What a time to be alive, as Tesla lawyers failed to convince a judge that their phrase Full Self Driving means nothing yet everything at the same time:
The name is a misnomer — FSD requires constant supervision and doesn’t render vehicles autonomous…
Tesla’s lawyers contended that marketing its vehicles as having full self-driving “capabilities” is not an assertion that the cars are currently fully autonomous, but rather a statement that they will be capable of driving themselves in the future after software updates. […]
[The judge] sided with the DMV’s lawyer, Greg Call, who argued that the case shouldn’t be thrown out before the DMV has had a chance to introduce its evidence at a hearing later this year.
Tesla didn’t show that the California DMV “necessarily will be unable to present any relevant evidence”…
For one rather obvious point, the car company lawyers bizarrely failed to admit that it is always called FSD by everyone all the time, and never FSD-C.
There’s no C, ever, in any mentions anywhere.
Capability for FSD? Who says that and what voice do they have compared to the CEO always saying FSD is so amazing it’s totally like here now.
Tesla may as well have argued that FSD really is a Tesla statement meaning their customers get Not FSD (NFSD) when they pay for FSD, because customers love NFSD so much they believe it’s the same value as FSD.
It’s the amazingly convincing glass is completely empty argument for doing business, if you will. Also known as fraud.
Oh did you just pay for a beer? Here’s an empty glass with the capability to have beer. A beer to be delivered someday maybe many years from now, because you paid for beer but all you get for now is the glass completely empty. No false ad for beer here, look away, carry on. Thanks for the money though in advance. It’s the same thing right?
P.T. Barnum is rolling in his grave.
In related news, Tesla “hardcore” lawyers lost their motion to dismiss DMV Enforcement Actions, which could mean the loss of their manufacturing and sales licenses in California.