4 ms·

"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 we

by 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 ago
To 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 ago
  I'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 ago
  Inflation is part of interest; you don't get reimbursed for both separately.
  - grodriguez100 6mo ago
    The 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 ago
      Inflation 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 ago
        Yes, 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 ago
        I think this is right. It incentivizes those harmed to take action early, which helps protect others as well.
bobro 6mo ago
The judgement also includes interest, 6.75% per year.
- ndkap 6mo ago
  It starts from the day of judgement

by 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 ago

To 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 ago
I'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 ago
Inflation is part of interest; you don't get reimbursed for both separately.
- grodriguez100 6mo ago
  The 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 ago
    Inflation 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 ago
      Yes, 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 ago
        I think this is right. It incentivizes those harmed to take action early, which helps protect others as well.

bobro 6mo ago

The judgement also includes interest, 6.75% per year.

ndkap 6mo ago
It starts from the day of judgement