Yes and in 2019 Musk's claims went even further, when he claimed it was stupid to buy anything but Tesla, because next year (2020) You would be able to make money on it as a RoboTaxi. As I recall it was $200,000.- you should be able to make on a Tesla per year!!! Why he sold them then is a bit strange?
He also claimed that instead of losing value, a Tesla would increase as much as five times in value in a year, because FSD was worth that much.

How this man hasn't been jailed for fraud years ago is beyond me, I could understand if USA was a corrupt country for the rich...
oh... Never mind.

But LoSavio had opted out of the arbitration agreement and was given the option of filing an amended complaint.

This is why it’s important to opt out of arbitration!

Also notice the potential for fuckery in the statute of limitations here:

the relevant statutes of limitations range from two to four years, and LoSavio sued over five years after buying the car. Under the delayed discovery rule, the limitations period begins when "the plaintiff has, or should have, inquiry notice of the cause of action."

But when Tesla declined to update his car's cameras in April 2022, "LoSavio allegedly discovered that he had been misled by Tesla's claim that his car had all the hardware needed for full automation."

Without that specific moment to point to, to reset the clock through delayed discovery, Tesla could just say “Yeah, we lied, but you bought the lie for 5 years, so now we’re in the clear!”

Fuck the Musk and his inflated ego.

The part of the claim here where they wouldn't upgrade the cameras is a part that I'm highly interested in.

I don't expect tesla to upgrade any hardware beyond what they believe is required which they claim hardware 3 is.

But the moment a hardware 3 car can't flip a switch and become level 3/4 SAE autonomous and a hardware 4, 5, 6 or whatever it is if/when solved is required, I think there's a massive lawsuit there unless Tesla somehow upgrades the cars.

Suddenly the car didn't come with the hardware required and can't function as described, especially back when it was announced.

Tesla will say, oh we'll get it working on HW3 next year... and try to kick the can to avoid liability, but I don't think that will work long.

Edit: and as per the ruling, it sounds like the new knowledge that the car can't on HW3 but can on others, would trigger new knowledge opening up past the statute of limitations

Finally?

Sorry Tesla but every captcha about bicycles and street lights was just too good an opportunity to be bad! LOL ... bicycle! 🚲 Nah! That's just 🛣️ road! Continue!

Hahahahah fuck Elon’s fraudster ass

This is the best summary I could come up with:

A federal judge ruled yesterday that Tesla must face a lawsuit alleging that it committed fraud by misrepresenting the self-driving capabilities of its vehicles.

LoSavio points to a Tesla statement in October 2016 that all its cars going forward would have the "hardware needed for full self-driving capability," and a November 2016 email newsletter stating that "all Tesla vehicles produced in our factory now have full self-driving hardware."

According to the SAC [Second Amended Complaint], Tesla's cars have thus stalled at SAE Level 2 ("Partial Driving Automation"), which requires "the human driver's constant supervision, responsibility, and control."

Even if Tesla meant to convey that its hardware could reach Level 2 only, the SAC still sufficiently alleges that those representations reasonably misled LoSavio.

The complaint also "sufficiently alleges that Musk falsely represented the vehicle's future ability to self-drive cross-country and that LoSavio relied upon these representations pre-purchase," Lin concluded.

Musk claimed at an October 2016 news conference that a Tesla car would be able to drive from Los Angeles to New York City "by the end of next year without the need for a single touch."

The original article contains 509 words, the summary contains 185 words. Saved 64%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

They're faking it until they make it!

bye bye elon

I bet if this goes to trial his lawyers are just going to argue that no reasonable person would believe these claims. That is just hyperbole there for it is not fraud.