this post was submitted on 04 Aug 2023
496 points (97.1% liked)

Technology

59646 readers
2547 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
496
Tesla sued for false advertising after allegedly exaggerating EV ranges / The proposed class action accuses Tesla of fraud (www.engadget.com)
submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
36 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Tesla sued for false advertising after allegedly exaggerating EV ranges / The proposed class action accuses Tesla of fraud::A lawsuit accuses Tesla of false advertising for allegedly exaggerating EV ranges..

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] fresh 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yes exactly. One could do mental gymnastics to try to defend this, but the balance of evidence and past decisions by Musk makes it obvious that this is far from innocent. This is theft by misrepresentation.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

All I’m saying is that unless Tesla is advised by a certification witness to change their test method, they are unlikely to do so and it will be hard to argue that their sticker ranges aren’t lawful.

The software case on the other hand is misleading at best. I would characterize that as fraud, but I’m not a lawyer

[–] fresh 3 points 1 year ago

I’m not a lawyer either, so your guess is as good as mine. From where I’m sitting, it seems to me that there is ample evidence, including internal communication and the activities of the “diversion” team, that this was NOT an engineering decision. When the problem was revealed, there was no attempt to correct it. I personally don’t see how this is so hard to argue when it is so blatant.