.
- jqpabc123 6mo agoFSD will work next year --- perpetually.