[csydas]

As a reasonably self-aware dumb tech person, I would say that this defense would not fly with me any more than "any ____ should know that the product can't actually do that." There's a reason that such consumer protections are in place against claims like this, and especially with something like an auto-pilot, I think it's down-right irresponsible to allow marketing to dilute the reality of the performance. This isn't like GB vs GiB for storage, which is annoying but understandable, it's a tool that has very serious consequences if what is advertised doesn't match up with reality. Caveat Emptor only covers so much, and when you have non-stop marketing material about autonomous vehicles and auto-pilot being produced about your product (whether internally produced or produced by third parties), there is a responsibility to set out a clear expectation for the product.

[Gibbon1]

There is a case that dates back to the early days of the auto industry.

tl;dr: Lady was driving a car and the wheel fell off due to a manufacturing defect. Auto makers said they weren't liable cause Caveat Emptor. Supreme court said a normal person has no way of knowing if the wheel assembly on a car is defective. Auto maker was held liable.

Defective or misleadingly advertised auto pilot? The above on steroids.