[macspoofing]

>I don't understand why Tesla hasn't simply been ordered to stop calling these features Autopilot or FSD

They walked back, or qualified a lot of the initial claims and added mitigations to prevent their 'self-driving' systems from being used as such.

>Oh, and anyone who paid extra for these features should be given a refund, as those features were falsely advertised.

There may be some validity to this. Musk/Tesla certainly made explicit claims that existing cars have the hardware to achieve full autonomous driving via a future software patch.

[ocdtrekkie]

> They walked back, or qualified a lot of the initial claims

The product names are fraudulent, there's no walking back when they're still called Autopilot (a term which in all other uses essentially does not require operator attention) and Full Self-Driving (which is definitely not what the feature is).

It's fraud, plain and simple. Until the features are renamed, Tesla continues to commit fraud.

[mavhc]

An autopilot is a system used to control the trajectory of an aircraft, marine craft or spacecraft without requiring constant manual control by a human operator. Autopilots do not replace human operators. Instead, the autopilot assists the operator's control of the vehicle, allowing the operator to focus on broader aspects of operations (for example, monitoring the trajectory, weather and on-board systems)

Autopilots don't stop crashes, or change lanes. So Tesla's Navigate on Autopilot already does more than a standard Autopilot

[ocdtrekkie]

The issue with this comparison is that in scenarios pilots or ship captains use autopilot, collision is extremely improbable compared to that of a car.

[yreg]

Perhaps in the middle of atlantic.

Most laypeople who encounter autopilot do so on small sailboats near the coastline where a collision is extremely likely if you just turn on the autopilot and go chill in the cabin.

[macspoofing]

>It's fraud, plain and simple. Until the features are renamed, Tesla continues to commit fraud.

That's for courts to decide, but I don't think so, at least not to the level of hostility that you seem to hold.

This kind of reasoning is typical online where deductive logic based on strong assumptions made by the posters, is then used to reach equally strong conclusion (in this case, that a marketing term implies outright fraud). The reality is that regulatory, judicial and cultural boundaries have much more slack than you give them credit for. And that's a good thing.