What is the litigation argument?
A. I bought something knowing that it didn’t exist and it still doesn’t exist. I want Tesla to make it exist. Or I want damages for my pain and suffering.
B. I bought something knowing that it didn’t exist and there is this this beta test to make it exist that I can’t get into.
C. I bought something knowing that it didn’t exist. But now it still doesn’t exist and I want my money back.
D. I bought a car based on the fact that it was supposed to let me buy this thing (FSD) that doesn’t exist. Even though I didn’t buy the thing, I deserve new hardware, money for damages, etc.
I think only C. has merit today. But I think D may have merit in the future.
A great argument for C goes like this: “Elon tweeted X and I relied on that for my purchase”. Or even the argument that “It’s been a really long time and even though I tried a bunch of Tesla’s attempts to do the thing, it never did the thing and I want my money back” is a pretty good argument.
The best argument for D today is to say “I want to subscribe to a month of the thing and I shouldn’t have to buy all the extra hardware since Tesla said my car already had the hardware to do the thing when I bought it.” Otherwise I expect Tesla to say “Yeah, if it turns out your car doesn’t have the hardware to do the thing we will resolve that because we said it did. Our bad. But since the thing doesn’t exist today, we get to wait until it does exist. We’re not going to give you new hardware everytime we try and make the thing work. You have to wait until it works and then we give you the hardware.”
Last edited:
