[gonehome]

> "Tesla is a real example that passed this test. Their marketing language brands AP as "fully self driving, some features unavailable due to local laws"."

This isn't true, FSD has always been a 'coming soon' feature you can prepay for distinct from autopilot. Autopilot has always been advanced lane assist. "Autopilot" in planes just holds the same flight pattern and doesn't really do anything sophisticated, autopilot in Tesla is similar.

[buran77]

German authorities did find Tesla's claims about the AP as misleading [0]. Tesla's AP page was updated (globally) to reflect "full self driving in the future" but until recently it just said "Tesla cars come equipped with all the necessary hardware for full self driving" with a footer claiming some features are unavailable due to local laws.

Regardless, Tesla was not found guilty for anything other than misleading advertisement, not for failing to build a car that drives itself. I don't see how comma.ai could be held to a higher standard.

> The court, in Munich, said: "By using the term 'autopilot' and other wording, the defendant suggests that their vehicles are technically able to drive completely autonomously." [0]

[0] https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-53418069

[gonehome]

I don't agree, but I know this is a position a reasonable person could hold.

I just don't think autopilot means autonomous driving and I think that's clear to people.

If someone thinks cruise control means you can crawl into the backseat of the car, is that the fault of the car manufacturer?

I also think Germany may have a bias given their own car industry.

What comma.ai is doing I think is categorically different.

I'm okay with people hacking on their own stuff, I just don't like the "This is Alpha don't use it" when they obviously intend you to buy and use it that way.

[buran77]

> I also think Germany may have a bias given their own car industry.

This isn't really a fair argument to be honest. You're brushing the court's justification aside ("By using the term 'autopilot' and other wording, the defendant suggests that their vehicles are technically able to drive completely autonomously.") to focus on a weak link between the country having a strong auto industry, and the justice system banning advertisement for something Tesla does not actually deliver.

> I just don't think autopilot means autonomous driving and I think that's clear to people.

Tesla was claiming their cars have "all the necessary hardware for FSD" since at least 2016 [0]. That's an obviously misleading statement since not even expert engineers know if that hardware is enough. If anything the general consensus is that it isn't, and Musk's missed promises support this.

> If someone thinks...

When it comes to misleading advertisement the technical definition isn't very relevant. As the name suggests, it's about whether enough people are mislead into believing they're buying something else. This was raised by consumer groups after realizing the payed promise of FSD never came. Customers shouldn't be expected to be experts in all things. So if the marketing makes it sound to regular people like the product is something other than what it actually is then it's fair to call it "misleading".

[0] https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=all+the+necessary+hardware+...