alt.hn

5/2/2026 at 10:45:23 PM

Tesla owner won $10k in court for Tesla's FSD lies. Tesla is still fighting him

 https://electrek.co/2026/05/02/this-tesla-owner-won-10k-in-court-for-teslas-fsd-lies-tesla-is-still-fighting-him/

by breve

5/3/2026 at 1:04:46 AM

I recovered ~$250,000 under beverly song act (California lemon law). (My principal and interest back for multiple vehicles)

I repeatedly complained it was activating “emergency lane departure” while driving manually, even after disabling the setting. This had the effect of the vehicles swerving towards cross walks or walls.

Clearly a software issue but they played dumb and forced me to book service visits and refused to provide loaners.

Each time they returned the vehicle(s) with a short resolution of “expected characteristic”.

I read my purchase agreement, emailed them, and simply stated they are obliged to buy back my fleet given its a hazard to public safety. They obliged without discussion.

There were also other persistent issues with the vehicle beyond the software but i suspect the software put them into a double bind where if they “fix” it they create more liability via accidental disengagements.

by joshribakoff

5/3/2026 at 1:10:57 AM

I’ve had this type of issue on multiple European car brands. Software issues with driver assistance features, which they keep ignoring. Things like sudden unexplained braking, not showing down due to cars stopped ahead, swerving randomly... I accepted it because getting them to cover anything, even physical things, even under warranty. They just come up with self serving guidelines and excuses.

Glad you had success. Did it require lawyers?

by SilverElfin

5/3/2026 at 1:38:11 AM

I (also in CA) lemon returned a Mercedes EV. Same kind of thing, they could not fix repeated software issues w/ the collision avoidance features.

I called them up, gave a short explanation, and they sent me to their vendor who handles the returns, no issues. Full price (including tax etc) back.

AIUI, they know not to fight, since in CA when they loose, they pay your legal fees.

by lokar

5/3/2026 at 3:34:12 AM

I'm having a similar issue with Volvo. It occasionally sees a gate track on the ground as a 'hazard' and will hard-brake when slowly backing over it. It's inconsistent but happens regularly.

by njovin

5/3/2026 at 5:11:37 AM

On the one hand, my 50 year old car (1976 BMW 2002) has very few safety measures, but on the other hand there’s no bullshit like this…

by lobf

5/3/2026 at 3:17:30 PM

Your car also has a safety feature that the others upstream lack: a curb weight of only 2400 lbs. Which is already an order of magnitude more mass than necessary to move a few human beings around.

Also, by having some skin in the game, my guess is you're a lot more likely to drive it responsibly, which is probably the most effective safety feature of all.

by alamortsubite

5/3/2026 at 4:27:06 PM

Back in the early 1980's, a high school friend from a semi-wealthy family received a money from his parents to buy his first car to drive to school. They were expecting him to buy a new Honda or Toyota, but he proudly showed up at home with an old used 2002. They were not happy, but we had a great time with that car. :-)

by jimmydddd

5/3/2026 at 3:30:23 AM

I just got repeated run arounds from the euro brands - like they can’t reproduce it or that it was determined to be a non issue. The dealers would just eventually give me the phone number for the corporate line if I wanted to push more. But it wasn’t even some kind of support phone number - literally just a generic corporate number. So basically they were telling me to go away. Oh and top of that they charged me for diagnostic time.

by SilverElfin

5/3/2026 at 4:54:26 PM

That sucks. For me, it was clear the dealer did not really care, and was happy to call each visit a valid warranty repair attempt (and later agree it was not fixed).

Once it had been in N times, the game was over.

by lokar

5/3/2026 at 4:10:17 AM

One reason I love my mid-00s Lexus SUV. All the luxury features you want, but clean instrument cluster with no driving assistance tech to break or get in the way. Great visual clarity on the road, 300K miles on original drivetrain without issues, and a beast in the snow/inclement weather. Only downside is mileage, but I legit wouldn't trade it for a new car.

by boc

5/3/2026 at 4:46:51 AM

Which model is it? Didn't they make quite a few? :)

by justinclift

5/3/2026 at 4:52:27 PM

The GX and LX models specifically! Built off the LC platform.

by boc

5/3/2026 at 1:50:06 AM

At this point I want basically no driver assistance features except maybe an automatic cruise control speed adjustment to vehicle directly in the lane ahead based on forward facing radar data. Many of them seem to be much more troublesome or buggy than they're worth.

by walrus01

5/3/2026 at 2:16:47 AM

I don't have a "modern" vehicle but automated following distance is the only thing I feel like I'm missing out on. Everything else feels like I'm dodging bullets.

Unfortunately not upgrading means missing out on improvements to physical safety in the event of a crash.

by fc417fc802

5/3/2026 at 3:17:14 AM

You might be able to add that feature yourself. Comma/open pilot looks really cool

https://comma.ai

by NDlurker

5/3/2026 at 4:43:26 AM

Auto headlights switching is nice as well. We have it on the Lexus.

by petre

5/4/2026 at 6:01:48 AM

Is it really that onerous to turn headlights on manually? That's not a feature that I envy.

by brokenmachine

5/3/2026 at 2:34:22 AM

I'll be honest, that braking assist has saved me from a couple parking lot dings. That's worth something.

The problem is I drive in a city with really narrow roads and it triggers the collision warning all over the place. I've also had it slam the brakes in a situation where that was not a good idea at all.

The forward attention warning ("you should take a break") is another one I'd love to be able to tune. I have a lot of late nights at work, falling asleep or becoming distracted while driving is a very real hazard that I appreciate, but it's absurdly sensitive.

by jrumbut

5/3/2026 at 2:39:15 AM

I've been quite happy with my "first generation" tesla with the mobileye system. It has only tried to kill me a couple times in 6 years of driving it; it is not terribly smart but within the system's limits it is very stable. I certainly don't trust it to drive unattended, but it does offload 5-30% of the toil of driving on highways, which is pretty nice. Offloading 50-80% but constantly wondering "is it going to try to kill me?" I don't think would be as relaxing, though I understand lots of people have chosen to just not worry, which I guess is fine...

At the time I got the car I wasn't sure if I wanted the old "totally obsolete" AP1 or the "probably going to get way better (cough)" AP2; I'm glad I got the obsolete version....

I wonder if there are modern cars with systems comparable to the mobileye system from the original tesla setup.

by cduzz

5/3/2026 at 5:36:48 PM

It has only tried to kill me a couple times in 6 years of driving

I understand your pragmatism, but it still boggles my mind how this metric could be considered satisfactory.

by rkagerer

5/3/2026 at 2:56:03 AM

Mobileye still sells to a large fraction of manufacturers (I think a plurality if not majority). You will still get variation in implementation, as Mobileye only does the sensing side, and the integration is done by the OEM.

by arijun

5/3/2026 at 3:32:59 AM

The speed limit sign reading tech that displays the most recently posted limit on the nav is pretty nifty. (I'd consider that "driver assistance" even if it doesn't physically control the vehicle.)

by Marsymars

5/3/2026 at 8:48:43 AM

Oh god, the speed limit sign reading. I was in a rented car (a Ford) and it basically spent the entire trip beeping. I didn’t spend time investigating, as it wasn’t my car, but I hope that can be disabled…

by nsowz

5/3/2026 at 3:10:58 PM

Oh, I actually own a Ford - not sure if that's configurable or different depending on models, but I've never heard a beep related to the sign reads. (Or many beeps in general... the only place I regularly get it to beep is when I'm backing up very close to things.)

by Marsymars

5/3/2026 at 8:36:48 PM

I have that on my Navigator, and it's mostly decent. The one on my Audi is better, it recognizes school zones and even recognizes active school zones (if there's a flashing light, the 'school' will flash, too). Also very nice (but is dependent on the signals) is the "green light countdown" where the signal is broadcasting how long until a given direction is turning green.

by FireBeyond

5/3/2026 at 1:55:42 AM

I've heard new Toyota's sensors cause it to constantly beep and you can't turn it off. Probably due to a regulation somewhere.

by dmix

5/3/2026 at 4:47:51 AM

Yes, it does beep a lot but you can adjust the volume to low. Source: we had a 2025 replacement Yaris. It's annoying but the older ones' seat belt alarm is even more annoying, although I use the seatbelt at all times. It also turned me off, not wanting to get a new post-2025 Toyota. Now they all have mandatory alcohol testers and speed alarms. Use hand sanitizer and you have to Uber to work. No thanx. I'll keep my old car.

by petre

5/3/2026 at 8:17:31 AM

Sorry new Toyotas have mandatory alcohol testers? Which locale are you in? I’ve heard of mandatory breathalysers for work vehicles or DUI drivers but all new cars?

by boredishBoi

5/3/2026 at 1:47:06 AM

So I skimmed several articles and the reasons why the Theranos CEO was sentenced to 11 years are

  1. The scale of the fraud was too big
  2. From emails it seemed she intentionally tricked investors
  3. The product, medical equipment, endangered patients.
I think this can be applied to Tesla too (though I'm not sure there is enough evidence of 2). Shouldn't someone in charge be sentenced to at least a few years?

by hamasho

5/3/2026 at 1:53:25 AM

2 more, most important reasons she was sentenced:

1. She stopped making money for rich people.

2. She herself wasn’t rich enough.

Leon is too rich, and he keeps on making money for the right people.

by justapassenger

5/3/2026 at 4:59:35 AM

Right, I've also heard your (1) above expressed as "she basically stole from the wrong set of people -- rich and powerful".

Kinda-sorta off-topic (but not really), it reminds me of Charlie Javice. She sold a database of college loan applicants to JP Morgan for $175 million -- it later turned out that she had fabricated most of that data.

by disqard

5/3/2026 at 7:56:31 AM

I think the big difference is that criminal wire fraud depends on a "clear scheme to defraud with intent". Tesla/Musk can argue that they thought they would delivery - They've been making claims that FSD was coming for years and have been slowly making deliveries towards FSD, its just that its harder/taken longer than expected and without a smoking gun (email chains like in the Holmes case) it would be very hard to prove.

They may have committed false advertising or "failed to deliver on contract" but they are civil matters, which could still involve big payouts, but not prison time.

by helsinkiandrew

5/3/2026 at 8:43:37 PM

There's a corpus of work that could help there. Tesla was forced to add disclaimers like "Elon's statements are aspirational and do not necessarily represent engineering reality", as well as quotes from him on investor calls where he's described (in 2009, I believe) FSD as a "solved problem, we're just implementing", and five years later, "Our highest priority is solving the problem of FSD". But it seems possible that there comes a time when an ambitious prosecuting attorney or attorney general pushes for this and the discovery that comes with (though I have near zero confidence that even then, that discovery won't already be thoroughly crippled by document retention policies or outright fuckery by Elon).

by FireBeyond

5/3/2026 at 10:06:20 AM

3 was likely in practice a reason that prosecution was pushed for, but IIRC those claims were the only ones she won on.

by rsynnott

5/3/2026 at 4:30:28 AM

I'd say repeatedly forecasting "full self driving next year" every year for a decade qualifies Tesla for #2.

by argomo

5/3/2026 at 2:34:17 AM

Think about who she ripped off and the difference will be obvious.

by Pxtl

5/3/2026 at 3:01:49 AM

The real problem, which I think the article does a poor job of making clear: Tesla sold millions of cars before the current generation Hardware 4 vehicles with $10,000 full self driving packages which never really materialized convincingly ‘full’ self-driving capability. There’s fair arguments for the HW4 vehicles not having FSD either, maybe because it needs to be supervised or isn’t perfect or whatever. But the HW4 experience is good enough that I don’t think many HW4 owners are angry; it’s by far the best consumer self driving experience you can buy, and is very good. It’s the HW3 owners that got screwed and absolutely deserve money back.

by 827a

5/3/2026 at 3:56:59 AM

On the recent earnings call they did finally acknowledge they will have to upgrade the hardware in HW3 cars so they can fully self drive.

The flayed the solution of “popup factories” in cities across the US to carry out the upgrade.

by testing22321

5/3/2026 at 8:46:36 PM

Even then they're playing fuck fuck games. People have pushed on this and been told "We won't actually upgrade your hardware until you pay for FSD first" which is also horseshit. It wasn't "contains all the hardware necessary for FSD, provided you've bought it", it was "contains all the hardware necessary for FSD, full stop".

I get why Tesla will resist this, but a part of me admires the pettiness (but reasonableness) of a bunch of owners demanding the hardware upgrade and then never buying FSD.

by FireBeyond

5/3/2026 at 2:23:53 PM

> the HW4 experience is good enough that I don’t think many HW4 owners are angry

Selection bias. The only people buying Teslas anymore are people who can explain away a Nazi salute. They'll explain away anything bad about HW4 as well.

by ModernMech

5/3/2026 at 8:28:42 AM

Seems like HW3 has been pretty good since FSD v12.3+ came out.

If we describe HW4 as 99% of the way to true FSD, then HW3 is probably 95% of the way.

Though approaching 100% (maybe 2x the human standard) is going to be exponentially harder to get to.

by fouc

5/3/2026 at 12:22:24 PM

> HW4 as 99% of the way to true FSD

If we describe current LLMs 99% of the way to AGI and full sentience then https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELIZA was probably 90% of the way.

by wqaatwt

5/3/2026 at 11:50:27 AM

I'm reminded of the adage about getting 80% of the way through shipping a product, and then doing the other 80%...

by Schiendelman

5/3/2026 at 1:34:51 PM

Yeah that's what I was referring to, the last 10% takes 90% of the time. Or the difficulty of getting from five 9s to nine 9s.

In this case the final 1% is 200x harder than getting to the initial 95%.

by fouc

5/3/2026 at 11:59:21 AM

I live in a suburban area in a cold climate. Based on what I've seen of "FSD," it's essentially unusable on most of the roads near me, and doubly so in winter. This is even true on larger highways/freeways, as when snow falls the camera systems can't see the lane markings. Not to mention the fact that some of those roads are so badly maintained that the lane markings are faint to nonexistent.

I don't think Tesla can honestly claim 99%, or 95%, or even 50% of the way to FSD until they solve these issues. Until they do, it's just a fun toy. After all, years ago they were claiming that you'd be able to "summon" a Tesla sans driver from LA to NYC. What happens if there's a winter storm on the way?

by angoragoats

5/3/2026 at 12:00:44 PM

it is not even a fun toy because fun toys are fun for kids and no sane person would use FSD wirh a kid in a car

by bdangubic

5/3/2026 at 8:47:31 PM

> If we describe HW4 as 99% of the way to true FSD

What part of that final one per cent includes "will not blow through railroad crossing gates when a train is approaching"?

Or "will work in a Pittsburgh winter's night on a snow covered, poorly line marked road"?

by FireBeyond

5/2/2026 at 11:44:45 PM

Earning calls are when CEO’s are telling the truth about their products. Knowing Tesla’s history of making payments he won’t see a dime. I’m no lawyer but he should set up a publicity stunt like the man who seized Bank of America’s equipment in order to get paid in full the same day. (George and Ora Lee, successfully seized assets from a Bank of America branch after the bank wrongly foreclosed on their home)

by KumaBear

5/2/2026 at 11:52:20 PM

I think you mean Warren and Maureen Nyerges: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/couple-almost-forecloses-on-ban...

George and Ora Lee appear to be a couple who died hours apart in 2016 after being married for 58 years.

by jer0me

5/3/2026 at 12:27:59 AM

Yea you are right. Google failed me once again.

by KumaBear

5/2/2026 at 11:56:00 PM

"Yeah, so they won't be giving the Bank of America any more trouble, capisce?" -- Bank of America

by CamperBob2

5/3/2026 at 12:01:43 AM

BoA having roots in the Bank of Italy makes this even funnier.

by sanex

5/3/2026 at 1:16:01 AM

Actually it does not have roots in Bank of Italy.

In 2000, NationsBank in Charlotte bought Bank of America. They used the BofA name, but the NB people ran things. Hugh McColl had been the CEO of NB for years, and he was CEO of BofA for a year. The next CEO, Ken Lewis, was also from NB. I worked for BofA in Chicago from 2001 to 2009. I talked to people in Charlotte all the time. I almost never talked to people in California.

Now that I think about it, I dealt with people in a lot of regions of the US, but almost nobody on the West Coast.

by EFreethought

5/3/2026 at 2:24:08 AM

"Bank of America, Los Angeles, was founded in California in 1923. In 1928, this entity was acquired by the Bank of Italy of San Francisco, which took the Bank of America name two years later"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_of_America

by kirubakaran

5/3/2026 at 4:45:25 AM

So why is the headquarters in Charlotte, genius?

A lot of things can happen between 1928 and 1999.

NationsBank also "took the Bank of America name".

by EFreethought

5/3/2026 at 4:47:24 AM

i bet the answer rhymes with "shmaxes"

by slater

5/2/2026 at 11:47:45 PM

> George and Ora Lee, successfully seized assets from a Bank of America branch after the bank wrongly foreclosed on their home

This is the type of person that deserves to have a statue in public

by xnx

5/3/2026 at 7:30:12 AM

Gawiser filed a “writ of execution” (another $240 in court fees) just yesterday, which would allow Texas law enforcement to seize and sell off enough of Tesla’s property as would be required to pay the judgment against them.

by a10c

5/3/2026 at 1:12:54 AM

It's not him they're fighting, it's precedence and the impending flood of lawsuits.

by bdcravens

5/3/2026 at 1:51:49 AM

It's a small claims court, there is no precedence. Tesla didn't even reply so it just went to default judgement

The article says there's already been other small claims over this where they settled, such as in 2023 in the UK also for $10k

by dmix

5/3/2026 at 11:51:56 AM

Precedent. Please please let's not change English to conflate those two words.

by Schiendelman

5/3/2026 at 12:32:08 PM

You're right, thanks for the catch.

by bdcravens

5/3/2026 at 4:22:37 PM

Thank you too! I appreciate it. :)

by Schiendelman

5/3/2026 at 1:41:51 AM

I look forward to the day when this goes further up the hierarchy of US domestic courts, and some final decision is reached ordering Tesla to pay back the money every purchaser of "full self driving" paid for something that is clearly not level 4 or level 5 autonomy.

by walrus01

5/3/2026 at 3:06:15 AM

This is a solved problem. They have plenty of bagholders willing to donate to the cause.

by tencentshill

5/3/2026 at 1:17:30 AM

"court made a judgment in his favor in the amount of $10,672.88, the amount Gawiser paid for FSD, including taxes and court fees." should include interest as well

by fhn

5/3/2026 at 2:49:35 AM

The judgement also includes interest, 6.75% per year.

by bobro

5/3/2026 at 8:51:17 PM

It starts from the day of judgement

by ndkap

5/3/2026 at 1:58:44 AM

To be truly fair should also adjust for inflation of US dollar of $10672 at the time he purchased it vs. April 2026.

For instance CPI inflation calculator says 10672 in Jan. 2022 is $12,534.44 today.

by walrus01

5/3/2026 at 5:58:32 AM

Inflation is part of interest; you don't get reimbursed for both separately.

by dlcarrier

5/3/2026 at 6:30:10 AM

The 6.75% interest applies from the date of judgement to the date of payment by Tesla but the inflation (from date of purchase to date of judgement) is not accounted for.

by grodriguez100

5/3/2026 at 7:36:46 AM

Inflation is why the awarded interest rate is 6.75%.

That rate was determined by the Consumer Credit Commissioner of Texas, which calculated it using the federal reserve rate, which itself is selected to meet an inflation goal, incorporating current inflation levels as well as the predicted inflationary effect of changing the server rate.

If inflation was zero, the interest rate would have been lower. If inflation were double, that rate would be higher.

Interest is awarded to counter the affects of inflation and the loss of opportunity cost. They aren't accounted for individually, instead inflation is part of the equation.

by dlcarrier

5/3/2026 at 7:49:05 AM

Yes, this is correct.

I meant that the ruling awarded interest from the date of judgement to the date of payment but does not account for Inflation between the date of purchase and the date of judgement.

I didn’t mean to imply that interest and inflation are unrelated, I was referring to the two different time periods. Sorry if that wasn’t clear.

by grodriguez100

5/3/2026 at 11:53:51 AM

I think this is right. It incentivizes those harmed to take action early, which helps protect others as well.

by Schiendelman

5/3/2026 at 4:08:02 AM

I'm of the opinion that it'd be fair to treat that money as an investment in Tesla at that time. In my case, the $8K in Dec 2016 would translate to them being on the hook for ~$260K today.

Which is why I think Tesla shouldn't be slow-rolling their doing whatever is necessary to get those of us who pre-bought FSD up to the HW4 level. HW4 won't physically fit in a 2016 Model S? Give us a 2026 Model X (they dropped Model S), and you're still $160K ahead.

I've been surprised that there hasn't been a major class action about the FSD. I've been very happy with the car, but the FSD was outright fraud.

by linsomniac

5/3/2026 at 8:53:41 PM

> it'd be fair to treat that money as an investment in Tesla at that time

Garbage. It was never advertised as that, and all the subsequent "clarifications" or "scoping" of FSD have been because Tesla has been dragged kicking and screaming into adding them, by lawyers, by attorneys general, by the NHTSA, etc.

"The car CAN (emphasis mine) drive itself. The driver is only in the seat for legal purposes." is how it was sold, not "invest in the vision of a FSD future". Then there was "well, providing regulators allow us", then "well, once we actually finally finish the software", and all that garbage.

I don't see how you reconcile "it'd be fair to consider it an investment" with "outright fraud". Even if you ignore my lens, it's not "fair" to rope some into an "outright fraud" "investment".

by FireBeyond

5/3/2026 at 12:29:34 AM

The "Full" in "Full Self Driving" was one of the giveaways. It's like packaged food labeled with "Real" ("Real cheese" etc)

by the__alchemist

5/3/2026 at 12:54:58 AM

Not sure I agree with your second sentence, at least in the US. I may see "cheese product" or "dairy product" or "cheese flavor" but if it says real cheese, it's real cheese. My favorite example was seeing "onion (then in tiny text 'flavored') rings"

by Neywiny

5/3/2026 at 4:02:33 AM

It may be real cheese, but the cheese may not be where you expected it to be. A friend of mine was served a snack pack on a flight that had some breadsticks and a cheese dip, and the box said it was made with real cheese.

She read the ingredients list and found that the real cheese was part of the breadsticks. The cheese dip had no cheese.

by tzs

5/3/2026 at 7:58:21 AM

No, you see, if it says "cheese" then I would assume it's real cheese. If it says "real cheese" I'm immediately suspicious.

by beAbU

5/3/2026 at 1:01:38 AM

The point is that if you have to say it's made with real cheese, the food is complete junk. Even though the cheese may technically be real.

by gregschlom

5/3/2026 at 1:27:08 AM

They even banned the term "soy milk"

It's now called "non dairy soy beverage" on every carton.

by elif

5/3/2026 at 1:48:24 AM

We should just put non-dairy on all beverages that are non-dairy. Non-dairy Mountain Dew. Non-dairy sweetened lemon beverage. Non-dairy gin. Non-dairy water.

by vel0city

5/3/2026 at 2:33:40 AM

Should probably also mark gluten and lead while you're at it, among other things. Also what about radioactive isotope content? We know how important that is thanks to Intel.

by fc417fc802

5/3/2026 at 2:36:53 AM

Europe did the same thing with veggie burgers. Which confuses me because there are a zillion non-beef things called burgers.

by Pxtl

5/3/2026 at 1:26:56 AM

That idea of a simultaneous small claims day is brilliant. I hope somebody is vibecoding that site up right now.

by wrs

5/3/2026 at 1:34:54 AM

Is there a fuck-you option by which a large company can force escalating costs on you through small claims? Can they, for example, remove it to a federal court?

by JumpCrisscross

5/3/2026 at 1:41:18 AM

I don't think they can, but at the same time they can appeal a judgement that's unfavorable to them. Appeals in small claims allow for having attorneys present, at least in California, and it's another day in court that you'll have to argue your case.

by jfim

5/3/2026 at 2:03:26 AM

>Is there a fuck-you option by which a large company can force escalating costs on you through small claims?

It'll vary by state, in general I don't think so? Or at least not if (as apparently was the case here) they don't have anything preventing it in some contractual agreement. In some states a party can appeal to a superior court, but that's not a new trial redo, the judge simply reviews what happened and see if it looks reasonably kosher. If it was they still lose.

The big check on small claims cases is, well, that they're small claims. Nobody could go after a full refund for the cost of a vehicle there for example. If you look at the maximum amounts by state [0], in lots of them even the $10k here would be above the limit (Kentucky is still at $2500 max). My state also was quite low until fairly recently, just because there's no automatic adjustment for inflation and $2500 in 1980 went a lot further than now and state legislature hadn't gotten around to adjusting it up for decades.

And in small claims the winner can generally recover reasonable costs and fees on top of damages (as happened here). And it's 50 different states a company with a national problem would have to get separate attorneys for to deal with. It's one of the few places where the asymmetry is somewhat more towards companies, without any need for the plaintiff to get a lawyer themselves and given that they're almost always going to be physically much closer, it's just a lot more costly for a company to drag it out. They're not going to be setting any useful precedent vs any other small claims, and the max amount is small enough that it's rarely going to be worth it if their claims are weak. Someone angry enough to go to small claims is much more likely to stick to it through sheer bloody mindedness, which is basically all they actually need.

I think normally companies simply just don't create enough of a small claims problem for themselves for any of this to be more than a rounding error. Elon Musk may have somehow managed it though?

----

0: https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/small-claims-suits-h...

by xoa

5/3/2026 at 1:46:01 AM

Be sure to vibe code a way for everyone to save money and hire the same process serving company to do service by hand of multiple suits in bulk at the same time.

by walrus01

5/3/2026 at 2:56:56 AM

Why just the $10k? Could you get a full refund? If I order a $12 burrito and you give me a $10 sandwich, I would feel owed my $12 back, not the $2 difference in price.

by 6gvONxR4sf7o

5/3/2026 at 3:36:07 AM

You should have the option of getting the $12 back provided you also return the sandwich. You don't get a free sandwich out of the deal unless the seller cares about good will.

by Marsymars

5/3/2026 at 6:00:22 AM

The reimbursement covers the add-on. It's more like ordering a $10 sandwich and a $2 bag of chips, then not receiving the bag of chips and getting your $2 back.

by dlcarrier

5/3/2026 at 3:42:26 PM

Some people only bought the sandwich because of the chips. If chips weren't offered they would have bought lunch from someone else across the street.

by stahtops

5/3/2026 at 2:50:53 AM

He should publish a "bring Tesla to small court" kit, with all documents other people in the similar situation can use to sue them.

by vzaliva

5/3/2026 at 5:57:07 AM

Bottom line: FSD was a fraud.

by jqpabc123

5/3/2026 at 8:24:12 AM

You all don’t understand. FSD works fine as long as you evaluate it 5 years in the future. No I don’t mean 2031, because in 2031 you need to evaluate it in 2036.

by antonvs

5/3/2026 at 1:10:31 PM

FSD will work next year --- perpetually.

by jqpabc123

5/2/2026 at 11:49:16 PM

But remember folks that Musk wants the best for humanity, is a humanist, wants to help all people and the future will be so awesome that no one will have to work and everyone will live in a penthouse.

His X says so daily, so it must be true.

by asdG17l

5/3/2026 at 2:13:50 AM

[dead]

by sergiotapia

5/3/2026 at 1:43:38 AM

[flagged]

by romaaeterna

5/3/2026 at 1:59:51 AM

Ask the editor of HN

by 2OEH8eoCRo0

5/2/2026 at 11:55:29 PM

Be smart and take a free battery.

by nubinetwork

5/3/2026 at 1:01:16 AM

What do you mean by that?

by ezfe

5/3/2026 at 6:25:34 AM

> Gawiser filed a “writ of execution” (another $240 in court fees) just yesterday, which would allow Texas law enforcement to seize and sell off enough of Tesla’s property as would be required to pay the judgment against them.

Since they probably won't do business with anyone who owns that car anymore, take a battery and run.

by nubinetwork

5/3/2026 at 12:01:42 AM

From what I've seen on YouTube the cars do drive themselves. This seems more like the type of thing with AI where people change the goal posts of what AI means. Just because a car did not slow down in a school zone, that doesn't mean that the car wasn't driving itself.

by charcircuit

5/3/2026 at 12:14:17 AM

This is a common misconception. People tend to think driving is controlling the steering and pedals, so if FSD does those things it must be driving.

It's not. Driving is whatever has ultimate responsibility for the vehicle and its occupants. If a cop pulls you over while FSD is enabled, it's not Tesla who's paying the ticket. If FSD has an issue, you're the driver who has to respond.

Think of FSD as a very nice cruise control. You're still driving, even if you aren't touching the wheel.

by AlotOfReading

5/3/2026 at 1:35:31 AM

Sort of how programming isn't the same as writing code — it also involves a bunch of other thing like all the design and planning work.

by pdpi

5/3/2026 at 1:44:17 AM

It's a common misconception because the thing is called "full self driving."

by zadikian

5/3/2026 at 8:03:54 AM

technically it was called "Full Self Driving (BETA)" and then "Full Self Driving (Supervised)"

by fouc

5/3/2026 at 3:10:53 AM

The bottom line is, no one else is even remotely close to that experience for the driver, liable or not. Probably with good reason, as every other car company actually listen to their lawyers.

by tencentshill

5/3/2026 at 2:04:50 AM

So if the law says that a human in the car has to be responsible then it is impossible for a self driving car to exist. I do not think tying the definition to legal liability is right.

I don't see why self driving couldn't just be steering and pedals. It would be pretty limiting but it would be able to drive itself in a circle at least.

by charcircuit

5/3/2026 at 2:07:18 AM

No. The law allows passengers in self driving Taxi not to be responsible. Including Taxi operated by Tesla.

Here Tesla makes it clear to people who turn on “Full self driving” the driver must maintain supervision and thus responsibility. As such it’s Tesla’s choice that they aren’t selling self driving cars.

It wouldn’t be such a big deal if some random engineer said they’d eventually do X, but when it’s the CEO repeatedly saying the same across many public appearances that’s as binding as a Super Bowl advertisement.

by Retric

5/3/2026 at 3:28:07 AM

It's not about legal liability, though I admit the example of tickets was informal and confusing.

Let me state it a little more clearly: the driver is the component in the vehicle system design that's ultimately responsible for ensuring the safety invariants are maintained. In a normal car, that's clearly the human in the driver's seat. Less obviously, the same is true of a Tesla with FSD. If we move that human to a remote control room, they're still the driver even if they're not physically in the vehicle.

It's only when the computer itself becomes responsible for maintaining system safety that it becomes the driver. Waymo is an example. Waymo also employs people in a remote call center, but those humans aren't responsible for safety and hence aren't drivers. But a Waymo employee out on the street using their <5mph remote control mode is driving it, because they've taken on the safety role again.

Legal liability can follow from this, but it's a much more complicated classification that I don't expect to ever have a singular answer, or even a knowable answer in many cases.

by AlotOfReading

5/3/2026 at 12:03:29 AM

By that logic it’s ok if the car slams itself against a concrete wall - just because it failed to stop in time doesn’t mean it wasn’t driving itself.

Self driving cars are supposed to obey the same rules as human drivers.

by loloquwowndueo

5/3/2026 at 1:34:04 AM

Well ... yes. By that logic it is the case. It applies to humans too - if a human slams their car into a concrete wall then the human was still driving the car. They did a bad job of it, but they were in fact driving.

A car being driven autonomously doesn't imply much about the quality of that driving. They're still going to make bad decisions and have accidents, just like humans do (a friend of mine died slamming their car into a tree). There is probably some minimum where we'd say that it isn't really driving because it can't do anything right, but modern self driving systems are past that.

by roenxi

5/3/2026 at 11:53:42 AM

> A car being driven autonomously doesn't imply much about the quality of that driving

Only that’s not what they’re selling us - they say autonomous cars are safer than humans, fewer accidents per mile driven, faster reaction times yadda yadda. I think this implies quality and not respecting speed limits is not something that sounds very high-quality. At least not while they have to share the road with humans.

by loloquwowndueo

5/3/2026 at 12:25:12 PM

I'm just going to quote myself here:

> (a friend of mine died slamming their car into a tree)

Autonomous cars can run headlong into concrete walls and still be substantially better drivers than humans. There is no inherent contradiction there at all. They can speed and still be more law-abiding than humans too, humans get pretty casual about speed limits. I don't think you've grappled with just how bad humans are at operating rolling tin cans travelling at speeds evolution has not prepared us to move at. We're really bad at it. Autonomous cars aren't ever going to be perfect, they are merely a better alternative than humans.

by roenxi

5/3/2026 at 12:05:58 AM

Tesla FSD is vulnerable to RoadRunner and Wile E. Coyote style tricks.

by RajT88

5/3/2026 at 12:42:17 AM

Fortunately the ACME products are flawed and subject to their own litigation, see e.g. Coyote vs. ACME (2026).

by qingcharles

5/3/2026 at 3:02:37 AM

it's not. that vid was using autopilot, not fsd, and subsequent videos using actual new FSD were fine

by iknowstuff

5/3/2026 at 3:41:08 AM

> it's not.

"Tesla FSD is invulnerable to tricks" is a pretty strong claim.

by Marsymars

5/3/2026 at 5:30:44 PM

So is “Vulnerable to wilecoyote”

by iknowstuff

5/3/2026 at 1:59:32 AM

Both statements can be true. Human vs self driving cars is a different classification between good and bad driving. Humans can slam into a wall too.

by charcircuit

5/3/2026 at 12:35:52 AM

When full liability is put on the manufacturer, then we can talk about "cars driving themselves".

by throw7

5/3/2026 at 2:56:03 AM

Mercedes-Benz accepts full liability when their Drive Pilot autonomous system is active.

https://www.mbusa.com/en/drive-pilot

by nradov

5/4/2026 at 3:50:41 AM

I appreciate the link and information, but are you sure about that? I don't see or read anything about liability...

And footnote 2 on that page says:

2 DRIVE PILOT is an SAE Level 3 (conditional automated driving) system: the automated driving function takes over certain driving tasks. However, a fallback-ready user is still required. The fallback-ready user must be ready to take control of the vehicle at all times when prompted by the vehicle. Availability and use of DRIVE PILOT on freeways depends on options, compatible wireless networks, countries, states and relevant laws. Service subject to change at any time without notice. Mercedes me connect Terms of Use apply. Please refer to the Operator's Manual for additional instructions and limitations.

by throw7

5/3/2026 at 4:19:51 AM

>the cars do drive themselves

Those are cars with the "HW4" FSD hardware, which was released in Mar 2023.

There were a lot of cars sold with "HW2" (nVidia-based) and HW3 (Tesla silicon). Those cars, apparently cannot be upgraded to HW4 because of physical size differences between the units. HW2 was able to be upgraded to HW3.

Those videos you are talking about seeing do not represent the FSD experience for all, or possibly even most, Tesla FSD vehicles in the wild.

by linsomniac

5/3/2026 at 2:40:13 AM

It's fairly simple. Tesla says I have to supervise, and they are not liable for anything the car does wrong. It is not full self-driving any more than a 25 40 year old car with cruise control is.

by rootusrootus

5/3/2026 at 12:07:45 PM

By this definition, putting a brick on the accelerator and tying the steering wheel in place is self-driving.

by rpdillon

5/3/2026 at 5:22:13 PM

That is self driving, but a basic implementation of it. It's like a chess AI that plays random moves. It is able to play chess, but its performance is very limited.

by charcircuit

5/3/2026 at 1:46:17 AM

AI never had goalposts, it means programming meant to look like human behavior. Like AI opponents in old video games.

by zadikian

5/3/2026 at 12:31:01 AM

Tesla FSD won't be level 5 until Tesla has liability for any crashes it causes the way Waymo does.

by UltraSane

5/3/2026 at 12:06:41 AM

Elon Musks claims included (exact quotes, these posts are still on X):

Jan 10, 2016: In ~2 years, summon should work anywhere connected by land & not blocked by borders, eg you're in LA and the car is in NY

Jul 16, 2019: If we make all cars with FSD package self-driving, as planned, any such Tesla should be worth $100k to $200k, as utility increases from ~12 hours/week to ~60 hours/week

These aren't moving goalposts by antis, this are the expectations set by Elon Musk himself when advertising his products.

by kalleboo

5/3/2026 at 12:08:08 AM

Those YouTubers are all there to make Tesla look good. It’s a grift. The ones that are honest and show the bad side get kicked out of the Tesla club fast and dogpiled on.

Also a school zone is one of the most basic things the car should be able to handle. If it can’t do that, it’s not ready for public use.

by dawnerd

5/3/2026 at 1:40:52 AM

>Also a school zone is one of the most basic things the car should be able to handle. If it can’t do that, it’s not ready for public use.

Humans don't always follow the law driving through school zones. And when humans speed through a school zone, the human is definitely driving the car. Are we ready to let humans drive on public roads?

The argument has to go into the magnitude of the problem to get anywhere meaningful.

by roenxi

5/3/2026 at 3:56:04 PM

We require individual humans to be licensed to drive and can revoke that license as needed.

by stahtops

5/3/2026 at 12:18:49 AM

See, that's really the best argument for this. It can drive itself the same way I can fly an Airbus A321. You can't sue me because I didn't land the plane "intact".

by frakkingcylons