In an era where corporate responsibility should be paramount, the recent revelation that Tesla planned to use arbitration agreements to shield itself from lawsuits stemming from intentionally dangerous defects is nothing short of a disgrace. Such actions demonstrate a disturbing willful disregard for public safety, and they should be met with swift and decisive consequences.
Tesla has managed to weasel its way out of a class-action lawsuit over its Full Self-Driving claims because it argued that customers have agreed to take any issue to arbitration in their contracts. The situation around Tesla selling its “Full Self-Driving Capability” (FSD) package before actually having figured out self-driving technology would inevitably lead to legal action. After years of Tesla saying that its self-driving technology was right around the corner and not delivering on it, a group of Tesla owners who paid up to $15,000 for the package finally decided to take Tesla to court in California over the issue last year. The proposed class-action lawsuit was expected to create an important precedent for Tesla and potential consequence for its failure to deliver on its self-driving promises. However, Tesla has managed to avoid the class action altogether by using the controversial tactic of forced arbitration.
When a car manufacturer deliberately conceals or ignores fatal defects in its products, it not only puts the lives of its customers at risk but also betrays the trust placed in any new vehicle on the road. It especially betrays trust in “driverless” when that car manufacturer has been exposed for dangerous fraud. This breach of trust goes beyond mere negligence; it is a calculated decision to prioritize profits over human lives.
Arbitration agreements, in this context, become a convenient tool for these companies to evade the justice system. By compelling customers to sign away their right to sue in court, these manufacturers effectively stifle the public’s ability to hold them accountable for their actions. This is a grave injustice, one that should not be tolerated in any society that values safety and accountability.
Tesla clauses that violate public policy should be thrown out by the courts. For example, if their arbitration agreement required parties to waive a right to bring legal claims that are considered fundamental rights or if it prevents individuals from pursuing certain statutory rights, they should be invalidated. Public policy generally should favor access to the legal system for victims of Tesla, since we’re talking about intentional misconduct or harm.
It is essential to recognize that intentional defects are not accidents; they are premeditated actions that knowingly imperil lives. Tesla allegedly cut corners, ignored safety protocols, and covered up defects to maximize profits, and it would seem obvious they should face consequences commensurate with their actions. Arbitration doesn’t fit the crimes. Mounting evidence has come forward that Tesla created defective cars with the knowledge that it could result in harm or death, which must weigh against enforcing an arbitration clause.
One of the reasons public policy frowns on arbitration is because American companies have been known to grossly corrupt the arbitration process.
…one of the largest arbitration service providers agreed to get out of the business of consumer arbitration. The National Arbitration Forum settled a case brought by the state of Minnesota, which detailed the company’s ties to debt collection firms. …National Arbitration Forum held itself out as neutral and independent and operating like an impartial court system, but it wasn’t impartial at all.
Tesla also could run into “unconscionable” violations that invalidate its arbitration, given the procedural nightmare it cooked into contracts to prevent customers from opting out.
The contract does include the ability for buyers to opt out of the arbitration clause if they send Tesla a letter saying as much within the first month of having bought the car. But the directions for opting out of the arbitration clause are buried in the fine print and most people aren’t aware they have that option.
Other car companies use arbitration less because they don’t use direct contract terms to restrict customer rights like Tesla does. Tesla in fact is known to press arbitration into every aspect of their business, including trying to censor all complaints of sexual harassment and racism.
When Tesla tried to defend and perpetuate racism through arbitration, courts already struck it down based on the concept of a simple public benefit.
Under Civil Code section 3513, parties cannot write a contract which contravenes a law that exists for the public good. Therefore, the court held the FAA does not preempt California law on public injunctions… As a threshold matter, the court found that FEHA authorizes public injunctions: a public injunction under FEHA would benefit the general public, and FEHA’s purpose in prohibiting racial discrimination and harassment inures to the benefit of the public at large. “An injunction against further employment discrimination by Defendant [Tesla] would inure to the benefit of not only current Tesla employees, but to the benefit of their families and their communities, as well as to the benefit of future Tesla applicants and employees.” Therefore, the court concluded, FEHA provides relief in the form of public injunctions against employers such as Tesla, and an aggrieved person has non-waivable standing to seek such an injunction.
In other words an important public concern should be brought to court where it benefits the public good, to prevent vital speech being censored by Tesla. All those being killed by Tesla’s defective designs and gross conspiracy to undermine reporting, given “driverless” has been proven little more than an advanced fee fraud scam, make it more demonstrably harmful to society than even Tesla’s rampant sexism and racism. Since courts already have rejected arbitration in other harmful areas, it only makes sense that courts also deny Tesla’s arbitration and protect the public from manslaughtering “Full Self-Driving”.
Striking down Tesla, if proven guilty of its many intentional defects, is not only justifiable but necessary to send a strong message that corporate recklessness and fraud will not be tolerated. This would serve as a deterrent for other companies, reminding them that they cannot put mere profits ahead of human safety without facing severe repercussions.
Moreover, regulatory bodies and legislators must step up their efforts to protect consumers from such unscrupulous practices. Stricter regulations, harsh penalties, and increased transparency are essential tools in preventing and addressing intentional defects within the automotive industry.
In conclusion, a car company that intentionally places the lives of its customers in jeopardy and then uses arbitration agreements to avoid accountability should not be allowed to operate with impunity. Justice demands that we hold such companies responsible for their actions and take measures to ensure the safety and well-being of consumers come before corporate profits.
