Tesla lawyers say full self-driving was just a “desirable goal” in response to a fraud lawsuit

TESLA has said that failing to deliver on promises to deliver a fully self-driving vehicle is a target failure, not a cheat.

The statement comes in response to a class action lawsuit filed in September alleging that the electric car company misled customers by falsely advertising its self-driving capabilities as fully automated.

2

The two Tesla driver assistance systems at the heart of the lawsuit are Full Self-Driving (FSD) and Autopilot.

FSD and Autopilot are currently semi-autonomous (semi-self-driving) and not fully autonomous.

Drivers using Autopilot or FSD must be vigilant in case they need to take over manually in the event of a hazard.

Tesla says its FSD function: “Detects stop signs and traffic lights and automatically slows your car to a standstill on approach, with your active monitoring.”

FSD additionally offers automatic steering on city roads.

Tesla adds that Autopilot: “Helps steer in a clearly marked lane and uses traffic-aware cruise control.”

The class action lawsuit challenges the fact that Tesla CEO Elon Musk promised a fully self-driving car for years and failed to deliver on his claims.

Earlier this year, a Video was posted to YouTube in 2014 and featured Musk and repeatedly claimed that a fully self-driving Tesla was just around the corner.

In the clip, Musk said, “A Tesla car next year [2015] will probably be 90% autopilot capable.”

The video also shows Musk explaining that a fully self-driving Tesla is fast approaching each year from 2014 to 2021.

Tesla’s attorneys filed a court filing on Nov. 28 asking that the lawsuit be dropped.

Her attorneys wrote in the court filings, “The mere failure to meet a long-term, ambitious goal is not fraud.” CNN reports.

These attorneys also shared:

• Customers should be aware of the limitations of FSD and Autopilot before engaging with the systems.

• The plaintiffs have presented no evidence that FSD and Autopilot were involved in more accidents than manual vehicles.

• Too much time had passed since the cars were purchased and the plaintiffs were not harmed.

• Several plaintiffs had agreed to an arbitration clause when ordering their cars, so the claims would not be heard in public courts or class action lawsuits.

2