Hacker News Reader

Comment by NoMoreNicksLeft | Hacker News Reader

Shouldn't fraud (for the end user/customer) be determined by claims made about the product at the time of sale, and not promises of what might be possible a few years from now?

If you want to say promises of future features is fraud, then surely that would only be in relation to investors?

View on HN

In 2016 Tesla claimed that "as of today, all Tesla vehicles produced in our factory – including Model 3 – will have the hardware needed for full self-driving capability at a safety level substantially greater than that of a human driver":

https://www.tesla.com/blog/all-tesla-cars-being-produced-now...

That was a lie.

The definition of fraud is going to vary slightly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but generally the core elements are:

* Falsity: did the person knowingly make a false statement?

* Materiality: was the false statement something that could reasonably influence someone's decision to agree to a contract?

* Reliance: did the other party actually use the false statement to decide to agree to the contract?

Claims of future capabilities are necessarily going to be evaluated differently from claims of current capabilities, since it's going to be harder to demonstrate all of these points. But for Tesla's FSD promises, we're at 7-ish years now of "coming soon" promises, with marketing materials outright saying it's only regulatory reasons that a driver is needed. Materiality and reliance are slam-dunks at this point; the only out Tesla really has at this point is falsity. Essentially, Tesla has to argue that its engineers were all high on their own hype (which I have to admit it as at least plausible).

"It's almost ready" is a claim about the product at the time of sale.

"Almost ready" as a claim is pretty meaningless. It's a statement of feature status, not a prediction of when 100% completion occurs. In software, "almost" can last years or decades.

He's been frequently far more specific than that on timelines.

2018: "By next year, a Tesla should be able to drive around a parking lot, find an empty spot, read signs to confirm it’s valid & park." https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1057690425710891009

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." https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/686279251293777920

It won't be hard to demonstrate some purchasers factored these claims into their decisions.

"a Tesla", not "all Teslas". And of course "should" not "will". And so on. If his press releases are to be treated like contracts that he can be held to, then the verbiage needs to be parsed as if his words were contracts.

That's just not going to go very well for the people litigating that he made false claims. Which gives the impression that the litigation isn't so much about punishing the wrongs he has committed, as they are about punishing the person that no one likes.

Maybe there are other tweets that are better examples of your argument, I'll wait to see if they come up in any of the umpteen fluff articles we'll see over the next few months. In the meantime though, this seems more than a little unfounded.

> "a Tesla", not "all Teslas"

Cool. Is there a single Tesla currently capable of it eight years on?

> If his press releases are to be treated like contracts that he can be held to, then the verbiage needs to be parsed as if his words were contracts.

Contracts aren't the only way to make a fraudulent marketing promise. You can be sued for false advertising, for example.

> If his press releases are to be treated like contracts that he can be held to

Are you familiar with Carbolic Smoke Ball?

In 2019:“ I think we will be feature-complete full self-driving this year, meaning the car will be able to find you in a parking lot, pick you up, take you all the way to your destination without an intervention — this year. I would say that I am certain of that. That is not a question mark." [1].

[1] https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-doubles-down-on-cl...

In 2019 Musk claimed there would "for sure" be over a million Tesla robotaxis on the road by the end of 2020:

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

That was a lie.

Thanks - I'll add that one to my timeline: https://webtorque.org/fsd-timeline.html

Musk has been citing more precise estimates (e.g. "end of the year") for years.

When you are charging people extra for the features you're promising will exist in the future, it seems reasonable to call that fraud if you never deliver.

Of course not, a huge number of (if not most) contracts contain agreements regarding future delivery of product or services. This is valid and normal arrangement. The contract is a promise to deliver that. If you don't deliver, you have breeched the contract.

Elon Musk signed contracts claiming he would deliver this in the future? There are verbal contracts, so what you're really saying was that he was in the room with each buyer, individually or with a group of them (such that he was aware of the identities of those he was contracting with), and made a legally binding verbal contract where he told them he would deliver these software features, under what conditions they would be delivered (time, location, other details), and then shook their hands?

Stretching contracts in the way you'd do it wouldn't be good for anyone.

I'm making a bit of a comparison, since the above was a pretty general statement. Yes, literally, marketing is generally not regarded as contract offers... but the rationale for laws prohibiting false advertising is that the product delivered should be the product promised. Technically the difference between whether something would be breach of contract or false advertising or fraud is a very fine line dependent on the specifics.

My point was just to say that "future promises" are not something that can just be disregarded.

> Elon Musk signed contracts claiming he would deliver this in the future?

False statements were made that induced consumers to sign contracts to purchase cars and the FSD add-on. This is fraud.

Musk doesn't have to personally sign your car's contract for that to be a thing, or your credit card APR would be unenforcable.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com