Tesla se enfrenta a una demanda por fraude en relación con la conducción autónoma

Una reciente sentencia ha impulsado Tesla en el punto de mira de la justicia al determinar un juez federal que la empresa debe hacer frente a una demanda por supuestas afirmaciones fraudulentas sobre sus capacidades de autoconducción. El caso, presentado por California residente Thomas LoSavio, se centra en las declaraciones de Tesla y su CEO, Elon Musksugiriendo que sus coches podrían alcanzar la plena autonomía, informa ARS Técnica.

La pista

Thomas LoSavio’s lawsuit asserts that Tesla misled consumers by overstating the self-driving features of its vehicles. This case will proceed in court following a decision by US District Judge Rita Lin. While some claims were dismissed, the fraud allegations remain intact.

Antecedentes y alegaciones

Las reclamaciones

En octubre de 2016, Tesla y Elon Musk afirmaron que todos los vehículos Tesla fabricados a partir de ese momento contarían con el hardware necesario para conducción autónoma total capacidades. Unos meses más tarde, LoSavio compró un Tesla 2017 Modelo SEl Sr. Kollegin, influido por estas garantías, creía que el vehículo cruzaría por sí solo la frontera. Creía que el vehículo acabaría conduciéndose por sí solo a través de la país.

LoSavio’s lawsuit highlights two primary misrepresentations:

1. Tesla’s claim that their cars already had the hardware for full self-driving.
2. La afirmación de que un vehículo Tesla sería capaz de conducirse a campo traviesa en un año.

These representations were critical in LoSavio’s decision to buy the Model S, equipped with “Enhanced Piloto automático" y "Capacidad total de conducción autónoma".

El viaje jurídico

Initially, Tesla scored a partial victory when another judge enforced the company’s arbitration agreement, pushing four plaintiffs into arbitration. However, LoSavio had opted out of this agreement, enabling him to pursue his amended complaint in court. This complaint now seeks class-action status to include other Tesla owners who felt deceived by the company’s self-driving promises.

Sentencia del Tribunal e implicaciones

Judge Rita Lin found LoSavio’s allegations sufficiently detailed to proceed with the fraud claims. The court noted the plausible detail in LoSavio’s claim that Tesla engaged in a long-term pattern of fraudulent misrepresentation.

Puntos clave de la sentencia

1. Reclamaciones de hardware: The lawsuit alleges that Tesla’s cars did not possess the necessary hardware for full self-driving, contrary to their statements. Instead, the vehicles only achieved SAE Level 2, requiring constant human supervision.
2. Futuras promesas: Musk’s bold assertion that a Tesla could drive from Los Angeles to Nueva York without human intervention by the end of 2017 was another point of contention. This promise has yet to be realized, casting doubt on the company’s claims.
3. Confianza del consumidor: El tribunal consideró que LoSavio confió razonablemente en estas declaraciones al comprar su Tesla, lo que pone de relieve el impacto potencial en la confianza de los consumidores.

As the lawsuit moves forward, it brings into question the veracity of Tesla’s self-driving claims and the broader implications for consumer rights in the era of advanced vehicle technology. With Tesla’s self-driving promises under legal scrutiny, this case could set a significant precedent for how tech companies communicate their capabilities to the public.

Tesla’s journey toward achieving full autonomy remains a work in progress, and this lawsuit underscores the importance of transparency and accuracy in corporate communications. The outcome will be closely watched by both the automotive industry and consumers eager for the self-driving future.