Fraud is a matter of intent. You’d have to prove that they never intended to deliver on the promise to call it that. Inability to deliver, despite legitimate attempts, isn’t fraud.
I think they will do something like what I described. It’s just a matter of whether they do it voluntarily or are forced to.
Oh I know for a fact that it's fraud. Can I prove it in court? Perhaps not. Let's settle on shitty business practice then. I won't be getting another Tesla for as long as I live if they don't make it right.
Tesla would love to be able to take this escape pod and move on... but refunding the cost of FSD won't work. Why? Because I bought a Tesla for FSD. If Tesla admits FSD can't be done, on HW3 then they sold me an entire car under false pretenses. That would be like saying "sorry, you can't use the supercharger network anymore". The autonomy (coming soon™️ 😉) was a differentiating factor. And it wasn't a "maybe" it was Elon saying "not a question, an absolute" multiple years ago. Even last year he said "based on our internal numbers we think FSD will be safer than a human by about the new year."
So Elon has been saying that FSD not only was soon, but an absolute fact. So it wasn't a risk to buy a Tesla and know you'll get FSD.
People bought Volkswagen Diesel cars on the promise that they were "good for the environment". VW wasn't allowed to offer a carbon offset in your name to offset the lifetime emissions. They were required to buy back the car which wasn't what was promised.
Venture capitalists being pitched by an entrepreneur are used to forward looking statements that promise the sky, and then may never take place. Why? Because if I invest $1,000 in Tesla at IPO and they deliver these risky bets I make $100,000. Risk is paired with reward. You're allowed to make optimistically false statements which... might come true when the people who who bare the risk also will stand to gain. A consumer will not get rich if you succeed, they only get what they paid, back in the form of a product equal to the value paid. So Elon's history of selling the moon (or mars) to investors was inappropriate for a consumer product. He talked like he talks to investors.
As a stock holder I think Tesla should try this strategy of suckering as many people as possible into taking the refund on FSD. But I will only accept a refund on the car "with all of the hardware needed for full autonomy".
"I think they were not alone in being overconfident and overly aggressive in predicting a timeline for delivering autonomous capabilities"
But everybody else exclusively took investor's money. Not consumer's money. Tesla sold robotaxis to people that they would be admitting will never be a robotaxi. The difference between "an electric car with above average lane keeping" and "a robotaxi" are two different products. I bought a "robotaxi" that would be unlocked through software later. It would be like buying an iPhone where the modem never gets enabled... You didn't buy an iphone you bought an ipod touch. That's a different product.
That’s not how any of this works. When you buy a Tesla, you sign an agreement saying you’re accepting the car as it is (with specific warranty terms) and that nothing beyond what is present and enabled in the car at that time is promised to you.
There are arguments that could be made for specific features advertised but not delivered (like The Witcher and similar games not available on my 2021 Model S), but the “FSD” stuff always had clear language explaining that actual autonomous features would be subject to development, testing, regulatory approval, etc.
Further, the “FSD” definition was vague enough that they can call a lot of stuff that. It’s just not a good idea to play stupid games with people’s expectations.
If you’re buying a car based on the idea of “FSD” coming, even after it’s been several years since they first offered it and still haven’t delivered it, that’s probably on you.
I’m not saying they haven’t made mistakes here, but I think your proposition here is entirely unreasonable.
They can't deliver, won't retrofit and they won't refund. How's that not fraud? Also, don't get me started on the EU.
Fraud is a matter of intent. You’d have to prove that they never intended to deliver on the promise to call it that. Inability to deliver, despite legitimate attempts, isn’t fraud.
I think they will do something like what I described. It’s just a matter of whether they do it voluntarily or are forced to.
Oh I know for a fact that it's fraud. Can I prove it in court? Perhaps not. Let's settle on shitty business practice then. I won't be getting another Tesla for as long as I live if they don't make it right.
Tesla would love to be able to take this escape pod and move on... but refunding the cost of FSD won't work. Why? Because I bought a Tesla for FSD. If Tesla admits FSD can't be done, on HW3 then they sold me an entire car under false pretenses. That would be like saying "sorry, you can't use the supercharger network anymore". The autonomy (coming soon™️ 😉) was a differentiating factor. And it wasn't a "maybe" it was Elon saying "not a question, an absolute" multiple years ago. Even last year he said "based on our internal numbers we think FSD will be safer than a human by about the new year."
So Elon has been saying that FSD not only was soon, but an absolute fact. So it wasn't a risk to buy a Tesla and know you'll get FSD.
People bought Volkswagen Diesel cars on the promise that they were "good for the environment". VW wasn't allowed to offer a carbon offset in your name to offset the lifetime emissions. They were required to buy back the car which wasn't what was promised.
Venture capitalists being pitched by an entrepreneur are used to forward looking statements that promise the sky, and then may never take place. Why? Because if I invest $1,000 in Tesla at IPO and they deliver these risky bets I make $100,000. Risk is paired with reward. You're allowed to make optimistically false statements which... might come true when the people who who bare the risk also will stand to gain. A consumer will not get rich if you succeed, they only get what they paid, back in the form of a product equal to the value paid. So Elon's history of selling the moon (or mars) to investors was inappropriate for a consumer product. He talked like he talks to investors.
As a stock holder I think Tesla should try this strategy of suckering as many people as possible into taking the refund on FSD. But I will only accept a refund on the car "with all of the hardware needed for full autonomy".
"I think they were not alone in being overconfident and overly aggressive in predicting a timeline for delivering autonomous capabilities"
But everybody else exclusively took investor's money. Not consumer's money. Tesla sold robotaxis to people that they would be admitting will never be a robotaxi. The difference between "an electric car with above average lane keeping" and "a robotaxi" are two different products. I bought a "robotaxi" that would be unlocked through software later. It would be like buying an iPhone where the modem never gets enabled... You didn't buy an iphone you bought an ipod touch. That's a different product.
That’s not how any of this works. When you buy a Tesla, you sign an agreement saying you’re accepting the car as it is (with specific warranty terms) and that nothing beyond what is present and enabled in the car at that time is promised to you.
There are arguments that could be made for specific features advertised but not delivered (like The Witcher and similar games not available on my 2021 Model S), but the “FSD” stuff always had clear language explaining that actual autonomous features would be subject to development, testing, regulatory approval, etc.
Further, the “FSD” definition was vague enough that they can call a lot of stuff that. It’s just not a good idea to play stupid games with people’s expectations.
If you’re buying a car based on the idea of “FSD” coming, even after it’s been several years since they first offered it and still haven’t delivered it, that’s probably on you.
I’m not saying they haven’t made mistakes here, but I think your proposition here is entirely unreasonable.