Tesla Agrees To Settle Class Action Over Autopilot Billed As 'Safer' (reuters.com) 66
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Reuters: Tesla on Thursday reached an agreement to settle a class action lawsuit with buyers of its Model S and Model X cars who alleged that the company's assisted-driving Autopilot system was "essentially unusable and demonstrably dangerous." The lawsuit said Tesla misrepresented on its website that the cars came with capabilities designed to make highway driving "safer." The Tesla owners said they paid an extra $5,000 to have their cars equipped with the Autopilot software with additional safety features such as automated emergency braking and side collision warning. The features were "completely inoperable," according to the complaint. Under the proposed agreement, class members, who paid to get the Autopilot upgrade between 2016 and 2017, will receive between $20 and $280 in compensation. Tesla has agreed to place more than $5 million into a settlement fund, which will also cover attorney fees.
So, typical class action result (Score:4, Insightful)
If you're a member of the class, you get $20 to $280, which is supposed to recompense you for the $5K you spent for the useless software...
The lawyers, of course, get the lion's share of the $5M....
Re: (Score:3)
If you're a member of the class, you get $20 to $280, which is supposed to recompense you for the $5K you spent for the useless software...
You get $20 to $280 as compensation for having had to go without that useful software, right up until the time that you downloaded an over-the-air upgrade and got to start using useful software.
Whether or not that's a fair level of compensation, I don't know, but let's not pretend that software isn't easy to upgrade, or that Tesla hasn't been putting out regular upgrades to their software, or won't continue to do so in the future.
Re: (Score:1)
And the shorts' continued recycling of old news could provide the raw materials. Literally, this settlement was first reported three and a half weeks ago [electrek.co] and it's still making headlines. It's getting ridiculous.
Re: (Score:1)
Haven’t you gotten dizzy from all that spin yet.
Re: (Score:2)
What about pointing out that this news is 3 1/2 weeks old and still making headlines is "spin"?
Are you defending that 3 1/2 week old news with nothing having changed since then should still make headlines, because Tesla?
Re: (Score:2)
Welcome to the internet, where people just pick a random post to write whatever the heck it is that they want, rather than responding to what's actually written in that post.
It looks like you're trying to reply to Jeremi, but instead decided, "Meh, one person's as good as another". My posts were about the fact that they're still pretending that this is "news" after 3 1/2 weeks, because Tesla.
Re:So, typical class action result (Score:4, Insightful)
Literally, this settlement was first reported three and a half weeks ago [electrek.co] and it's still making headlines. It's getting ridiculous.
Read your electrek.co article carefully and deliberately. It was based on what they claimed to be a leaked copy of the proposed settlement agreement -- i.e., rumors and innuendo. Today's Reuters article was based on the proposed agreement actually filed with the court -- i.e., what's actually going forward.
Maybe try to back off the conspiracy theories just a touch and leave some room in your mind for critical thinking.
Re: (Score:1)
It was neither "leaked" nor "rumours and innuendo". It was, and I quote, "the settlement agreement that was sent to class representatives, who will now submit their thoughts on the agreement to the court, which will decide whether or not to approve the proposal ... The agreement still needs to be approved by the court, but if it is approved as is, the payments will be issued based on when the owners bought or leased their vehicles"
The court approved what we've known for weeks that both sides had already ag
Re:So, typical class action result (Score:4, Funny)
It was neither "leaked" nor "rumours and innuendo". It was, and I quote, "the settlement agreement that was sent to class representatives
Actually, all we know is what electrek.co claimed it to be. And assuming that's actually what it was, I think we can agree electrek.co wasn't a class representative and therefore would not have legitimately received a copy. Thus, somebody leaked it to them.
Front page news! Hire a skywriter! Pay a bunch of Victorian-era urchins to run around in the streets shouting "Extra! Extra! Read all about it!"
Maybe you should follow Doug Field's lead and take some time off to recharge. Constantly carrying all this water for Elon seems to be wearing on you.
Re: (Score:2)
Whether or not that's a fair level of compensation, I don't know, but let's not pretend that software isn't easy to upgrade, or that Tesla hasn't been putting out regular upgrades to their software, or won't continue to do so in the future.
You're assuming that these updates will eventually rectify the situation, which is not a safe assumption. Many believe that Tesla does not have enough hardware on the vehicle to do this job correctly, and that it will require not just new software, but new hardware as well.
Re: (Score:2)
In this case, it's even worse since the victims paid $5k extra for this feature.
Re: (Score:2)
which is supposed to recompense you for the $5K you spent for the useless software...
No it's supposed to compensate you for your useless lawsuit so people can go back to focusing on what they are doing rather than wasting time in the courts. The $5k software is real and a death or two doesn't change the fact that the software actually works just fine for many Tesla owners. Hell a simple youtube search will prove that.
For the math impaired (Score:1)
The Tesla owners said they paid an extra $5,000 (...) will receive between $20 and $280 in compensation.
So between 0.4% and 5.6% of what they paid, if Tesla gets to keep 95% they're probably happy. The lawyers are happy because they "won" and get paid. But for any of the people in the class this is a joke, either they have a case and should get much more or they have no case and should get nothing. This is just lawyer busywork...
Re: For the math impaired (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Which is very bad news for Tesla because they have been selling full self driving capability since 2016. Musk is saying 2020, but then there are regulatory changes needed too.
So by the time people actually get this feature their leases may have finished or they only get a few months use.
Plus it looks like Tesla might have to roll back on some of the promised features anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed, the fact that Tesla lost a class action suit is newsworthy, but, not many people would be interested in it unless it looks like Tesla did something horribly wrong (it's not clear to me how 'wrong' it is to sell a product that has incomplete functionality, then upgrade it later, as long as the purchaser is made aware of that)
Indeed:
This is not the Tesla FUD you are looking for, move along.
Class Actions Generally (Score:2)
The Tesla owners said they paid an extra $5,000 (...) will receive between $20 and $280 in compensation.
So between 0.4% and 5.6% of what they paid, if Tesla gets to keep 95% they're probably happy. The lawyers are happy because they "won" and get paid. But for any of the people in the class this is a joke, either they have a case and should get much more or they have no case and should get nothing. This is just lawyer busywork...
Maybe and maybe not. Numbers lie all the time, and people have different valuations for things based in part on their point of view. You need to look into the details of a case much more to really figure out what's going on; we can just make guesses at this level of generality. It's like asking the court of public opinion to decide whether a murder defendant we hear about in the news is guilty.
Class actions used to be really bad about the kind of thing you're talking about, but things have gotten a little b
Re: (Score:2)
But for any of the people in the class this is a joke
For any of the people in the class this likely represents an epic win given their very likely piss poor chance of winning.
tesla win's in the end... (Score:1, Redundant)
The mesmerizing word "Autopilot" (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't wanna get into the business of defending Tesla. Probably they did overhype their technology but I have a peeve with one avenue of criticism.
That is Tesla shouldn't have called it "Autopilot" because it leads buyers to believe that they are buying a self-driving car.
If you buy an airplane these days chances it has an "Autopilot" as well. Any half-trained pilot knows:
1. Autopilots come with different levels of capability.
2. No current commercial autopilot will keep you from flying the plane into the ground. (Fighter jets have this.)
3. No current autopilot will help you if you run out of fuel. If you think it does you will probably die.
4. The autopilot will fly the plane into weather conditions beyond its capability and everybody aboard will die.
5. The autopilot will be perfectly happy flying you into another plane. When this happens you will die and take the other plane with you.
Yet in spite of all these deficiencies they still call it "Autopilot" and have for 50 years or more and I never heard of a class action suit screaming about misleading advertising. Why? Because pilots (and certainly their instructors) pay attention to the product specifications and assign responsibility to the pilot accordingly. They practice using it and don't just expect to punch a button and have everything taken care of.
I suppose this is too much for the flaccid minds of the American consumer to absorb. So we get lawsuits. Well if the product was actually defective then OK or if Telsa lied about what it could do (beyond calling it "Autopilot") then OK but if it just turns out that the purchasers had unrealistic expectations then I hope it gets thrown out of court.
Re:The mesmerizing word "Autopilot" (Score:4)
So your argument in a nutshell:
1. Pilots are highly trained.
Agree.
2. Because pilots are highly trained, they understand what an "autopilot" will and will not do for them.
Generally agree, though there are of course exceptions [newyorker.com].
3. American drivers are not highly trained, and therefore don't generally understand what an "autopilot" will or will not do for them.
Agree.
4. Thus, there's no harm in a car manufacturer naming a highly limited driver assistance system "autopilot," and any overestimation of its capabilities by drivers based on that name is their own damn fault.
Huh, what?
Re: (Score:2)
So your argument in a nutshell:
1. Pilots are highly trained. Agree.
2. Because pilots are highly trained, they understand what an "autopilot" will and will not do for them. Generally agree, though there are of course exceptions [newyorker.com].
3. American drivers are not highly trained, and therefore don't generally understand what an "autopilot" will or will not do for them. Agree.
4. Thus, there's no harm in a car manufacturer naming a highly limited driver assistance system "autopilot," and any overestimation of its capabilities by drivers based on that name is their own damn fault. Huh, what?
Or, it's clear to most thinking mammals, and I'm including whales, dolphins, and at least one spider [nationalgeographic.com] that new tech autopilot isn't yet the you don't have to pay attention driving mode.
Maybe the Tesla autopilot feature is just designed to cull out some of the stupid money.
It can't have escaped your home page that really dumb people can inexplicably have lots of money. It's bad enough that the rich intelligent people get to make policy for the rest of us. It's downright intolerable when the wealthy with IQ's
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe the Tesla autopilot feature is just designed to cull out some of the stupid money.
It can't have escaped your home page that really dumb people can inexplicably have lots of money.
Ah, so if a reckless feature naming choice results in the death/serious bodily harm of people you don't like,* it's fine. Got it.
* Temporarily ignoring the other people involved in the accidents, who likely aren't members of the group you dislike.
Re: (Score:2)
Like. Dislike. Terms of endearment, or the lack thereof.
It's probably fair to say a largish percentage of we root, at least secretly, for our likes to succeed and our dislikes to fail epically.
Re: (Score:2)
Fortunately, Tesla's autocrash feature seems to have an attraction to large solid objects so others don't seem to be at much risk. Now, if in a future revision, it starts hunting Smart cars or MINI's as well, then "innocents" might suffer more injuries.
Re: The mesmerizing word "Autopilot" (Score:2)
Ah, so if a reckless feature naming choice results in the death/serious bodily harm of people you don't like,* it's fine. Got it.
Yes, I am perfectly fine with this. Like if some dumbass reads "seat belt" and puts it around the seat rather than around himself, I'm perfectly fine with whatever happens to him.
Re: (Score:2)
3. American drivers are not highly trained, and therefore don't generally understand what an "autopilot" will or will not do for them.
Agree.
Including most slashdotters.
4. Thus, there's no harm in a car manufacturer naming a highly limited driver assistance system "autopilot," and any overestimation of its capabilities by drivers based on that name is their own damn fault.
Huh, what?
No, not thus. Simply, there is no harm in a car manufacturer naming their driver assistance system autopilot if they give a mandatory safety lecture to the owner before enabling the feature, which in fact they do and always have done. Ignorance is no excuse, because the buyers are relieved of their ignorance before using the feature. That is why it's their own damned fault; they have to acknowledge that the system will not drive for them and that they are responsible for keeping
Re: (Score:2)
Simply, there is no harm in a car manufacturer naming their driver assistance system autopilot if they give a mandatory safety lecture to the owner before enabling the feature, which in fact they do and always have done. Ignorance is no excuse, because the buyers are relieved of their ignorance before using the feature.
Unless you're going to tell me that prior to a sale Tesla sits down with the owner and extensively talks them through it, makes them watch a safety video, and then take a test, or something like that, I expect your "mandatory safety lecture" is just another annoying, wordy pop-up to click through to get to the functionality you want. That gives the lawyers something to argue about, but at the end of the day is no substitute for actual training as exists on the aviation side.
And the silly thing about this i
Re: (Score:2)
Unless you're going to tell me that prior to a sale Tesla sits down with the owner and extensively talks them through it, makes them watch a safety video, and then take a test, or something like that,
As far as I know, they get a warning and have to sign an agreement that they understand they're driving and have to keep their hands on the wheel. I don't see why that's not a perfectly acceptable standard. You can buy bleach and ammonia at the same time without even a lecture. Making drivers take a test won't make people who don't care enough about their lives and those of others respect their responsibilities.
Re:The mesmerizing word "Autopilot" (Score:4, Insightful)
You are missing the key point of "autopilot" and the reason it's on boats and planes.
In the case of boats and planes, autopilots, regardless of how "sophisticated" they are, share one attribute -- they allow you to safely take your hands off the controls for significant periods of time (tens of seconds at least) and divert much/most of your attention to other matters (like looking at a chart). This will be preceded by the pilot making some sort of scan of the environment for hazards both fixed and mobile (in particular other boats and planes) by visual identification, radar, charts, etc and/or knowing that rules of the "road" (ATC imposed for planes) will insure a clear route.
Tesla autopilot fails to deliver on this expectation in two ways. First, the environment it is in coupled with its limited capabilities make it impossible to scan the environment in advance for hazards that will be encountered and that Teslapilot can't deal with (which, itself, appears quite difficult to predict). Second, it tends to run into stationary objects (fire engines, fire department maintenance trucks) and even, it appears, sometimes steers the car into them (gore points). If "autopilot" doesn't let you divert any attention from the road and, actually, makes you pay extra attention in case the car decides to steer into a fixed object, it simply is NOT "autopilot" as the typical consumer would expect it to be.
Re: (Score:2)
If "autopilot" doesn't let you divert any attention from the road and, actually, makes you pay extra attention in case the car decides to steer into a fixed object, it simply is NOT "autopilot" as the typical consumer would expect it to be.
By this logic, level 3 automation should not exist at all, and should be illegal for everyone. If that's where you're going with this, and not just "tesla is wrong" then I'm with you.
It still, however, has absolutely nothing to do with the name. We know this is true because to get autopilot turned on, you have to get a safety lecture and agree that you understood it. Drivers have absolutely been made aware of their responsibilities before they can even turn autopilot on. Anyone claiming otherwise is a liar,
Re: (Score:2)
Level 3 automation in its pure form is probably dead. Some established car companies (Ford I believe is one) has said they will not sell level 3 cars and will jump right to level 4 -- for exactly the reason that level 3 is inherently unsafe.
Suppose you manufacture shoddy automotive jackstands and put warning labels on them saying "Do not use in any situation where failure of jackstand would cause human injury" and a purchaser is fixing their brakes and is injured or killed due to your jackstand failing in o
Re: (Score:2)
The term "autopilot" is implying something Tesla is not selling and that is a big part of the problem here -- ordinary consumers, in spite of what appear to be CYA warnings (which cover everything under the sun) who have paid for "autopilot" reasonably expect it to be perform similarly to an "autopilot".
Not this again. It performs exactly like an autopilot. If you ignore it, it will crash your vehicle and perhaps kill you, and the pilot is required to keep hands on controls. If Tesla had called it "copilot" then you would have a point, but they didn't and so you don't. If I were in charge of marketing at Tesla, which I will carefully point out that I am not, I would call the fully self-driving version of the software Copilot just to make the distinction. A copilot flies for you; an autopilot only helps you
Re: (Score:2)
And you are missing the point of autopilots -- they LET you safely virtually ignore your course of travel for significant periods of time - at least tens of seconds. In fact, that's pretty much their reason for existing. That basic core function of autopilots is NOT safe with Tesla's so called "autopilot" so it's dishonest and dangerously misleading to call it "autopilot".
The difference here is the environment. In the case of open air or open water there are large distances between the thing under control o
Re: (Score:2)
I assume, from your arguments, that you would be okay with Tesla having named the feature "Hands Off Self Driving" -- and then warned drivers not to take their hands off the wheel or rely on the feature for much of anything. After all, the name just doesn't matter.
That's because you're being deliberately disingenuous. I spent a fair number of words going over precisely why the name does matter.
Re:The mesmerizing word "Autopilot" (Score:4, Insightful)
Forget about the word: A plane's autopilot augments the pilot's capabilities, and there are very clear delineations in when the pilot can safely pay a whole lot less attention, the places where the autopilot is useless, and the places where it's better to let the autopilot do the actual inputs because they are closer to correct than what the pilot will do. There are no 5 second windows from 'not really having to pay attention' to 'death for you and your occupants'.
We also have traditional driver augmentation tech in cars: ABS, automatic emergency braking, basic cruise control, sensors that beep when you are doing something terrible: Neither of those things make paying attention for even an instant safer, but many help in emergency situations.
Look at, instead, Tesla's Autopilot. it does a lot for you in some situations: so much that paying attention while it's doing its thing is difficult: It doesn't really want any input from the driver when things are going well. But things go from going well to catastrophically bad very quickly, and the warnings have proven to come way too late, and that's if they come. It's just not good enough to let to its own devices most of the time, and yet, it will make it harder for the driver to keep attention on the road, as it takes all the mandatory engagement away: It makes zoning out easier, and thus making able drivers worse!
Forget about that flaccid mind rhetoric of yours: It's the equivalent of broken UX, or bad industrial design. Yes, the consumer can make better choices... like never turning the thing on at all, as it's an anti-safety feature. Elon should be ashamed that he is selling it in this state: Self driving cars are the future, but Autopilot is crap. Technologically weaker, yet better thought driver augmentation systems from traditional manufacturers are safer overall.
$5 million to settle a class action? (Score:1)
This can't be read as anything other than a massive victory for Tesla. Even with a relatively small class, that's an incredibly cheap settlement, and the lawyers' share likely doesn't even come close to covering the investment they made in the case.
Most firms would laugh at a proposed class action suit against such a high profile and deep pocketed target if they thought $5M was the best settlement they could get.
Re: (Score:1)
It seems pretty clear (at least to me) that they felt that odds were poor that they'd win, and this was the best they were going to get.
Re: $5 million to settle a class action? (Score:2)
When Teslis bankrupt in six months, yes, the 'odds' of getting anything will be reduced.
Re: (Score:2)
The plaintiffs lawyers were probably acutely aware that if they didn't settle, the case might not have even gone to trial until after Tesla is bankrupt. Better $5M today than $0 later after having spent yet more money on the case.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, someone would buy the scraps of Tesla in bankruptcy, but that's what usually happens in bankruptcy.
"Deep pocketed buyers" are "deep pocketed" because they don't lose money, they make it. They don't buy entities that are hemorrhaging unless they think they can turn around the company, not just because the tech is "cool". Tesla can only run in the red for so long, and soon there will be a lot of electric cars to choose from that have established dealer networks, parts supply chains, service networks, and
Failure (Score:1)
Re:Failure to read.. (Score:2)
The above comment can't be read as anything but a failure to read the linked article.
"The proposed settlement does not mention the safety allegations but focuses on the delay in making the promised features available to consumers."
The "completely inoperable" part of the claim appears then to refer to the system's status between the time of delivery of the vehicle and the time of the OTA update.
The article, and presumably the settlement, make no comment on the safety or efficacy of the autopilot or automatic
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
finally they admit that their solution is not only dangerous
You clearly don't know how settlements work. In many cases settlements are just done so as to not draw out lengthy legal battles with no admission of guilt.
Hell the payments in this case aren't even related to safety in any way shape or form: "The proposed settlement does not mention the safety allegations but focuses on the delay in making the promised features available to consumers." But yeah reading TFA is too hard for an anti-Tesla troll.
Brilliant (Score:1)
Seems fair - NOT! (Score:2)
The Tesla owners said they paid an extra $5,000 to have their cars equipped with the Autopilot software with additional safety features such as automated emergency braking and side collision warning. The features were "completely inoperable," according to the complaint. Under the proposed agreement, class members, who paid to get the Autopilot upgrade between 2016 and 2017, will receive between $20 and $280 in compensation. Tesla has agreed to place more than $5 million into a settlement fund, which will also cover attorney fees.
$20-280 for a "completely inoperable" $5,000 set of upgrades?
Crappy AP (Score:1)
A Souvineer Ball-point Pen (Score:1)
Tesla should give them eacvh $37.50 and a souvineer Tesla Autopilot Ball-point Pen. Seems only fair that they should get something "special" for their five thousand dollars.