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…

  • fresh@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s not right though. Tesla was uniquely inaccurate. This Ars Technica article I read a few days ago goes into more detail. No other manufacturer has such inaccurate range estimates. In fact, most exceed their estimates.

    • hddsx@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Certain manufacturers may have standard operating practices of keeping the AC running, or how close to the trace line they drive — there is a tolerance for some error.

      If Tesla STICKER ranges are unrealistic, they are likely abusing the general EPA phrasing of “using good engineering judgment” that usually accompanies emissions legislation to push their ranges higher.

      The other part of the ars technica concerns the actual estimates when driving the car. Above 50%, they are not providing accurate estimates.

      Given recent events at the company formerly known as Twitter, though, do you really expect different from Musk?

      • fresh@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • hddsx@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          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@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            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.