[therouwboat]

>The algorithm claim seems extremely weak. Unless you can get some actual developer to testify that he was explicitly ordered to build the algorithm to report a range which he knew was impossible to reach or something similar, this seems practically irrelevant.

Of course he was ordered to build it that way, it's not like some worker is just going to decide by himself.

[constantcrying]

>Of course he was ordered to build it that way

Zero evidence for that.

[dragontamer]

https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/tesla-ba...

> The directive to present the optimistic range estimates came from Tesla Chief Executive Elon Musk, this person said.

> “Elon wanted to show good range numbers when fully charged,” the person said, adding: “When you buy a car off the lot seeing 350-mile, 400-mile range, it makes you feel good.”

-------

This is evidence, is it not?

[kjksf]

Depends.

If the plaintiffs have a sworn, signed statement from the person claiming that then it could be presented as evidence during the trial, subject to cross-examination.

If all they have is the article it's hearsay i.e. "evidence based not on a witness's personal knowledge but on another's statement not made under oath"

Also known as: bupkis.

[constantcrying]

Certainly not for anything illegal.

If you believe Musk on this the lawsuit is practically pointless. Having an optimistic algorithm is not illegal and even alledging that it somehow is seems absurd.

[dragontamer]

> If you believe Musk on this

Seriously, you shouldn't believe Musk with regards to lawsuits.

If Musk knew anything about law, he wouldn't have been forced to buy Twitter last year. The world was revealed to how ignorant this guy is to the law.

-------------------

By the way, this is a civil case, not a criminal case. "Illegal" is almost a non-sequitur.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fraud

> In civil litigation, allegations of fraud might be based on a misrepresentation of fact that was either intentional or negligent. For a statement to be an intentional misrepresentation, the person who made it must either have known the statement was false or been reckless as to its truth. The speaker must have also intended that the person to whom the statement was made would rely on it. The hearer must then have reasonably relied on the promise and also been harmed because of that reliance.

All they have to do to successfully sue here is prove that the other side was "misleading", and that they "knew about being misleading" (intentional), or even the lower-standard of recklessness (they didn't know they were misleading, but they didn't do enough research to prove their own statements true before telling customers).

Welcome to Civil Law. The standards are much lower than criminal law. But its just money, so that makes sense.

[abduhl]

A tale of moving goalposts, as presented by constantcrying:

“Unless you can get some actual developer to testify that he was explicitly ordered to build the algorithm to report a range which he knew was impossible to reach or something similar, this seems practically irrelevant.”

“Zero evidence for that.”

When confronted with evidence that the algorithm was specifically designed to show an unrealistic, misleading, and apparently impossible to meet range based on orders from the highest authority in Tesla:

“Certainly not [evidence] for anything illegal.”

[constantcrying]

>specifically designed to show an unrealistic, misleading, and apparently impossible to meet

You are making stuff up. Musk said optimistic, which directly implies that it should be truthful and accurate, just not representative of average performance.

And it absolutely isn't moving the goalpost. If you didn't think I was initially asking for evidence that would support the legal claim against Musk I don't know what to tell you...