Tesla will have to defend itself in a California courtroom after a U.S. District Judge ruled that a class action lawsuit can move forward against the automaker. The case centers on allegations that CEO Elon Musk and the company misled customers for nearly eight years about the true capabilities of Tesla’s Full Self-Driving (FSD) package.
In a decision issued this week, Judge Rita Lin of the Northern District of California said there were sufficient grounds for California drivers to pursue a collective case. At issue are statements made between October 2016 and August 2024, where Tesla repeatedly asserted that its vehicles were equipped with hardware capable of achieving full autonomy.
These assurances appeared on Tesla’s website under its “Autopilot” section, in blog posts and newsletters, and during quarterly earnings calls. Musk also reinforced the claims at an October 2016 press conference. Judge Lin noted that Tesla’s direct-to-consumer sales model and absence of traditional advertising made it reasonable to assume most potential buyers saw these claims while researching FSD. (via Reuters)
The lawsuit alleges that, despite these promises, Tesla lacked the necessary sensors to deliver advanced autonomous driving and never successfully demonstrated a long-distance self-driving trip. According to the judge, these common issues make it appropriate for the claims to be heard collectively rather than as separate lawsuits.
Two groups of Tesla drivers are covered under the certified class action. The first includes customers who purchased FSD between May 2017 and July 2024 but opted out of Tesla’s arbitration agreement. The second covers earlier buyers who purchased the package between October 2016 and May 2017.
However, Judge Lin declined to include customers who purchased Tesla’s Enhanced Autopilot package, ruling that this option did not specifically guarantee FSD functionality.
Tesla has denied wrongdoing, arguing that it has always disclosed that FSD depends on validation and regulatory approval. However, the court found that these disclaimers did not outweigh the company’s repeated claims that all post-2016 vehicles contained the hardware necessary for full autonomy.
