[mgiannopoulos]

The label on the Tesla site in the past has always been “FSD capable”. For years the FSD software was only available to a very small set of beta testers even if you had paid for it. People still have their money knowing they were not getting something at that monent. Not sure why we pretend they were fooled somehow.

[fzeroracer]

You do realize that's still false advertising, right? People bought these cars because the advertising line was 'All Tesla cars have full self-driving hardware'.

If you bought a computer that advertised itself as having a top of the line video card, but then as it turns out the company wouldn't let you use it unless you paid extra and then outright prevented you from using it entirely I assume you would say the company was trying to scam you.

If they didn't want people to buy into FSD then they shouldn't have advertised and sold their cars with FSD.

[mgiannopoulos]

The didn’t “sell their cars with FSD”. FSD was always an optional software package, which was clearly mentioned as not available at the time. The grand majority of HW3 owners have not purchased FSD.

[jantissler]

Then the "optional software package" was/is the false advertising. And it is irrelevant how many people bought it.

[Animats]

> You do realize that's still false advertising, right?

Tesla won that one in a case brought by Tesla investors.[1]

Defendants argue that the Timeline Statements that FSDC technology “appear[ed] to be on track,” would be available “aspirationally by the end of the year,” and Tesla was “aiming to release [it] this year,” [..] were nonactionable statements of corporate puffery and optimism. […] Plaintiffs contend that the statements provided a “concrete description” of the state of Tesla’s technology in a way that misled investors. […]. These statements about Tesla’s aims and aspirations to develop Tesla’s technology by the end of the year and Musk’s confidence in the development timeline are too vague for an investor to rely on them. […] Thus, in addition to being protected under the PSLRA safe harbor, Statements (10, 11, and 18) are nonactionable puffery.

Defendants also assert that several Safety Statements are corporate puffery. For example, statements that safety is “paramount” (FAC ¶ 325), Tesla cars are “absurdly safe” (id.), autopilot is “superhuman” (FAC ¶ 337), and “we want to get to as close to perfection as possible” (FAC¶363). Mot. at 19. Plaintiffs respond that “super” in “superhuman” is not puffery because it represents that ADT is safer than human and “absurdly safe” conveys greater-than-human safety. Opp. at 12. However, these vague statements of corporate optimism are not objectively verifiable.

So Tesla admitted in the investor case that FSD is a lie. The legal argument relies on the "right to lie".

However, Tesla is not doing as well in a case brought by unhappy FSD customers.[2] They potentially have stronger rights. That case is being stalled by Tesla, but it moves forward slowly anyway.

It's essential to Musk's net worth that the FSD lie not collapse. Tesla's 94.64 P/E ratio assumes huge future growth. Now that everybody makes electric cars, just being an electric car maker isn't enough. Tesla is behind CATL and BYD and Samsung on battery technology and battery cost. Much of Tesla's overvaluation is being propped up only by Tesla's FSD hype. If the FSD bubble collapses, and P/E drops to a value appropriate to a car company (under 15, maybe lower), Musk stops being one of the richest people in the world.

This explains the sucking up to Trump.

[1] https://electrek.co/2024/10/02/elon-musk-celebrates-winning-...

[2] https://electrek.co/2024/06/10/teslas-dmv-self-driving-false...