Tesla says California's Autopilot action violates its free speech rights | Hacker News Reader

Tesla says California's Autopilot action violates its free speech rights

theregister.com

50 pointspseudolus66 comments

It's a ludicrous defense. Regulators don't want to be seen as anti-business or as hampering innovation. It's perfectly reasonable for regulators to adopt a "wait and see" approach to outlandish claims about safety and self-driving technology. However, when it it's clear that Autopilot does not (and will not) behave as advertised, then they have every right to take action.

Regulators took a similar hands-off approach to AirBnB and Uber, despite those companies violating many established laws. Despite the angry Taxi companies and Hotel chains angrily demanding enforcement and a leveling of the playing field. But regulators did nothing. Why? Because, despite their faults, AirBnB and Uber serve a real customer need.

Crypto? Same story. Regulators waited to see if the crypto industry could deliver the promised value to society. If crypto is useful then it can be made to fit within the regulatory framework. If crypto is just a facilitator of fraud and ponzi schemes then harsh regulatory action is justified. Crypto largely has not delivered on its promises, and now the wheels of justice have started grinding.

Delayed enforcement makes innovation possible, especially innovation of the "move fast break things" kind.

> Regulators waited to see if the crypto industry could deliver the promised value to society. If crypto is useful then it can be made to fit within the regulatory framework. If crypto is just a facilitator of fraud and ponzi schemes then harsh regulatory action is justified. Crypto largely has not delivered on its promises, and now the wheels of justice have started grinding.

the moment it was regulated like a security, it prevented anyone from using bitcoin/shitcoin as an actual currency.

Which does suck for people that wanted it to take over the world as a medium of exchange but when everyone interacting with crypto behaves like it's a security it becomes one.

Things don't become securities just because people speculate on them.

People started using crypto like a security (or gambling token) first, then regulators followed. It was never used widely as a currency. It’s not a good one due to its slow transaction times and extreme volatility.

it was initially used as a currency, yes. Then gamblers and bankers thought they could make a buck on it. Then it got treated like a security, which locked it in. Don't need to hear a hoot about TX times since my ACH takes days to clear, thanks!

If it's taking days to clear that's an issue with your bank, change banks.

https://www.nacha.org/rules/expanding-same-day-ach

Note the following

> The precise timing of ACH file processing schedules, including this new third Same Day ACH processing window, are not set in the Rules, but instead are determined by each ACH Operator.

Note that your bank is acting as the ACH Operator.

funny thing with crypto is there's no bank needed! No wonder the Usurers wanted to shut it down

There's still a bank, it's just you.

You're now responsible for customer service, security, compliance, liability etc. that banks have entire departments for.

But this is a false advertising claim. It's not reasonable for regulators to adopt a wait and see approach on false advertising. False advertising is not innovation and has no positive value.

Tesla has repeatedly claimed that the cars on the road today have all the necessary sensors for fully autonomous coast-to-coast self-driving, and that it will be made available via an over-the-air update before the end of the year (which year? all of them). Had Tesla delivered on FSD -- even a year or two late -- it wouldn't have been false advertising.

> It's perfectly reasonable for regulators to adopt a "wait and see" approach to outlandish claims about safety and self-driving technology

No, it is not. If there are things that you do not "wait and see" with, it's safety out in the public. What's next, Boeing developing a new plane and rolling it out to the public without any sort of controls if it doesn't fall apart or try to crash itself because Boeing are negligently incompetent?

Crypto, sure, what's the worst that could happen? Medical tests? Sure, as long as they're double checked initially. Juice making machines? Sure.

Multi-ton vehicles that can easily maim or kill innocent bystanders? Hell no, why would you beta test that in public?

A Tesla Model 3 with FSD isn't a greater hazard on the road than a regular Ford F150, and we allow those.

> regular Ford F150, and we allow those

And maybe you shouldn't, that thing has worse visibility than an actual tank.

> Tesla Model 3 with FSD isn't a greater hazard on the road

It's the same as with the Boeing MCAS really. Is the "F"SD capable of crashing the car into another car or pedestrians? What is its rate of failure? If the answer to the first question is yes, and the second isn't negligible, it has no place on public roads.

Wrong question to ask. The actual question is whether the FSD car crashes more than the average alternative. That is what determines whether it should be allowed on the road, holding Tesla to a higher standard than all other manufacturers because you have a bad association with the brand would be ridiculous and petty.

It's absolutely so insane that regulators would allow a vehicle with more advanced cruise control be used on public roads when previously there were never any crashes or injuries. Weren't things so much better before Tesla came along and invented adaptive cruise?

You allow testing in public because currently there are tens of thousands of people dying every year and reducing the time before everyone has safe self driving by even a single year will save ten thousand lives. So unless you think this policy will actually kill many thousands of people or think that banning public testing won't slow down self driving by at least a year then we should allow public testing.

What here causes you to say that Autopilot doesn't behave as advertised? It does exactly what it says it will do, steer and brake the car while a human driver supervises and is responsible for the operation of the car.

https://www.tesla.com/ownersmanual/models/en_us/GUID-101D1BF...

> DMV accused Tesla of misleading automotive customers with claims about Autopilot and Full Self-Driving with numerous false statements. One example: “The system is designed to be able to conduct short and long distance trips with no action required by the person in the driver’s seat.”

That is not a false statement. "No action required" is different from "no supervision required".

> "No action required" is different from "no supervision required".

Supervision is an act so if it is required then an action is required.

"Designed to" is a fun weasel.

It’s literally called “Full Self Driving” but cannot operate without human supervision according to the fine print. If you don’t think that is false advertisement then I feel sorry for the people who have to work with you on a daily basis who need to parse every one of your statements with a lawyers attention to detail

Isn't it simply support for full self driving it claims to have? Not actual self driving as it currently stands.

It’s not full self driving if it requires supervision. There isn’t support for it by definition. Do you really think the name isn’t misleading?

> Tesla also claims that the DMV has no right to prosecute it for false advertising of Autopilot's capabilities because it knew perfectly well how the company had been describing it, but didn't take action before.

"You can't pull me over for speeding, I've been doing it for years!"

Or- when we were together you didn't mind, but after we broke up, you sought revenge. The love to hate (and the inverse depending on politics) relationship for all things Elon has been fascinating to watch.

More like "you've investigated me twice already, and found no issues apparently. Plus, why jump straight to suing instead of telling us to stop?"

> "Claimant has been aware that Tesla has been using the brand names Autopilot and Full Self-Driving Capability since Tesla started using those names in 2014 and 2016 respectively," Tesla said.

> "Before Claimant filed the original Accusation in July 2022, Claimant had never told Tesla to stop using these brand names or otherwise indicated to Tesla that these brand names or its advertising were in any way problematic."

> Tesla also argued that the DMV has investigated its ADAS advertising twice before, in 2014 and 2017, and decided at the time to take no action. We asked the DMV why it waited after its investigations to file a claim against Tesla, but haven't heard back.

Given that the article starts with "It may have taken more than a year, but Tesla has finally responded to the California Department of Motor Vehicles allegations...", complaints of this nature seem a bit rich.

"You knew I was doing fraud" isn't a very viable defense.

Imagine the judge rejecting the argument: "you knew about this a year ago."

>Plus, why jump straight to suing instead of telling us to stop?

"I know you shot five people but instead of arresting you we'll just ask you to not do it a sixth time, okay?"

I came here to say the same thing.

Isn't this more of a false advertising with risk of personal injury issue?

Why should they be able to call it Full Self Driving if it doesn't drive itself, fully.

Even if they do have fine print that says "The currently enabled features require active driver supervision and do not make the vehicle autonomous."

Seems egregious to name something with a precise feature description and then completely contradict that description in fine print.

False advertising is indeed what California is going after them for.

Not in the legal sense.

Per ChatGPT the government agency that can sue you for false advertising is FTC, not DMV.

One of the DMV claims is that Tesla misrepresents FSD capability but they didn't sue Tesla for false advertising.

Furthermore, it's not really a lawsuit.

Per https://www.theregister.com/2022/08/08/tesla_california_auto... DMV "filed with the Golden State' Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) and allege that the company violated its manufacturer and dealer Occupational Licenses."

They want Tesla to respond that notice and "If Tesla chooses to respond, there will be discovery and response filings, leading to a hearing before an OAH administrative law judge. And if Tesla dislikes the result, it has the option to file an appeal in Superior Court."

Tesla wants (among other things) a jury trial, not a decision by OAH administrative law judge.

> Per ChatGPT the government agency that can sue you for false advertising is FTC, not DMV.

I would strongly recommend you not go to ChatGPT for legal advice in the future.

(Ask it about this; "No, you should not use ChatGPT or any other AI language model as a source for legal advice. While ChatGPT can generate responses based on patterns it learned from diverse data, it does not have the ability to provide accurate, up-to-date legal information. Legal matters are complex and often require a deep understanding of specific jurisdictional laws, recent legal developments, and the unique details of each case. Relying on AI for legal advice can lead to misunderstandings, misinterpretations, and potential legal consequences.")

The complaint is readily available for you to review: https://regmedia.co.uk/2022/08/08/tesla_dealer_complaint.pdf

> Respondent made untrue or misleading statements in advertisements in violation of Vehicle Code § 11713(a).

https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/vehicle-code/veh-sect-11713/

> A holder of a license issued under this article shall not do any of the following: (a) Make or disseminate, or cause to be made or disseminated, before the public in this state, in a newspaper or other publication, or an advertising device, or by public outcry or proclamation, or in any other manner or means whatever, a statement that is untrue or misleading and that is known, or that by the exercise of reasonable care should be known, to be untrue or misleading; or to so make or disseminate, or cause to be so disseminated, a statement as part of a plan or scheme with the intent not to sell a vehicle or service so advertised at the price stated therein, or as so advertised.

The basic legal concept that permits both the Feds and individual states to separately create and enforce rules on advertising is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalism.

> Per ChatGPT the government agency that can sue you for false advertising is FTC, not DMV.

... This is the first time I've ever seen someone actually doing this.

I would... be cautious of relying on stochastic parrots for legal advice.

Oh, it's not the first time.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/06/lawyers-have-rea...

> A federal judge tossed a lawsuit and issued a $5,000 fine to the plaintiff's lawyers after they used ChatGPT to research court filings that cited six fake cases invented by the artificial intelligence tool made by OpenAI.

I have been driven fully to an airport with FSD beta. Do people think this doesn't exist? Tesla does say it is level 2, but it seems if they add a few 9s of reliability it gets much higher quite quickly.

It does drive itself, while a human driver supervises and is responsible for the safe operation of the vehicle.

When in autopilot does the car control the steering and acceleration? How can you describe that as anything other than the car driving itself?

Seems egregious to intentionally misunderstand / redefine words to arrive at a predetermined conclusion, just because you wrongly understand the term FSD to mean no humans, doesn't make that reality.

Would you have no objection if Tesla had just called it DrivePilot or BlueCruise instead?

> Would you have no objection if Tesla had just called it DrivePilot or BlueCruise instead?

As long as they don’t do stuff like this to market it:

“The beginning of the video shows a disclaimer which says the person in the driver's seat is only there for legal reasons.”

https://www.reuters.com/legal/judge-finds-evidence-that-tesl...

Or this: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/789022017311735808

“When you want your car to return, tap Summon on your phone. It will eventually find you even if you are on the other side of the country”

Why is it always about freedom of speech?

It’s vague and very well protected

IANAL, but in my opinion this isn't actually a freedom of speech issue, it's a corporate personhood issue. Tesla the company should not have constitutional freedom of speech protections for it's marketing communications.

Because Elon's twitter friends claim to care about it so much, I guess.

Speech isn't entirely unlimited. Saying something that makes people over-trust your "autopilot" and kill other road users seems like a reasonable limit.

When the charge is you should have truth in advertising, the rebuttal of freedom of speech sounds better than lies in advertising.

Well it's not about freedom of speech. It's freedom to tell lies publicly and not be held accountable for it by confusing what class of entity is making the speech. This is just covered by freedom of speech legislation.

Telsa is acting in bad faith towards customers, the government and investors here.

Also we are talking about a company not a person. Shouldn't that be a difference in face of legislation?

The same reason it’s always “for the children”; it sounds good and righteous if you don’t think critically.

No idea, but I remembered when we had to tell people to stop drinking chlorine and they get mad because it was within their "freedom of speech".

It seems like a loser argument to me. Free speech has never been a defense for false advertising; I'm not sure why Tesla thinks it will start working now.

This sounds more like PR than like a real legal argument. And maybe that's exactly what's going on. Maybe they're trying to look good in public even if they lose the case.

Repeat "freedom of speech" enough times, and it stops having its meaning.

So when the authoritarians come to power, you can scream "freedom of speech" all you want - no one will care.

It's a brilliant tactic. It worked in the other direction with "fake news".

Used to mean "actual made up news, usually from Russian proxy 'news' sites". Now the term is completely void of meaning.

I thought the fake news was the claim that Trump was working for the Russians as an agent?

How does the saying go? Something about freedom of speech isn’t freedom from the consequences of your speech? A recurring theme from MrMusk lately, it’s no longer genuine but now a cynical ploy.

As per saying - When you know how to use a hammer, then every problem is looking like a nail.

Lawyers throw everything at the wall and see what sticks.

Well, no. Lawyers that have good arguments just use those good arguments.

Lawyers with no good arguments throw everything at the wall.

A million robotaxis on the road by 2020:

https://www.thedrive.com/news/38129/elon-musk-promised-1-mil...

Woo! Hardcore!

They are all parked at SolarCity.

October 2016:

> We’ll be able to do a demonstration guide of full autonomy all the way from LA to New York. So basically from home in LA to Times Square in New York. And then have the car go and park itself by the end of the year.

September 2015:

> we are probably only a month away from having autonomous driving at least for highways and for relatively simple roads, my guess for when we will have full autonomy is approximately three years

October 2014:

> A tesla car next year will probably be 90% capable of auto-pilot, like so 90% of your miles could be on auto, for sure highway travel.

False advertising is not protected speech. 15 U.S.C. §§ 52-55 https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/topics/truth-advertising https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid%3AUSC-prel...

This seems like a waste of everyone's time. Tesla should market the vehicles as 'advanced driver assist', and authorities should let them do pretty much whatever they like as long as Tesla cars are killing fewer people per mile than competitors.

>Tesla cars are killing fewer people per mile than competitors

NHTSA data doesn't indicate so from what I read. Assuming by competitor you mean a recent car equipped with a competitors driver assist technology.

Competitor also means the average vehicle as driven by people who are on their phones. The roads have become more dangerous as we see in the data.

Context matters in roadkill statistics. If a human driver risks causing more accidents on the highway when distracted and tired, a driving assistant risks causing more accidents in the city streets where there are more opportunities for failure.

Also, roadkill becomes a legal case. You need someone to be legally responsible. Driving assistants blur these lines.

It's not just a "killing fewer people per mile" problem (which would also have a huge causation/correlation issue).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com