Published • loading... • Updated
US appeals court blocks class actions over Tesla's self-driving claims
The panel said buyers could not show they all saw the same Tesla statement before purchase, leaving the false-advertising case pending.
- Yesterday, the San Francisco-based 9th Circuit Court of Appeals vacated an order allowing California customers to pursue class action claims against Tesla, ruling that individual purchase experiences varied too much to sustain a class action lawsuit.
- Plaintiffs contend Tesla misled buyers regarding Full Self-Driving Supervised capabilities, allegedly convincing customers to pay extra for software that does not work. District Judge Rita Lin previously ruled thousands of prospective buyers were likely exposed to these claims.
- A three-judge panel, including Circuit Judges Ronald Gould, Jay Bybee, and Daniel Bress, found too many individualized questions regarding what each buyer saw before purchasing. Consequently, thousands of California buyers cannot currently pursue their claims jointly in a single case.
- Supporting Tesla, the Chamber of Commerce argued the original ruling threatened to increase costs for businesses, while plaintiffs' lawyers stated the panel failed to appreciate the unique circumstances of the marketing campaign.
- While the underlying lawsuit alleging false advertising remains pending, this decision is a procedural win for Tesla; the ruling does not address the merits, so the dispute over technology capabilities continues in court.
Insights by Ground AI
6 Articles
6 Articles
US appeals court blocks class actions over Tesla's self-driving claims
A US appeals court threw out on Friday an order allowing Tesla customers in California to pursue class action claims accusing the electric vehicle maker of misleading them about the capabilities of its full self-driving technology.
·London, United Kingdom
Read Full Article
Coverage Details
Total News Sources6
Leaning Left0Leaning Right1Center4Last UpdatedBias Distribution80% Center
Bias Distribution
- 80% of the sources are Center
80% Center
C 80%
R 20%
Factuality
To view factuality data please Upgrade to Premium
