Their lawyers already did that and got it ruled that Tesla’s statements are unbelievable lies and thus Tesla is not liable for deceiving customers or the public.
On page 16, the judge states that the defendants, Tesla, argued: “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.”
I wasn't talking about anything related to your opinions. I was pointing out that Fox had to claim "entertainment" in court for their opinion commentators long before MSNBC. Because you disingenuously implied that MSNBC was somehow the opinion news that had to admit in court their coverage included opinions.
In case you forgot you replied to "It worked for fox news [claiming opinion]" with "And MSNBC in court."
Since you clearly misread or purposely misconstrued my statement, let me rephrase:
"Thank Fox for paving the way for inserting ones opinion in news. Did you not know that Fox had to do it in court first?"
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/califor...
On page 16, the judge states that the defendants, Tesla, argued: “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.”