When Life Gives You Lemons | Hacker News Reader

When Life Gives You Lemons

teslamotors.com

307 pointsmaibaum159 comments

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2014/04/07/tesla-le... Milwaukee attorney Vince Megna also says that Tesla's policy of selling cars directly to consumers -- rather than having franchised dealers -- is another reason that it is tougher for customers to take action if they are dissatisified with their car.

Ladies and Gentlemen, i give you the real reason for the lawsuit.

Can you explain? To me, that line makes no sense. If he bought from a dealer, the dealer would have the same power that Tesla has in this case, right?

I believe he is suggesting that this action is backed by dealers as part of the ongoing legal battle resulting from Tesla not allowing dealers to sell their cars.

Tesla is facing opposition to their direct-sales practices in most states right now from the entrenched dealership lobby. It would be mighty useful to have on legal record that the lack of dealerships is materially significant to their ability to fulfill a portion of consumer protection law, whether it's true or not.

Nice catch.

That is some of the worst logic I've ever seen.

They drive a loaner to your house and pick up your car. What more do you want?

Tesla officials, reached for comment, say they can't talk about pending court cases.

From the same article, this line really stands out at me. Especially after reading what Tesla posted on their site.

Obviously Tesla would rather make public statements directly to the public, instead of having USA Today or some other media outlet spin what they say. Seems like a prudent move to me.

I really tend to struggle with Tesla whenever I read these kinds of things. On the one hand, I generally feel like they tend to shed light on areas where customers, the media, politicians, etc. are messing with them. On the other, something about the tactics they use seem...off. It's almost like they're bullying people who they don't like or disagree with. In this case, it seems like the guy and his lawyer are really just messing around and being dishonest, and it's a situation that Tesla can gain the upper hand on.

But.

What happens in 5 years when Tesla is 10x bigger than it is now, and doesn't do things so perfectly or well at scale? I really wonder if this type of almost-militant napalm style PR will be handled so deftly. What happens when they get it wrong? I think there's sufficient evidence that they already kind of blew it with the journalist they went after previously, and it just seems like no good will come from this culture over time.

So I'm conflicted. I love their products. I'm rooting for the company, but I do hate these kinds of whiny posts. Tesla is better than this, I hope.

I don't know if this comes off as whiny to me, but I get what you're saying. There is a sort of defensiveness to posts like this. They do have something to prove, after all, though it easily come across as having a chip on the shoulder. It also reminds me of interaction of software companies with customers. Sometimes, engineers get fixated on measurable things that they failed to see things that are not measured. Customer satisfaction is not easily captured by metrics.

I think it is fine the way it is now, and watch for when Tesla gets a lot bigger.

This all feels like the necessities of politics. What I see here is likeley what enabled Musk to navigate the political arena with such ease -- he continually does the right thing but isn't scared to throw a jab in the opposite direction. When he applies the jab, he pushes it through with extreme force all while asking permission to stop and let the whole thing work it's course. At the same time he's playing other tactics that are lining his ducks up in a row.

These are classic power moves, tried and tried again throughout history. It seems Tesla, SpaceX, and Elon himself have them nearly mastered. Very impressive, IMO, even though it feels odd.

I agree that satisfaction is not easily measures, in this case the consumer is complaining that a fuse kept blowing, and when they decided to try to detect tampering, the fuse was magically fixed. Correlation is not causation, but sometimes it's a damn powerful indicator.

In this case, the lawyer is going to try to smear Tesla, hoping that they'll settle quickly to get him to shut up. Which more or less is extortion.

This is Tesla sending a message to all lemon law lawyers that they do not negotiate with terrorists. Seems fair to me.

Exactly. Precedent is the foundation of the entire legal system. If you get one BS lawsuit based on dummed-up charges thrown out of court and show a history of working with customers, it will make all future similar legal cases much more difficult.

This lawsuit definitely sounds frivolous, but it also makes me think of something my grandfather always used to say about getting involved in arguments that will only serve to make you look bad: don't piss with the skunks.

Had this article never been written, I would never know one could sue over lemon laws. This blog helps people see inside a world that we might not otherwise. Surely something we don't remotely ponder on a day-to-day basis.

While I agree that publicizing frivolous arguments typically is uncalled for; Tesla has been the target of many attacks for which I initially thought were unsafe product design. If not for this blog I might think it's common for a Tesla to catch fire at random, or that they don't travel the advertised distances.

I think re-wording segments of these blogs to be more factual and less emotionally driven would be nice. The openess that they are trying to provide is at least noteworthy.

Why is it uncalled for to publicize the lawsuit if it is frivolous? In general, it may be bad PR; but if you're willing to file a suit that is public. There is no reason to cede the initiative to the plaintiff if you think they are trying to manipulate you.

Alluding to the New York Times article says that this combative strategy has worked. It's pretty clear that it was not a hit piece, but that has remained the common memory.

After the initial public letter, further details revealed that it was a battery issue that confused everyone involved. In fact, it was even a good design decision. If the car is parked in extreme cold, it will consume power in order to heat the battery so that it is not destroyed, thereby incurring a tens of thousands of dollars expense.

When the reviewer returned to the car parked in a freezing garage after his overnight stay at a hotel to find the projected battery range severely reduced, he telephoned support. It sounds like the support thought that the projected range was affected by the cold, and that warming it would by driving in a circle was likely to make the readings and projections sane again.

It didn't, and he decided to continue on with his trip. The recounting of the trip contained inaccurate details, that were not very material, about the climate control settings and speed. And, the review was generally inaccurate, because it reported that the ange was disappointing without noting the effect of the extreme cold. However, a mistake made in good faith is different than dishonest reporting.

In fact, the issue seems so nonobvious, that Musk himself failed to guess it. His public letter focused on whether the reporter drove over the speed limit, while making no mention of the car heating the battery overnight. Does the telemetry fail to log that power use, or was it so unusual that he didn't even think to look at that time frame?

It seems likely that all (three?) of them simply missed this autonomous heater as consuming a great amount of power. Even though it was a good design decision, since it prevents permanent damage to the battery, it is something relevant to a reviewer whose responsibility is reporting to his readership the real world experience of owning a car with technology they aren't used to.

Anyway, the strategy works, because people only remember that Musk went into detail and cited the car's telemetry. It ends up supporting the narrative that this reporter was one of the many people who unfairly attack the car. However, the real story is that unusual conditions like extremely cold weather can affect battery life, and they are unexpected enough that it isn't immediately obvious to an auto journalist, to the manufacturers' live telephone support, or Elon Musk himself.

That is a story, even if it wouldn't prevent anyone from buying the car. However, no one ever apologized for essentially calling the journalist's entire professional reputation into question. Furthermore, it is a reason for someone to worry that if there does ever turn out to be a serious design flaw, nitpicking over telemetry logs might be a bigger part of the experience than them quickly making good on the warranty.

Finally, I don't think the reporting on fires has been entirely unmerited as though it is so much more rare than it is in other new high end cars. Recall that once upon a time people referred to the Concorde as having a perfect safety record, until it didn't, and that that was due to there being so few rather than that it really was so much safer. I think it's great that Tesla has responded with very dramatic new safety measures, but the safety numbers weren't actually so far superior to anything else on the road.

It's hard for me to square your assertion that the article was not a hit piece with the verbiage of the article. For example, the reporter used heavily loaded language to convey the idea (without saying so explicitly, because that would be a lie) that he had to turn off the heater and drive dangerously slow in order to reach the next charger. When called out on it, the Times' ombudsman wrote it off as sloppy note-taking. There were a series of such small 'mistakes.'

> However, no one ever apologized for essentially calling the journalist's entire professional reputation into question.

And why should they? It's true that unusually cold weather causes unusually high battery drain, but the fundamental reason the reporter ran of out charge is simply that he tried to. At his last "supercharger" stop, he unplugged the car about 30 minutes before it would have finished charging. Had he waited even an additional 5 minutes, there would have been more than enough charge to return to New York at a comfortable speed, even allowing for the cold weather overnight.

The reporter has nobody but himself to blame for his soiled reputation. Frankly, I think there was an interesting angle about the limitations of electric vehicles, but he tried to push the envelope a little too far. The cold weather limitations of the battery would have made for good reading. The need to plug in overnight and the amount of time required to charge in cold weather could have also been interesting points. Lost in the noise is the fact that he wasn't able to gain charge on a 120V outlet in cold weather (the battery heater used more power than the outlet provided).

But, no, he tried to shoot for the moon with a story about how you just can't trust these newfangled contraptions, and he burned his fingers. Boo hoo.

With this essay, they are going on record as saying "We can track what happens with the car; it's no longer your verbal word against ours".

The bit about the front trunk log is basically saying to these kinds of lawyers that Tesla is not low-hanging fruit, and that they better either have a genuine grievance or really know their stuff before taking them on. Better to announce it early and scare off some of the bad guys, rather than rinse, repeat the exercise every time. If users know that there are logs like these, then they're less likely to pull simple cons like these, and Tesla doesn't waste their mechanics' time in doing all the preliminary diagnostic work.

Lots of small efficiency differences like this seem like they will add up to Tesla being much more efficient than the existing manufacturers. Good move long term, IMO.

But there's a flip side to that.

As everyone reading this site knows, there's always a way around these measures. And someone somewhere is going to figure them out. And then sabotage the car, and it's going to hurt that Tesla has all this logging and it shows nothing fishy.

Not saying they shouldn't use the logging, but it's maybe not so smart to make it a point of contention and then incentivize the circumvention even more.

For some reason, Elon Musk has a reality distortion field that works. Most people don't.

As start-up advice, I would say you don't have a reality distortion field. If you try arguing with a customer in public, you are very likely to lose, even if you are right on all the facts.

How Musk pulls this off is something I still don't understand, but don't think you can replicate it.

> How Musk pulls this off is something I still don't understand

Honesty, openness, lack of bullshit-bingo, the knowledge that he's in it for idealistic reasons first. It's not a reality distortion field if it's reality.

Of course I realize that to you, this sounds like I'm caught in his "reality distortion field".

My partner worked in the legal claims department of a major (unnamed) vehicle manufacturer for a number of years. Even new agents were given massive empowerment dollars to shut lawyers up to keep them out of court. It really was an micro-industry unto itself, to the point that lawyers would get to know the company's defense agents from filing so many suits. Some cars did have problems, but not many. Most seemed to stem from awful lawyers and/or car dealers providing a terrible customer experience.

A new car built by my company leaves somewhere traveling at 60 mph. The rear differential locks up. The car crashes and burns with everyone trapped inside. Now, should we initiate a recall? Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one...

A valuable quote from Fight Club, but reality is unfortunately different.

A $2 recall could have saved the lives of 13 with regard to the GM ignition switch problem, while the Nissan Airbag recall has only been attributed to 3 accidents (0 deaths, 0 injuries) while affecting a million vehicles.

http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/01394d0c27844fa5be3fa6...

Companies (even standard ones, like Nissan) are willing to recall minor safety issues, while other companies are completely worthless at performing recalls (GM Ignition Switch).

Many of Chuck Palahniuk's story ideas are inspired by real events. This one is a clear reference to the Ford Pinto:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Pinto#Allegations_and_laws...

Thanks for the link. Seems like a black swan story to me then, I guess I'm living in a different era because I've never encountered such a situation in my personal lifetime.

At worst, the current GM Ignition switch issue seems to demonstrate gross incompetence, or maybe groupthink. Engineers seemed to try and raise concerns, but there aren't any memos out there like the "Pinto Memo" that implicates upper-management.

------------

Another point, is that the Memo, as used by the prosecution of the case, was considered inadmissible evidence by the Judge. This leads me to believe that perhaps the memo was a grossly exaggerated story, or perhaps misrepresented in some way.

I think they are intentionally trying to build a reputation as a company that shouldn't be messed with. It may be saving them from a lot of this type of stuff. Additionally might be protecting them from negative reviews. I see your point about that, but it's also an interesting tactic from a company that knew it will be up against so many barriers.

This strategy comes right from the top, I think. Elon Musk has always been "over the top" when it comes to defending Tesla from negative publicity.

The funny thing about this to me is that they report the trunk was opened immediately before the fuse blew each time. Ha! If you own a Tesla, you should know that they can monitor any action you take with that car.

But I don't blame them for this type of post. People attack them, and their defense is overwhelming.

I think they're addressing a public complaint. When other companies provide vague responses or simply say "no comment", people complain. Tesla tries very hard to be faultless, apparently to a fault.

I hope someone writes a book about this one day -- the transition from being the underdog to the dominant player in the field. It seems like a very difficult transition, both for the contestant and the fan.

While I understand where you're coming from, it does feel a little bit about being conflicted over the possibility of a company doing something bad in the future.

Early adopters will almost always feel some kind of shafting when a company grows. Early adopters just aren't looking for the same things as the broader public. They can always try to have a less painful transition but I think the adopters need to start to learn how to meet companies half way.

The Master Switch, by Tim Wu, comes pretty close: http://www.amazon.com/The-Master-Switch-Information-Empires/...

I think this approach is a breath of fresh air given the track record of so many other companies that say "no comment."

In the end they're protecting their brand. For as long as they can they have to be the company that goes above and beyond when it comes to reliability, safety, customer satisfaction, etc. Otherwise they just end up becoming the next Fisker. It makes sense why they're so militant, especially given the media's often negative attention and how it can kill a small company (compared to the big car companies) like this.

Telling your side of the story is not "bullying" just because your side of the story is extremely compelling. Not to be too much of a prescriptivist, but it would be good if we reserved bullying for something with at least some remote connection to its original meaning, which is linked to injustice and violence of a verbal or physical form.

It looks like the Lemon King went public first and Tesla PR is just counter attacking.

I know exactly what you are talking about. They say all the right things but the tone is generally somewhat accusatory. I read the same thing between the lines in the response to the journalist running out of charge doing a long drive. Another example is the interview where Musl called the Prius a lawn mower when asked about electric cars and completely skirted around talking about the Chevy Volt (IMHO the best current plug-in drivetrain.)

To be fair what the lawyer is doing is obvious.

Absolutely. And Tesla makes a great product. That is why I am surprised by how defensive and passive aggressive their tone seems at times.

You're prematurely optimizing. Tactics that work at one level of growth, do not work at others. That is why leadership often, but not always, changes.

For example, take Microsoft. They were aggressive and bullying early on, because they had to be. Later on, those tactics when they were the dominant OS led to a pretty brutal DOJ situation.

For now, though Elon is doing what needs to be done to change the world. I applaud him. He's up against some seriously powerful forces: the oil industry, the automotive industry. This is just like a scrappy app startup going against Microsoft--times 100.

Well, while small, "do things that don't scale". We'll see what they figure out later on.

Huh? Tesla is simply rebutting every single ridiculous claim with data, over and over again. If that's "bullying" (are we ignoring the fact the consumer FILED A LAWSUIT here?), then Americans have really gotten way too sensitive.

Tesla has a spine, called Musk. It may not be popular to push against sensation seeking lawyers or dealer networks but he does what's right, and in the end, that's all that really matters.

I see. So for a fear of future possible abuse by a future possibly big company, today we should ignore this blatant extortion attempt by a lawyer, in order to sympathize with this "poor, helpless" consumer?

This isn't a whiny post. This is exactly how companies should use social media to weed out these parasitic lawyers. Where the fuck is your concern for all these garbage costs that get put on the consumer because of these parasites? You should love this use of social media, because it actually makes our economy and legal system work better.

No, they should be using courts of law and not the court of public opinion to solve the case.

Once they win the later then they can take it to the former. Honestly what they are doing is in bad taste. You certainly don't go an attack like this.

I like Tesla's cars, I certainly don't like paying people to buy them and I really don't like tactics like this. Face it, if Ford or GM tried this stunt people here would be crawling up their ass.

I'm not sure I agree. This morning and yesterday, I saw several news articles about how Tesla was being sued for lemon laws. It seems reasonable to me for Tesla to defend it's position both to the public, and in the courts, which they are doing.

The comparison to Ford or GM doesn't really work as they wouldn't have such widely popular articles about being sued for lemon laws.

Did you see the viral video that the lawyer made?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=UUaelOgVXLe-1a3PUpob3upQ&...

Looks like Tesla is justified in trying to neutralize that slimy attempt at publicity.

Jesus.

As someone on youtube noted, take a close look at around 0:50. You can see lights flash, which seems very likely to have been from someone unlocking the car. Right after, the door handles miraculously start working again. The whole thing reeks.

Does anyone know how teslas behave when you touch their door handles? Do the rear lights ever flash?

It's great when he is showing how the door handles take about 5 touches before they work. You can clearly see the rear lights flash as someone hits the unlock button right as it magically starts working.

I have a problem with this notion: they are being tried in the court of public opinion as we speak, the prosecution has made its case, the media has disseminated theirs, and you expect Tesla to take the high road and plead the fifth?

"The remedy for bad speech is more speech."

I don't always agree with it -- sometimes lawsuits are necessary -- but Tesla is trying to resolve speech with speech.

What a wonderful "concern trolling" post.

At no point do you actually mention anything that Tesla has done wrong in the slightest, yet you manage to imply that they're the bad guys in this scenario.

Thanks for your contribution to human culture.

Let me paraphrase what is going on here:

nemesisj's comment - "Tesla is probably in the right here, but their response to threats tends be heavy handed and defensive."

your comment - "Tesla is in the right, you are trolling. Snark."

I guess maybe you missed the point that Tesla can be the good guy in a lawsuit and still act in a way that seems unprofessional and worrying to a potential future customer.

Don't paraphrase my posts; you're terrible at it.

At no point did I say that Tesla was in the right. I explicitly said that he hadn't mentioned Tesla doing anything wrong.

I dunno. I feel a similar sense of discomfort. But at the same time, people will do crazy things to get attention, attacking a supremely popular company with an excellent reputation for reliability is not surprising.

If they don't do things so perfectly or well at scale, and then have a "bad attitude" about it, they will likely turn off customers, lose their stellar reputation, and will have less of a problem at scale. The market will provide an excellent feedback loop.

Pretty horrible comment, honestly. Seems like a bunch of idle speculation slathered in a good helping of parochialism.

> Ultimately, Tesla service applied non-tamper tape to the fuse switch. From that point on, the fuse performed flawlessly.

Wow.

To me, this is the wow part:

> After investigating, they determined that the car's front trunk had been opened immediately before the fuse failure on each of the three occasions.

The Tesla sure logs a lot of things.

They seem to have been right to, given the number of times people have setup to knock them down.

Yeah, in this specific case, it seems somewhat justified, but I'm really not sure how I feel about a car that logs that much.

Even though I use web apps that can log everything including mouse movement, something about such logging in the physical world still puts me off big time...

Would you feel better about an option that let you disable internal logging on the condition that your service/maintenance costs were raised substantially? The purpose seems to be to make diagnostic work easier, after all.

My Dad is a mechanic and I can tell you this would be a god-send for troubleshooting. However, as a private person, I have a lot of trouble with other people knowing my habits and who I visit when and where. Docs and Dentists take an oath not to tell for a reason. Mechanics and engineers do not. Also, an increased price is not acceptable. The default should stay the same, the increased logging should come at a premium if anything.

I don't know what they specifically log, but if they don't log car location, I'm not sure what "value" from a personal privacy standpoint, they would gain in knowing you open your doors 3 times before sitting down. Other than that you're OCD I guess :S. If they track location, then that changes my entire opinion. That's a trickier subject to handle.

Well, the timing of opening/closing of doors might be able to give you a radius from work to home. But since most repair shops know this to bill you, thats mute. If it logged when, then they would know your routine, but they could guess that anyways. Yeah, it's a bit paranoid, and logging it is less harmful than real time updating and tracking. Still, some of the guys that my dad worked with would not by ANY means be considered trustworthy people.

"Also, an increased price is not acceptable. The default should stay the same, the increased logging should come at a premium if anything."

I think BHSPitMonkey meant that if they didn't log in general, maintenance costs would be higher and the costumers would pay for it in one way or another.

Good point actually. They would be higher one way or another. Labor is the major expense in repair and it is billed by the hour. Hmmmm....

I would feel better about an option that encrypted all internal logging, and left me in charge of the key, so that I could give read-only access to the service technician, and then revoke it after the car was good.

But that's hard to do in a consumer UI.

Put the key in the actual key (or key fob, in the case of Tesla). Service technicians could use a "valet+" key that would get them access to everything except those protected logs, or read only access to the logs. If the customer were so inclined, they could volunteer the key+key to the technicians.

The key+key would be tamper resistant so that revoking credentials after getting your car serviced would be less necessary; just make sure they give you that key back.

Your phone is capable of logging a lot more than your car would.

Most people keep their phone in their nearly all day, even when they are supposed to be in the privacy of their bathroom.

It is a surprise that people accept such extensive logging. I hope Tesla is keeping the information safe (does the information leave the car? Or is it only accessed by technicians working on the car?)

I remember when people would be very angry about software that "phoned home".

Assuming they don't track your physical location, what's the issue here? What element of interaction do you have with your vehicle that would give you cause for concern if it were tracked? How often and when doors are opened and closed? Average speed? Average distance travelled per trip? Power consumption? Physical interactions with mechanical and electrical components within the vehicle?

In all honesty, I can't think of a single thing other than physical location that I would require privacy for when it comes to owning and operating the type of car Tesla produces.

"Our logs show the passenger door opening at 3:00 am on April 7, 2014, and the added weight is consistent with an adult female passenger. Wasn't that when your wife was away on business?"

Also, your phone is potentially tracking your location right now.

Maybe not yours, personally, but in general.

Hardware analytics, folks. This is fairly new territory. Really interesting to see the reactions.

I also feel like they could have deduced they needed to put the tape on the fuse without the logs. If they keep repeatedly fixing what seems like a problem that shouldn't be happening it would seem to make sense to take that precaution without having access to such logs.

Wow is right. I do not like that at all. What I do in my car is my business, not Elon's.

What this guy did in his car appears intended to fuck Elon's business, so I'd say that's debatable to some extent.

So track everything about everyone in the event one person brings a lawsuit against the company? I'm not sure I'm going to consent to that.

Then don't buy a Tesla.

Well, if I were a GM exec, I'd try to get the same stuff on my cars to nip these things in the bud. In fact, I'd bet most execs are looking to do just that. The tech can be used on all cars and it makes sense to use it on all cars. At least, from the shareholder's side. What then? Do I not get to own a car? A 'then move to another country' argument is shallow. As consumers, we still have rights after we buy anything.

> if I were a GM exec, I'd try to get the same stuff on my cars to nip these things in the bud

If that were true, GM and all the other manufacturers would already be doing it. The tech Tesla is using for this is not new.

The main reason other car manufacturers don't do it is probably very simple: cost. You have to spend the money for the extra sensors in each vehicle, plus whatever hardware is storing the data and/or transmitting it to Tesla, plus you have to hire and train your own technicians to handle the data and interact with customers (other car manufacturers have their dealers do that, but dealers aren't interested in the kind of data Tesla is collecting).

Another possible reason is that other car manufacturers don't have enough of a problem with lemon law suits to make it worth using this kind of tech on their cars. I'd be interested to see data on that if anyone has any.

> What then? Do I not get to own a car?

If it ever gets to the point where every single car manufacturer is doing this, then yes, that would be your only option if you absolutely refuse to deal with it. (Unless you wanted to start your own car company.)

> As consumers, we still have rights after we buy anything.

But you don't have the right to force someone to sell you their product on your terms instead of theirs. Tesla is completely up front about what they are doing; buyers sign a long agreement that spells all this out, and if they don't like it, they are free not to buy.

You could try challenging the agreement in court, but I'm not sure on what grounds you would do that.

I don't think the reasoning behind the logging is really to prevent/provide evidence for lawsuits. I think it's more a case of log all the things so we can see what's relevant later and can use it to ensure the car stays working as long as possible. "The unreasonable effectiveness of data" has definitely permeated through to engineering and I'd just say they're good engineers that want good logs, with protection from litigation as a happy bones. That is my opinion though.

I think you'll find that most modern cars log a lot of things, and that it isn't something specific to Tesla.

It is for diagnostics and warranty reasons that these occur, as well as quality control.

I'm surprised the removal of a fuse wouldn't be logged. Unless it's the fuse that powers the logger.

The fuse removal gets logged as a fuse failure.

Of course. That makes perfect sense.

Could you elaborate on what is wowing you? I'm not sure what is so wowing about the tech putting some tape over the fuse. I'm curious what about that has you so interested. Your one word comment didn't really explain it.

Edit: sorry my question offended so many people. I was just curious and did not want to assume the meaning of the "wow" since others seem to be put off by how much logging the car does. I wasn't sure what the parent comment was about. sorry.

"wow", I assume, in that it makes it clearly apparent the customer was sabotaging their own car, in order to cause trouble and bring the lawsuit. Especially given how this isn't the only lemon-lawsuit by this customer and this lawyer, in just the last few months.

I always try and remove my preconceptions from a story when I'm reading it (I tend to be a fan of tesla and musk) and took care to read both the linked to article as well as tesla's version, but lots of things about this scream bullshit.

I especially dislike the youtube video created by the lawyer[1], reminds me of the american political smear campaigns that are run.

[1] http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2014/04/07/tesla-le...

"...but we're blessed: this bitch ain't caught on fire.. yet"

Err... does this lawyer want people to take him seriously? And right after that zinger he drives past a cardboard cutout of George Clooney.

By doing crazy things like this video, he pulls attention from a wider audience, giving his opponent more reason to settle early and shut him up.

Yeah, I'm wondering why this video was created by the lawyer filing the lemon law suit against Tesla. I don't see why it was needed if they've got a legitimate case. You file the suit, lay out your evidence, and that's about it. How is this video supposed to help? Are we supposed to start a kickstarter for this guy to give him money to pursue the lawsuit?

It's to encourage Tesla to settle so that he stops producing negative publicity.

The presence of the videos perhaps gives you a hint about what the case is really about. And it's probably not about the car.

Wow...that guy is a jerk.

The only thing I can figure is that the customer is trying to drive a car around for a while, file a Lemon Law complaint, then get a buy-back? I say this because it appears that the fuse had been tampered with, and the same person filed a complaint against Volvo last year.

No - the idea is not to get a buy back - if that had been the case, then they would have issued their three buy back requests, and, from what I've read, Tesla would have been more likely than other vendors to honor it.

Instead, the objective is to appear to have a violation of the lemon law, and then file a lawsuit looking for compensatory/legal fee damages.

Normally a company like Tesla will just pay off the nuisance suit in order to avoid having their good name dragged through the press, but, apparently, Elon Musk doesn't play that game, and with his posting, he is making it clear to all the other bottom feeders that he is more than willing to go head-to-head with them.

Heh, "non-tamper" tape to the fuse switch indeed.

i bet tesla buys the car back at a used car price, otherwise we'd be talking about a refund.

While this certainly reads like illicit usage, this blog entry leaves a sour taste with me.

1) Why even blogging about this? Is Tesla that insecure about its PR that they think they need to take the wind out of any possible negative news story, even if it will be easily defused?

2) Why start with their high grades in consumer reports? This is not a statistical sample, it's an individual case. Reads very defensive even though it clearly wouldn't be needed.

After so many success stories I hope they become more confident in their public communications.

Is this just how startups need to act in the social-media era when confronted with a story that could possibly go viral?

A company like GM doesn't need to worry as much about a lemon-law claim - it's probably cheaper to just refund the money than pay lawyers.

I'm personally glad they blogged about this.

1. It keeps me thinking about Tesla and gives them a chance to repeat the message of their reknowned customer service.

2. It's a warning shot to other lawyers or politicans drumming up anti-electric vehicle nonsense. Tesla won't play your game -- don't even try.

I'm just thinking they've tried to up their game after the whole NY Times headache.[1]

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/10/automobiles/stalled-on-the...

> 1) Why even blogging about this? Is Tesla that insecure about its PR that they think they need to take the wind out of any possible negative news story, even if it will be easily defused?

I don't think insecure is the right word. Protective is probably more appropriate.

The claim really looks like slimy lawyering based on pure fraud, so why run around doing press interviews (or whatever you think they're supposed to do) when they can lay out their facts on their own terms?

If they weren't responsive to negative press, people would be calling them shrinking violets instead.

1) to scare off the lawyer and all future lawyers 2) to build a body of evidence against the lawyers claims

To me this is very confident. It's a big gamble coming out like this. Someone who wasn't confident would have just settled and kept it quiet.

Completely agree. Musk and Tesla ruined this guy's frivolous complaint and did it publicly and with pure facts.

> 2) to build a body of evidence against the lawyers claims

Evidence is something you present in court, not on the web.

Tesla's side of the story is, of course, interesting and relevant, but it's not necessary for them to do a press release about it to fight the court case. The only people who need to see it for that are the judge and jury.

This is being done publicly, which means it's purely a PR move.

Obviously it's a PR move. You can still use evidence in a press release to strengthen your future statements within that press release.

Of course it's a PR move, what else could it possibly be? PR is important, best to get out in front of a problem than be caught playing catch up.

I feel like a PR move is necessary given this[1]. In response to a case like that where a lot of people have seen what amounts to a smear campaign, I don't have a problem with with someone explaining their side (in my opinion) clearly and calmly, I'd even say it's required.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=UUaelOgVXLe-1a3PUpob3upQ&...

this is about fighting for your rights, viral vs viral, i think tesla's trying to stop what could potentially be an exploit and extremely dangerous behavior. this is justice, tesla has plans to do bigger and better things, what's this lawyer and friend combo doing, just trying to make money it seems.

(2) also came across the wrong way to me. A consumer reports rating is completely irrelevant to whether or not a single car has some defect. It comes across as dismissive for all the wrong reasons. "The average consumer loves us, so we clearly couldn't do any wrong!"

That said, this specific case does seem like bullshit. And if it is, I hope Tesla destroys them in court. But that doesn't mean I like this PR piece.

Just by looking at the video posted by the lawyer, you can easily tell that it purpose is to tarnish their brand (if you have not watched it, please do and tell me if it was necessary), and they hope that Tesla would quickly and quietly settle it out of court.

Tesla won't do this, because that would only increase number of suits like this.

> 1) Why even blogging about this

Tesla is hot right now and almost everything they do is press worthy. It reminds me of Google back in the day. They are taking advantage of this.

As of starting to write this comment, there are more comments on this submission bickering about Tesla's PR than there are about the actual merit of the matter:

  * "Aren't people starting to get tired of Tesla's constant defensiveness?"

  * "something about the tactics they use seem... off."

  * "It's almost like they're bullying people they don't like..."

  * "But. What happens in 5 years when Tesla is 10x bigger than it is now..."

  * "this blog entry leaves a sour taste with me."

  * "Yeah, this does not feel good to me. I get the PR angle but this feels not right to me."

  * "Thank you HN for hosting another Tesla public service announcement."

I think the amount of flak Tesla gets on a constant basis from numerous entities that want to see Tesla dead more than justifies their aggressive public stance on these kinds of matters. The lawyer involved is apparently a self-proclaimed "Lemon Law King," which should raise a red flag all by itself. Litigious opportunism isn't usually celebrated by the HN crowd and I don't see why an exception should be made here. HN user yock has also pointed out that the lawyer involved in this suit is making a claim that the lack of franchised dealerships strengthens his justifications for opening a case, in that a lack of a dealerships for Tesla vehicles makes invoking Lemon Laws harder for consumers. Given Tesla's recent battles with states over having to sell their vehicles through middle men, I agree with yock's assessment that this is the real motivation for the suit --to add ammo to the case that Tesla must submit to the dealership franchise model-- rather than a genuine concern for a customer's rights under Lemon Laws to reverse a purchase of a vehicle.

But if none of that is enough, there's these gems:

>Ultimately, Tesla service applied non-tamper tape to the fuse switch. From that point on, the fuse performed flawlessly.

>After investigating, they determined that the car's front trunk had been opened immediately before the fuse failure on each of the three occasions.

I'm all for stomping on double-speaking weasel-wording bullshit. It's not OK when the NSA does it, or the State Department does it, or anyone else does it. That goes for Tesla too. But for some reason it seems a good chunk of the readers here are stomping on what is absolutely the wrong target. Tesla is speaking truth to power and attempting to disrupt a dinosaur of a market that is pulling out all of the stops in a truly glorious effort to kill Tesla off. Could we all drop the pseudo-skepticism act and take note of the plain truth as it is?

I love how tesla basically discloses who the plaintiff is, by referring to an old case of his. Hello there Robert Montgomery!

Seems like the lawyer and his client are trying to get some publicity from this.

http://www.startribune.com/local/254186161.html

People are so conditioned by doublespeak PR, they get the icky feeling from plain talk.

It is my request to Tesla to set an example of this person by doing whatever possible so that the lawyer leaves his practice.

This will not happen.

I'll step back and venture that Tesla customers are so happy with the customer service, that Tesla is able to call out bad actors. As a Tesla owner, I'll say that their customer service has gone way above and beyond any car company I've ever worked with. It's been a delightful experience.

Of course IANAL but doesn't this article run the risk of prejudicing any court proceedings?

I don't know the answer to your question but I suspect Tesla is more concerned with the truth getting out and telling their side of the story than just the outcome of the case. Although to be fair, that is merely a guess and a personal opinion.

The ideal resolution for Tesla is for the guy to drop the suit. This is what they're trying to accomplish by laying their cards on the table. IANAL either, but I'm not sure what risk you're talking about - do you suspect this suit will go to a jury trial, and it will become difficult to find jurors that haven't read this press release?

I'm not sure what you're implying. Is the car manufacturer not allowed to give their side of the story publicly when a lemon law claim is filed against them?

I think you're confused because many companies choose not to comment on pending lawsuits. That doesn't mean they are legally forbidden from doing so. Tesla has every right to defend itself in the court of public opinion, though certainly if this goes to trial, the parties will seek jurors who haven't preformed an opinion based on public statements. IANAL.

It's perfectly fine to prejudice court proceedings that are not yet in progress (though less so for prosecutors attempting to do the same in criminal cases).

It's not permissible to influence the deliberations of jurors, but that's a narrow scope--jurors aren't supposed to digest media related to the case while serving, so the parties can generally say or opine whatever they want during a case outside of the courtroom.

hint: this is not going to court (IAAL)

But the lemon law lawyer posted a video of himself walking around in a courthouse with a duct-taped paralegal following him around. That's what "going to court" is, right?

Pretty much, yea.

A couple of things:

* A lot of people say that Tesla is having a hard time because they aren't doing the whole dealership/franchise thing & wanting to sell to people directly. I feel like this is the fallout of something like that, the ease of someone going after them directly.

* If you watch this 'lawyer' & his YouTube videos you can tell that he's going after these companies merely because of the "days" it's been in the shop/getting fixed & nitpicking about some issues that in all fairness, are probably fabricated.

* Watched the video about the door handles, I find it hard to believe those don't work as designed but it is a possibility.

The last time he touches and car handle opens, you see that tail light also blinked, just as if someone with the fob is standing off the camera and pressed the unlock button.

The truth stands on its own.

I'm guessing this suit will be dismissed with prejudice. Dude seems like a real lying scumbag with an axe to grind.

I think that while polarizing this is a smart move. This day in age the high road can get you screwed as public opinion can be swayed irreversibly in a matter of days. You have to take these sort of steps because 140 characters can cast you as evil before you realize it.

this reminds me of the patent trolls, there's gold in dem damn litigations no matter how absurd, it's like searching for a loophole and exploiting.

Given just how bloody rich Elon Musk is, he should take the lemons, give them to his engineers to make combustable lemons AND BURN THEIR HOUSES DOWN.

(or something.)

Calm down Cave

Probably paid by the dealers to start a fire.

The cars these guys make are truly magnificent engineering pieces. Fairly sure the tooling is exceptional, so much so that the log files for the front hood told them all they needed to know :) bet that ambulance chaser didn't expect that. ROFLCOPTER.

Thank you HN for hosting another Tesla public service announcement.

There are 29 other interesting stories on the frontpage, you're welcome to choose another :)

If I were Tesla I would probably hire Buzzfeed or some other marketing channel to do a viral story highlighting how schmucky this lawyer and his client are. It would serve the brand better if they weren't seen giving these guys the time of day, let alone real estate on their corporate site.

Aren't people starting to get tired of Tesla's constant defensiveness? I feel like we have one of those blog posts every week. Frankly Tesla has great products and doesn't need to act so defensive. Thoughts?

No. Their insight sheds light onto the struggles that a disruptor has to deal with in order to break through a heavily entrenched cartel (actually overlapping cartels).

This is highly pertinent information for like-minded initiatives.

Edit: for clarity

They're addressing the issue of public perception. Electric vehicles are new, untried and untrusted. This means that there are two arenas where it is in Tesla's interest to have strong public support: Consumers, who do not want to buy cars which are rumored to be unreliable, and investors who don't want to extend credit to a company which is likely to have customers turn their back on it.

Tesla has experienced multiple smear campaigns from different angles and motivations over its short history: Top Gear presenting the Roadster in an unfavorable and inorrect light, the New York Times lying about the car's performance in winter conditions, multiple news outlets overstating the fire risk of their li-ion battery packs. The fear of the public getting an incorrect picture of its reliability and safety record is very much grounded in reality.

In a world where media is uncritical and takes everyone's viewpoint with the same value, Tesla makes sure that they provide counterpoints to everything someone might want to stick on them, and more. That way, the reporting will always be half on Tesla's viewpoint, or more. Unless there's a dishonest journalist, or Tesla is fucking up and they're dealing with a journalist with critical thinking skills.

Stonewalling, 'no comment'ing basically just gives the playing field to the other side. Also, at this point, countering bad publicity properly gives Tesla more media coverage. Not everyone knows Tesla outside of tech circles yet.

What's unusual is that you're reading from a news source (HN) that features every small step Tesla takes. That's not the mainstream experience. :)

You don't have to go to Tesla's own blog and read the content if you don't want to.

Yeah, this does not feel good to me. I get the PR angle but this feels not right to me.

Wait until the trial is over and then give your side of things to handle the "court of public opinion" but this has potential legal ramifications and I don't think this is the right way to handle it.

Maybe I am wrong but it doesn't look like the right way to me.

The lawyer made a video that was very anti-Tesla:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=UUaelOgVXLe-1a3PUpob3upQ&...

Should Tesla have to just sit back and wait, while their name is being (probably unfairly) dragged through the mud?

Just because I feel this response is not the right response does not mean I am suggesting they shouldn't respond at all. But some of the points they make and the way it is framed look pretty bad to me.

I understand they feel defensive and unfairly attacked but there are better ways to handle things.

Edit: I will add that when I worked for an insurance company, some of the letters I had to write had to be reviewed by the legal department. So I have firsthand experience with writing PC pieces that need to stand up in a court of law, notify the customer of important info, admit no wrong-doing, etc. This is not just someone talking out their butt.

> some of the points they make and the way it is framed look pretty bad to me.

I'm not sure I see why. I understand you're thinking about the legal ramifications, but reading between the lines of Tesla's blog post tells me two key things:

(1) They have logs of everything that has happened to the car. That means they have evidence to back up every factual statement in their blog post.

(2) They have records of all communications with the customer. That means they have evidence that shows that at least some of the factual claims made by the Lemon King lawyer (for example, the claim that three buyback requests were made prior to the lawsuit being filed) are false.

In other words, they believe that everything they said in the blog post will stand up in a court of law, should it ever come to that. They're just willing to make an effort to not have it come to that. (If the Lemon King lawyer had half a brain, he'd be tripping over himself to get his client to withdraw the suit after reading this post. Somehow I doubt that will happen.)

This is all about PR. The lawyer/client in this case are betting that Tesla will pay off their ransom/legal fees/damages rather than have their good name dragged through the court. They believe that most companies are run by people who are afraid of the "legal ramifications" of responding in public, and therefore aren't prepared to defend their name.

Tesla winning in court, but losing the PR battle is a 100% loss to Tesla - a court verdict is worthless if a bunch of unanswered stories have been written in the meantime.

This is why these lawyers can bottom feed like this - they know that they have all the power, and typically, companies will just pay them to go away and bother somebody else.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com