Get the top HN stories in your inbox every day.
joshribakoff
SilverElfin
I’ve had this type of issue on multiple European car brands. Software issues with driver assistance features, which they keep ignoring. Things like sudden unexplained braking, not showing down due to cars stopped ahead, swerving randomly... I accepted it because getting them to cover anything, even physical things, even under warranty. They just come up with self serving guidelines and excuses.
Glad you had success. Did it require lawyers?
lokar
I (also in CA) lemon returned a Mercedes EV. Same kind of thing, they could not fix repeated software issues w/ the collision avoidance features.
I called them up, gave a short explanation, and they sent me to their vendor who handles the returns, no issues. Full price (including tax etc) back.
AIUI, they know not to fight, since in CA when they loose, they pay your legal fees.
njovin
I'm having a similar issue with Volvo. It occasionally sees a gate track on the ground as a 'hazard' and will hard-brake when slowly backing over it. It's inconsistent but happens regularly.
SilverElfin
I just got repeated run arounds from the euro brands - like they can’t reproduce it or that it was determined to be a non issue. The dealers would just eventually give me the phone number for the corporate line if I wanted to push more. But it wasn’t even some kind of support phone number - literally just a generic corporate number. So basically they were telling me to go away. Oh and top of that they charged me for diagnostic time.
boc
One reason I love my mid-00s Lexus SUV. All the luxury features you want, but clean instrument cluster with no driving assistance tech to break or get in the way. Great visual clarity on the road, 300K miles on original drivetrain without issues, and a beast in the snow/inclement weather. Only downside is mileage, but I legit wouldn't trade it for a new car.
justinclift
Which model is it? Didn't they make quite a few? :)
walrus01
At this point I want basically no driver assistance features except maybe an automatic cruise control speed adjustment to vehicle directly in the lane ahead based on forward facing radar data. Many of them seem to be much more troublesome or buggy than they're worth.
fc417fc802
I don't have a "modern" vehicle but automated following distance is the only thing I feel like I'm missing out on. Everything else feels like I'm dodging bullets.
Unfortunately not upgrading means missing out on improvements to physical safety in the event of a crash.
jrumbut
I'll be honest, that braking assist has saved me from a couple parking lot dings. That's worth something.
The problem is I drive in a city with really narrow roads and it triggers the collision warning all over the place. I've also had it slam the brakes in a situation where that was not a good idea at all.
The forward attention warning ("you should take a break") is another one I'd love to be able to tune. I have a lot of late nights at work, falling asleep or becoming distracted while driving is a very real hazard that I appreciate, but it's absurdly sensitive.
cduzz
I've been quite happy with my "first generation" tesla with the mobileye system. It has only tried to kill me a couple times in 6 years of driving it; it is not terribly smart but within the system's limits it is very stable. I certainly don't trust it to drive unattended, but it does offload 5-30% of the toil of driving on highways, which is pretty nice. Offloading 50-80% but constantly wondering "is it going to try to kill me?" I don't think would be as relaxing, though I understand lots of people have chosen to just not worry, which I guess is fine...
At the time I got the car I wasn't sure if I wanted the old "totally obsolete" AP1 or the "probably going to get way better (cough)" AP2; I'm glad I got the obsolete version....
I wonder if there are modern cars with systems comparable to the mobileye system from the original tesla setup.
Marsymars
The speed limit sign reading tech that displays the most recently posted limit on the nav is pretty nifty. (I'd consider that "driver assistance" even if it doesn't physically control the vehicle.)
dmix
I've heard new Toyota's sensors cause it to constantly beep and you can't turn it off. Probably due to a regulation somewhere.
hamasho
So I skimmed several articles and the reasons why the Theranos CEO was sentenced to 11 years are
1. The scale of the fraud was too big
2. From emails it seemed she intentionally tricked investors
3. The product, medical equipment, endangered patients.
justapassenger
2 more, most important reasons she was sentenced:
1. She stopped making money for rich people.
2. She herself wasn’t rich enough.
Leon is too rich, and he keeps on making money for the right people.
disqard
Right, I've also heard your (1) above expressed as "she basically stole from the wrong set of people -- rich and powerful".
Kinda-sorta off-topic (but not really), it reminds me of Charlie Javice. She sold a database of college loan applicants to JP Morgan for $175 million -- it later turned out that she had fabricated most of that data.
helsinkiandrew
I think the big difference is that criminal wire fraud depends on a "clear scheme to defraud with intent". Tesla/Musk can argue that they thought they would delivery - They've been making claims that FSD was coming for years and have been slowly making deliveries towards FSD, its just that its harder/taken longer than expected and without a smoking gun (email chains like in the Holmes case) it would be very hard to prove.
They may have committed false advertising or "failed to deliver on contract" but they are civil matters, which could still involve big payouts, but not prison time.
FireBeyond
There's a corpus of work that could help there. Tesla was forced to add disclaimers like "Elon's statements are aspirational and do not necessarily represent engineering reality", as well as quotes from him on investor calls where he's described (in 2009, I believe) FSD as a "solved problem, we're just implementing", and five years later, "Our highest priority is solving the problem of FSD". But it seems possible that there comes a time when an ambitious prosecuting attorney or attorney general pushes for this and the discovery that comes with (though I have near zero confidence that even then, that discovery won't already be thoroughly crippled by document retention policies or outright fuckery by Elon).
rsynnott
3 was likely in practice a reason that prosecution was pushed for, but IIRC those claims were the only ones she won on.
argomo
I'd say repeatedly forecasting "full self driving next year" every year for a decade qualifies Tesla for #2.
Pxtl
Think about who she ripped off and the difference will be obvious.
827a
The real problem, which I think the article does a poor job of making clear: Tesla sold millions of cars before the current generation Hardware 4 vehicles with $10,000 full self driving packages which never really materialized convincingly ‘full’ self-driving capability. There’s fair arguments for the HW4 vehicles not having FSD either, maybe because it needs to be supervised or isn’t perfect or whatever. But the HW4 experience is good enough that I don’t think many HW4 owners are angry; it’s by far the best consumer self driving experience you can buy, and is very good. It’s the HW3 owners that got screwed and absolutely deserve money back.
testing22321
On the recent earnings call they did finally acknowledge they will have to upgrade the hardware in HW3 cars so they can fully self drive.
The flayed the solution of “popup factories” in cities across the US to carry out the upgrade.
FireBeyond
Even then they're playing fuck fuck games. People have pushed on this and been told "We won't actually upgrade your hardware until you pay for FSD first" which is also horseshit. It wasn't "contains all the hardware necessary for FSD, provided you've bought it", it was "contains all the hardware necessary for FSD, full stop".
I get why Tesla will resist this, but a part of me admires the pettiness (but reasonableness) of a bunch of owners demanding the hardware upgrade and then never buying FSD.
ModernMech
> the HW4 experience is good enough that I don’t think many HW4 owners are angry
Selection bias. The only people buying Teslas anymore are people who can explain away a Nazi salute. They'll explain away anything bad about HW4 as well.
fouc
Seems like HW3 has been pretty good since FSD v12.3+ came out.
If we describe HW4 as 99% of the way to true FSD, then HW3 is probably 95% of the way.
Though approaching 100% (maybe 2x the human standard) is going to be exponentially harder to get to.
wqaatwt
> HW4 as 99% of the way to true FSD
If we describe current LLMs 99% of the way to AGI and full sentience then https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELIZA was probably 90% of the way.
Schiendelman
I'm reminded of the adage about getting 80% of the way through shipping a product, and then doing the other 80%...
fouc
Yeah that's what I was referring to, the last 10% takes 90% of the time. Or the difficulty of getting from five 9s to nine 9s.
In this case the final 1% is 200x harder than getting to the initial 95%.
angoragoats
I live in a suburban area in a cold climate. Based on what I've seen of "FSD," it's essentially unusable on most of the roads near me, and doubly so in winter. This is even true on larger highways/freeways, as when snow falls the camera systems can't see the lane markings. Not to mention the fact that some of those roads are so badly maintained that the lane markings are faint to nonexistent.
I don't think Tesla can honestly claim 99%, or 95%, or even 50% of the way to FSD until they solve these issues. Until they do, it's just a fun toy. After all, years ago they were claiming that you'd be able to "summon" a Tesla sans driver from LA to NYC. What happens if there's a winter storm on the way?
bdangubic
it is not even a fun toy because fun toys are fun for kids and no sane person would use FSD wirh a kid in a car
FireBeyond
> If we describe HW4 as 99% of the way to true FSD
What part of that final one per cent includes "will not blow through railroad crossing gates when a train is approaching"?
Or "will work in a Pittsburgh winter's night on a snow covered, poorly line marked road"?
KumaBear
Earning calls are when CEO’s are telling the truth about their products. Knowing Tesla’s history of making payments he won’t see a dime. I’m no lawyer but he should set up a publicity stunt like the man who seized Bank of America’s equipment in order to get paid in full the same day. (George and Ora Lee, successfully seized assets from a Bank of America branch after the bank wrongly foreclosed on their home)
jer0me
I think you mean Warren and Maureen Nyerges: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/couple-almost-forecloses-on-ban...
George and Ora Lee appear to be a couple who died hours apart in 2016 after being married for 58 years.
KumaBear
Yea you are right. Google failed me once again.
CamperBob2
"Yeah, so they won't be giving the Bank of America any more trouble, capisce?" -- Bank of America
sanex
BoA having roots in the Bank of Italy makes this even funnier.
xnx
> George and Ora Lee, successfully seized assets from a Bank of America branch after the bank wrongly foreclosed on their home
This is the type of person that deserves to have a statue in public
a10c
Gawiser filed a “writ of execution” (another $240 in court fees) just yesterday, which would allow Texas law enforcement to seize and sell off enough of Tesla’s property as would be required to pay the judgment against them.
undefined
bdcravens
It's not him they're fighting, it's precedence and the impending flood of lawsuits.
dmix
It's a small claims court, there is no precedence. Tesla didn't even reply so it just went to default judgement
The article says there's already been other small claims over this where they settled, such as in 2023 in the UK also for $10k
Schiendelman
Precedent. Please please let's not change English to conflate those two words.
walrus01
I look forward to the day when this goes further up the hierarchy of US domestic courts, and some final decision is reached ordering Tesla to pay back the money every purchaser of "full self driving" paid for something that is clearly not level 4 or level 5 autonomy.
tencentshill
This is a solved problem. They have plenty of bagholders willing to donate to the cause.
fhn
"court made a judgment in his favor in the amount of $10,672.88, the amount Gawiser paid for FSD, including taxes and court fees." should include interest as well
walrus01
To be truly fair should also adjust for inflation of US dollar of $10672 at the time he purchased it vs. April 2026.
For instance CPI inflation calculator says 10672 in Jan. 2022 is $12,534.44 today.
dlcarrier
Inflation is part of interest; you don't get reimbursed for both separately.
grodriguez100
The 6.75% interest applies from the date of judgement to the date of payment by Tesla but the inflation (from date of purchase to date of judgement) is not accounted for.
linsomniac
I'm of the opinion that it'd be fair to treat that money as an investment in Tesla at that time. In my case, the $8K in Dec 2016 would translate to them being on the hook for ~$260K today.
Which is why I think Tesla shouldn't be slow-rolling their doing whatever is necessary to get those of us who pre-bought FSD up to the HW4 level. HW4 won't physically fit in a 2016 Model S? Give us a 2026 Model X (they dropped Model S), and you're still $160K ahead.
I've been surprised that there hasn't been a major class action about the FSD. I've been very happy with the car, but the FSD was outright fraud.
FireBeyond
> it'd be fair to treat that money as an investment in Tesla at that time
Garbage. It was never advertised as that, and all the subsequent "clarifications" or "scoping" of FSD have been because Tesla has been dragged kicking and screaming into adding them, by lawyers, by attorneys general, by the NHTSA, etc.
"The car CAN (emphasis mine) drive itself. The driver is only in the seat for legal purposes." is how it was sold, not "invest in the vision of a FSD future". Then there was "well, providing regulators allow us", then "well, once we actually finally finish the software", and all that garbage.
I don't see how you reconcile "it'd be fair to consider it an investment" with "outright fraud". Even if you ignore my lens, it's not "fair" to rope some into an "outright fraud" "investment".
the__alchemist
The "Full" in "Full Self Driving" was one of the giveaways. It's like packaged food labeled with "Real" ("Real cheese" etc)
Neywiny
Not sure I agree with your second sentence, at least in the US. I may see "cheese product" or "dairy product" or "cheese flavor" but if it says real cheese, it's real cheese. My favorite example was seeing "onion (then in tiny text 'flavored') rings"
tzs
It may be real cheese, but the cheese may not be where you expected it to be. A friend of mine was served a snack pack on a flight that had some breadsticks and a cheese dip, and the box said it was made with real cheese.
She read the ingredients list and found that the real cheese was part of the breadsticks. The cheese dip had no cheese.
beAbU
No, you see, if it says "cheese" then I would assume it's real cheese. If it says "real cheese" I'm immediately suspicious.
gregschlom
The point is that if you have to say it's made with real cheese, the food is complete junk. Even though the cheese may technically be real.
elif
They even banned the term "soy milk"
It's now called "non dairy soy beverage" on every carton.
Marsymars
My understanding was that the end result there was entirely the opposite of that: https://arstechnica.com/science/2023/02/almond-milk-can-keep...
vel0city
We should just put non-dairy on all beverages that are non-dairy. Non-dairy Mountain Dew. Non-dairy sweetened lemon beverage. Non-dairy gin. Non-dairy water.
Pxtl
Europe did the same thing with veggie burgers. Which confuses me because there are a zillion non-beef things called burgers.
wrs
That idea of a simultaneous small claims day is brilliant. I hope somebody is vibecoding that site up right now.
JumpCrisscross
Is there a fuck-you option by which a large company can force escalating costs on you through small claims? Can they, for example, remove it to a federal court?
jfim
I don't think they can, but at the same time they can appeal a judgement that's unfavorable to them. Appeals in small claims allow for having attorneys present, at least in California, and it's another day in court that you'll have to argue your case.
xoa
>Is there a fuck-you option by which a large company can force escalating costs on you through small claims?
It'll vary by state, in general I don't think so? Or at least not if (as apparently was the case here) they don't have anything preventing it in some contractual agreement. In some states a party can appeal to a superior court, but that's not a new trial redo, the judge simply reviews what happened and see if it looks reasonably kosher. If it was they still lose.
The big check on small claims cases is, well, that they're small claims. Nobody could go after a full refund for the cost of a vehicle there for example. If you look at the maximum amounts by state [0], in lots of them even the $10k here would be above the limit (Kentucky is still at $2500 max). My state also was quite low until fairly recently, just because there's no automatic adjustment for inflation and $2500 in 1980 went a lot further than now and state legislature hadn't gotten around to adjusting it up for decades.
And in small claims the winner can generally recover reasonable costs and fees on top of damages (as happened here). And it's 50 different states a company with a national problem would have to get separate attorneys for to deal with. It's one of the few places where the asymmetry is somewhat more towards companies, without any need for the plaintiff to get a lawyer themselves and given that they're almost always going to be physically much closer, it's just a lot more costly for a company to drag it out. They're not going to be setting any useful precedent vs any other small claims, and the max amount is small enough that it's rarely going to be worth it if their claims are weak. Someone angry enough to go to small claims is much more likely to stick to it through sheer bloody mindedness, which is basically all they actually need.
I think normally companies simply just don't create enough of a small claims problem for themselves for any of this to be more than a rounding error. Elon Musk may have somehow managed it though?
----
0: https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/small-claims-suits-h...
walrus01
Be sure to vibe code a way for everyone to save money and hire the same process serving company to do service by hand of multiple suits in bulk at the same time.
6gvONxR4sf7o
Why just the $10k? Could you get a full refund? If I order a $12 burrito and you give me a $10 sandwich, I would feel owed my $12 back, not the $2 difference in price.
Marsymars
You should have the option of getting the $12 back provided you also return the sandwich. You don't get a free sandwich out of the deal unless the seller cares about good will.
dlcarrier
The reimbursement covers the add-on. It's more like ordering a $10 sandwich and a $2 bag of chips, then not receiving the bag of chips and getting your $2 back.
stahtops
Some people only bought the sandwich because of the chips. If chips weren't offered they would have bought lunch from someone else across the street.
vzaliva
He should publish a "bring Tesla to small court" kit, with all documents other people in the similar situation can use to sue them.
jqpabc123
Bottom line: FSD was a fraud.
Get the top HN stories in your inbox every day.
I recovered ~$250,000 under beverly song act (California lemon law). (My principal and interest back for multiple vehicles)
I repeatedly complained it was activating “emergency lane departure” while driving manually, even after disabling the setting. This had the effect of the vehicles swerving towards cross walks or walls.
Clearly a software issue but they played dumb and forced me to book service visits and refused to provide loaners.
Each time they returned the vehicle(s) with a short resolution of “expected characteristic”.
I read my purchase agreement, emailed them, and simply stated they are obliged to buy back my fleet given its a hazard to public safety. They obliged without discussion.
There were also other persistent issues with the vehicle beyond the software but i suspect the software put them into a double bind where if they “fix” it they create more liability via accidental disengagements.