California DMV accuses Tesla of making untrue and misleading claims about Autopilot and Full Self Driving being Autonomous

[AlTech]

Summary

California's DMV has filed 2 complaints accusing Tesla of making untrue and misleading claims about Tesla's Autopilot and Full Self Driving features.

 

The 2 complaints filed with California's Office Of Administrative Hearings allege that Tesla misrepresented Tesla's Autopilot and Full Self Driving Feature to customers.

 

The complaints also rebuke Tesla and their advertising, saying that at no point have Tesla's cars with the Autopilot or Full Self Driving packages ever been capable of operating as autonomous vehicles; even going so far as to say they still can't operate as autonomous vehicles even now.

 

California's DMV has stated that Tesla's disclaimers are not enough to reverse the allegedly misleading statements made by Tesla's advertising over the years.

 

If Tesla doesn't respond to the California DMV's complaints within 15 Days, the DMV has said it will take action against Tesla. Which could in theory lead to the suspension of Teslas being sold in California.

 

 

Quotes

Quote

Tesla includes Autopilot in all of its vehicles, which comes with features like traffic-aware cruise control and autosteer. Drivers have to pay $12,000 extra for Tesla’s FSD system, an option that adds auto-parking, auto lane changing, the ability for drivers to summon a vehicle from a parking space to where they’re standing, and access to a beta program to test upcoming features. Tesla’s FSD and Autopilot don’t make vehicles fully autonomous, though, and still require drivers to pay attention to the road and keep their hands on the wheel at all times.

 

Quote

“Instead of simply identifying product or brand names, these ‘Autopilot’ and ‘Full Self-Driving Capability’ labels and descriptions represent that vehicles equipped with the ADAS [advanced driver-assistance system] features will operate as an autonomous vehicle, but vehicles equipped with those ADAS features could not at the time of those advertisements, and cannot now, operate as autonomous vehicles,” the DMV claims in the filling. “These advertisements are a deceptive practice.”

 

My thoughts

Tesla should be rebuked for their “Full Self Driving” nonsense, their cars can't do Full Self Driving, so they shouldn't be able to say they do. Autopilot as a term for cars makes sense to me because it's used in aviation, but the public seem to have the wrong ideas about the name Autopilot. Either Tesla should educate their customers and the public that Autopilot means Autopilot and not Full Self Driving, or Tesla should change the product name to something that customers are less confused by.

 

Sources

https://www.theverge.com/2022/8/6/23294658/california-dmv-accuses-tesla-false-claims-autopilot-full-self-driving-autonomous-vehicles

 

Update:

It looks like Tesla has won a lawsuit against them in Germany about Autopilot and FSD being misleading.

 

https://www.notateslaapp.com/news/916/tesla-wins-autopilot-fsd-misleading-marketing-lawsuit-in-germany

[emosun]

very much reminds me of this situation.

[An0maly_76]

Yeah, and we see eMachines wasn't around very long, either. Should have been uMachines, for UGGGGH....

 

As for Tesla's autopilot....

 

Edited August 7, 2022 by An0maly_76
Revised, wrong link

[TetraSky]

Nothing new. I  t's just pure marketing BS from Tesla and frankly false advertising if anything. It's not branding, it's making use of existing words that mean something completely different from the actual product.
While it can do a LOT of things, it just not true self driving as long as you're expected to take the wheel at any point. But a non insignificant number of people take the "branding" at face value and end up endangering everyone on the road.

[Dominik W]

Tesla's are cool, and they do have pretty cool features. It's the misrepresentation and essentially straight up lies are what drive me mad, along with the DMV (what a weird thing to say haha). The Elon Musk fan-groups need to realize that we know that the product is cool and whatnot, it's the blatant lies and misrepresentation are what ruin their image, along with a lack of a PR team, and a CEO that doesn't seem to know how to act professionally.

 

Let's not mention the sometimes absurdly inadequate repair service and the poor quality of cars (somehow "big box" manufacturers know how to do those things).

[wanderingfool2]

The word autopilot I don't have an issue with.  FSD I have a bit of an issue with.  Although they are going after the term autopilot as a name as well which I think is really dumb.  (And the worse cruise was trademarked for automotive by I think Ford...so they couldn't really use that term)  The term autopilot in an airplane where the word originates from doesn't mean the pilot can be hands free or inattentive.

 

I like how the DMV is selectively blind in their example quote though.  The example quote of

Quote

is designed to be able to conduct short and long distance trips with no action required by the person in the driver’s seat

 

While I do think making that kind of statement is not exactly the best, the state of current FSD beta is already at the point that hit matches that definition (as action likely being defined as if the user has to over-ride a cars decision)...but the kicker to the line they quoted.  The line before, so the beginning of the paragraph, it clearly talks about future, not current.

 

For myself if they are trying to say that it is "advertised" and they are quoting snippets of the webpage saying it's misleading, they can't simply ignore the surrounding text that says they are talking about future capabilities.  Like literally the next paragraph as well talks about limitations, and at what points they will progress to unsupervised

 

At the same time, it starts getting into the nitty gritty of what is "advertised".  Super cruise is being advertised as "hands free driving" (you can let go on a highway, but if it hits a curve it likely will alert you to take over).

 

  

15 minutes ago, Dominik W said:

the poor quality of cars (somehow "big box" manufacturers know how to do those things).

The exterior (panel gaps) are bad, they are leading in terms of the most important thing in EV's...the battery and efficiency per mile.  Aside from the early Nvidia MCU issue, I can't recall any other major quality control issues for electronics [vs industry standard]

[Dominik W]

55 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

The exterior (panel gaps) are bad, they are leading in terms of the most important thing in EV's...the battery and efficiency per mile.  Aside from the early Nvidia MCU issue, I can't recall any other major quality control issues for electronics [vs industry standard]

Yeah some things are good, some are not. Though I've heard/seen about other problems as well, such as the software breaking (excluding the "self-driving" part), or other aspects of quality control such as missing interior parts/buttons (obviously before the whole supply chain shortage problem).

But the battery and efficiency are a gold standard, if other EV's can match that, then the whole market will for sure expand.

[wanderingfool2]

4 hours ago, Dominik W said:

Though I've heard/seen about other problems as well, such as the software breaking (excluding the "self-driving" part), or other aspects of quality control such as missing interior parts/buttons (obviously before the whole supply chain shortage problem).

Yea, the issues with the "software" relate back to the MCU that was mentioned, it was fixed a long time ago but the issue is cropping up as more and more cars age.  Although it's interesting to note that nVidia made those MCU's back in the day that eventually had issues [I think the new MCU's were in house could be wrong on that front].

 

The QC is a def. issue, that hopefully changing now that there is less pressure to hit the projected figures.  Prior to that (changed this year), there was an employee pay structure where bonuses were given for hitting the build/delivered quota.  They have just given everyone a raise, and expects a more consistent delivery now.  That I feel heavily biased people, as that I heavily believed as they literally spent sometimes more money just to push the vehicle to the customer to make the quota (which also leads to not doing proper inspections as well).

 

The panel gaps apparently have overall improved in the new Texas facility (they eliminated a bunch of the front/back with castings)...but time will tell on that one.

 

5 hours ago, Dominik W said:

if other EV's can match that, then the whole market will for sure expand.

Yea, if others could match on that it would be great...but they likely won't for quite some time.  Tesla has literally dumps billions into creating the facilities and some of the tech to do it (and literally built the battery plants inside their own plants); batteries are the most costly component current in an EV, and as much as I would love to see competition there doesn't really appear to be much (as Tesla could easily reduce their price to match/beat the competitors and watch the competitors bleed money).

 

 

For this topic though, watch this GMC commercial regarding their "hands free driving"

Under the logic the DMV is applying, the above is also untrue/misleading statements ...if you choose to ignore the disclaimer on compatible roads.

 

Like literally this is what is on the Super Cruise website, tucked away in it's FAQ portion [remember the super cruise talks heavily on hands free usage]
 

Quote

Super Cruise will not brake the vehicle when approaching an intersection that is controlled by a traffic light or stop sign. Super Cruise will not detect vehicles crossing the road ahead, including at intersections, and will not automatically steer or brake to prevent a collision. You must manually brake and steer the vehicle. It is important that you always stay engaged and vigilant at all times while driving.

Quote

No, Super Cruise will not steer to avoid safety situations, objects or road impediments. If equipped with Lane Change on Demand, you are able to prompt the system to change lanes for you. However, Super Cruise will not steer to avoid safety situations. You need to take control to steer around a traffic situation or object, merge into traffic, exit the highway, make a turn, or stop for crossing traffic or a traffic light, stop sign or other traffic control device. Super Cruise does not steer to avoid construction zones.

 

Not saying that things shouldn't be clarified more, but honestly the DMV should also be targeting the other makers.  Like what is better having a feature that is labeled FSD, talking about future capabilities on the site.  Or a system that directly advertises to the general consumers through TV ads it being hands free, and showing it being used in a way that might not actually be legal, and saying it's a first hands free driving (in some commercials)...and yet in their FAQ they literally mention that Super Cruise will not steer/brake to avoid safety situations, like road closures, vehicles crossing, intersections etc.

 

I get this one is going to be very opinion based, but some of the things being advertised on competitors are I'd argue equally as bad.

[BuckGup]

It's just a ticking bomb Tesla made for themselves. Many new cars from big manufactures like GM, Ford, and BMW have autonomous functionality that works similarly to Tesla's but they don't forcefully shove it in your face and call it autopilot, they do have heinous shit like BMW subscription heated seats but that's another discussion.  So the once shining star of autopilot EV stagnated and the competition is silently overlapping them while they continue to struggle

[AnonymousGuy]

On 8/8/2022 at 2:11 AM, wanderingfool2 said:

While I do think making that kind of statement is not exactly the best, the state of current FSD beta is already at the point that hit matches that definition (as action likely being defined as if the user has to over-ride a cars decision)...but the kicker to the line they quoted.  The line before, so the beginning of the paragraph, it clearly talks about future, not current.

I can't speak to the most current FSD beta but as of a few months ago whatever they had released as "FSD" couldn't last 20 minutes without requiring intervention.  I can't rant enough about how it's nothing more than a level 2 cruise control with lane keeping.  It is really quite dumb overall in how it handles defensively driving. 

 

Problem is, they've been selling it as "FSD" for years now and describing it like you can take a nap and wake up at your destination.  Oooops.

Edited August 12, 2022 by Spotty
Keep it respectful

[wanderingfool2]

5 hours ago, BuckGup said:

Many new cars from big manufactures like GM, Ford, and BMW have autonomous functionality that works similarly to Tesla's but they don't forcefully shove it in your face and call it autopilot, they do have heinous shit like BMW subscription heated seats but that's another discussion

I can agree that FSD is bit of a bad naming scheme, but autopilot isn't really.  Autopilot was adopted from aviation to help pilots.  That said, see the GM commercial I posted.  They literally are advertising taking the hands off the wheel for a system that operates at a level that is worse than autopilot (based on the current reviews it's not even able to handle highways with "tighter" corners.

 

There is also the issue about what would you call it.  FSD and autopilot tell roughly what it does.  They wouldn't have been able to call it like advance cruise control or anything with the worse "cruise" in the name, as it's trademarked.

 

52 minutes ago, AnonymousGuy said:

I can't speak to the most current FSD beta but as of a few months ago whatever they had released as "FSD" couldn't last 20 minutes without requiring intervention.

At least from what I've seen of the current beta's it's getting quite good.  Also, a 20 minute drive without intervention is still pretty good (I think the average times are actually lower than 20 min, although at that stage it's good to note disengagements vs intervensions).  There is a guy who does a Robotaxi where he does entire trips with the newest FSD beta's, it's actually a pretty neat metrics showing the progression/regression of it.  The last beta sits at roughly 50% - 65%   successful trips without any disengagements.  It's actually at the point where I think it would if that was the default FSD then I'd be just okay with the name.

 

It still would require human attention, but it's getting a lot closer to needing less attention (and more attention on the road); an issue as well you don't hear about the times autopilot/fsd saves people from crashes.

[dalekphalm]

16 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

They wouldn't have been able to call it like advance cruise control or anything with the worse "cruise" in the name, as it's trademarked.

You keep saying this, but I'm pretty sure Tesla is just about the only Car Manufacturer that doesn't use the word "Cruise" in the name.

 

Examples:

Toyota: Dynamic Radar Cruise Control

https://www.toyota.ca/toyota/en/connect/407/what-are-the-benefits-of-dynamic-radar-cruise-control

 

GM: Adaptive Cruise Control

https://my.gm.ca/gmc/en/how-to-support/driving-performance/driving/adaptive-cruise-control

(BTW it was GM who trademarked the word, not Ford. Ford was the one to request that the trademark be thrown out)

 

Chrysler: Adaptive Cruise Control

https://www.rt18cjdr.com/blog/2015/july/8/chrysler-adaptive-cruise-control-with-stop-go.htm

 

Ford: Adaptive Cruise Control

https://www.ford.com/technology/driver-assist-technology/adaptive-cruise-control/

 

Kia: Smart Cruise Control

https://www.kia.ca/en/owners/kia-ownership/owner-resources/smart-cruise-control

 

I could go on. Now, maybe all of these people are paying GM to use the word "Cruise", maybe not. But clearly manufacturers have some method of using the word Cruise, when referring to Cruise Control.

 

FYI, I do agree with you that the name "Autopilot" (Tesla's advanced cruise control) is perfectly fine, and does not mislead anyone who isn't an idiot. The aviation argument, imo, is a slam dunk for this one.

 

One might argue the FSD name, because it currently cannot do FSD - I have no idea how valid the "It's a beta!" argument is here. If Tesla was forced to rename FSD to something more descriptive, I wouldn't be upset about that.

[Arika]

I don't know how people could trust any car that is "self driving". It's always been a feature that confused me

[dalekphalm]

Just now, Arika S said:

I don't know how people could trust any car that is "self driving". It's always been a feature that confused me

With current technology? I would trust one in a "I'm watching the system and the road but this is cool" kind of way, but I wouldn't trust it to cover all eventualities and scenarios. I wouldn't have a nap or otherwise ignore the road.

 

In the future? Frankly it's just a matter of time before a true Level 5 autonomous driving experience is possible. (Level 5 is the top level of autonomous driving, and would cover what most people would think of when seeing the words "Self Driving" - currently no vehicle has achieved level 5).

[wanderingfool2]

47 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

You keep saying this, but I'm pretty sure Tesla is just about the only Car Manufacturer that doesn't use the word "Cruise" in the name.

GM officially got the trademark back in 2013.  Prior makers could use cruise control, but variations on the name can get them into trouble.    There is also the back room deals that can occur.  Remember back when Tesla began creating things like autopilot, they didn't exactly have the cashflow needed to get a multimillion dollar lawsuit against them.  Trademarks get tricky, and the fact that other established car manufacturers used them doesn't mean that they would allow a company that is making ripples use them.  They get to use the actual world cruise control, but at that point it pretty much stops.

 

Even in 2021 Ford was sued by GM for GM using the name Blue Cruise for their autonomous driving [https://www.detroitnews.com/story/business/autos/2021/10/03/ford-gm-settle-lawsuit-over-bluecruise-name/5985580001/ ] It was settled, so ultimately the trademark wasn't invalidated...but it does bring me back to my point.  In 2013, the time when autopilot would be introduced was when Ford had trademarked cruise...and at that stage Tesla wasn't exactly the most financially secure...iirc that was the year that they were within a few weeks of completely running out of cash, they wouldn't want to have a lawsuit with a company that at the time had so much more funds and would like to use that to kill a competitor.

 

54 minutes ago, Arika S said:

I don't know how people could trust any car that is "self driving". It's always been a feature that confused me

I don't think anyone trust a vehicle that is 100% autonomous.  I know quite a bit of people though that I would feel more comfortable if they were driving in a vehicle that could also do a lot of the driving for them.  It's a double edge sword really though.  People like to think of themselves as a really good driver, but all it takes is that split second or the one time you forget to check you blind spots.  There are people who are "good" drivers  based on their record but don't check their blind spots properly...while they might have avoided accidents it's all about probability.  Just like how every day you see someone who clearly accidentally ran a red (lets say at a bad intersection where it gets super confusing).  That's where "self driving" can really have an impact...also in crash safety.  e.g. Tesla is using the vision system to detect milliseconds before a crash is going to happen.  They pretension the seat belts (it is either in an upcoming update or already release I can't remember). 

 

So the way I look at it, it's better to have a self driving where you are still forced to be paying attention...but the majority of the tasks are lifted from you, so you can be more attentive to the road infront of you

 

It is a double edged sword though, in that it gets to the point where it's so good in areas that people will start doing things like looking at their phones etc...but then it starts getting to the statistics [but even at that point there will be critics, even if a self driving car drives 10x better than a human you will get people who point to the one crash as an example of how evil it is]

[Isuck Assimov]

...i mean they are pretty autonomous in murdering innocent civilians.

[Senzelian]

Imagine they would find a better name, do any of you actually think that the kind of person that takes their hands off the wheel and let their car drive would stop doing that because of a name change? Or that they wouldn't do it in the first place? 

 

You might aswell try to stop a bank robber with a STOP sign. 

[Heliian]

On 8/7/2022 at 6:53 PM, wanderingfool2 said:

competition there doesn't really appear to be much (as Tesla could easily reduce their price to match/beat the competitors and watch the competitors bleed money).

Well,  other manufacturers are appearing now.   Tesla is the one who'll have to be careful.   Hyundais egmp is taking off,  Ford is selling 2 EVs right now,  including a truck.   Volvo,  Subaru,  Toyota,  Volkswagen all have ev offerings.  Then there's lucid,  rivian and polestar.  GM is getting in on the action too.  Most are already priced better than Tesla AND most have local dealerships that can handle repairs and whatnot.  

In fact,  with all of that competition,  Tesla will have to keep up in pricing so they don't start to bleed money.  

[wanderingfool2]

9 minutes ago, Heliian said:

Well,  other manufacturers are appearing now.   Tesla is the one who'll have to be careful.   Hyundais egmp is taking off,  Ford is selling 2 EVs right now,  including a truck.   Volvo,  Subaru,  Toyota,  Volkswagen all have ev offerings.  Then there's lucid,  rivian and polestar.  GM is getting in on the action too.  Most are already priced better than Tesla AND most have local dealerships that can handle repairs and whatnot.  

In fact,  with all of that competition,  Tesla will have to keep up in pricing so they don't start to bleed money.  

Rivian is selling the vehicles at a huge loss, with no sign of profitability.  Even Tesla at it's peak when they were trying to get the Model 3 out, when they almost ran out of cash, didn't have as high of a burn rate as Rivian currently has (3 billion in cash over the last 6 months).  For every vehicle sold they are paying about 2.9 times the cost to build [excludes operating expenses]  For perspective, even at the worst times Tesla was making a "profit" from the vehicles [excluding operating expenses].  So not much hopes for Rivian to survive.  Similar tale with Lucid, and Lucid has already had to scale back some of their estimates.

 

Ford has announced that the Mach-E at it's pricing isn't profitable anymore, and I suspect they are going to take a bath on the current recall...when they finally come up with a fix.  1 in 175 Mach-E's sold since 2020 have already had the high voltage connector fuse (thus needing a warranty repair).  They still don't have a hardware fix yet.  Lightning, will see in a year or two if it actually is profitable...or if they are taking less margins than the ICE trucks.

 

GM, admitted that they lose money on the Bolt.  It's effectively subsidized by selling the ICE vehicles.

 

GM, Ford and Rivian are all subject to changes by their battery supplier effectively.

 

Hyundai, actually from what I know is one of the few competitors to Tesla

 

Tesla closed creating new orders because the wait times to get a Tesla are so high...there isn't really a lack of customers at it's current higher price.  I believe it was a shareholder meeting they mentioned that there isn't a need to lower the prices (thus margins) yet because if they are selling out there isn't a point to do it as it allows them to pump the extra money into scaling.  There is also the concept that Tesla adjusted the pricing so that they are adjusting for the price increases in raw material for when they sell them.  I've mentioned it in other threads before, but Hyundai is the only real competitor that I see competing properly with Tesla.

 

Which sort of brings me back to what I said before, Tesla could reduce their margins and pretty much slaughter the majority of the competition if they chose to...but that wouldn't be good overall.

[Heliian]

On 8/7/2022 at 11:06 AM, AluminiumTech said:

untrue and misleading claims

Reminds me of Elizabeth Holmes with all the claims.

[Jito463]

Personally, I don't now - and likely never will - trust any autonomous driving system  I prefer to be in control of my vehicle.  That said, I also don't trust the California government/bureaucracy.  It strikes me that they might be a bit miffed about Tesla leaving the state, especially given where they moved to, and that this could (potentially) be politically motivated.

[Sauron]

I mean yeah it's pretty cut and dry, they call it full self driving when it's literally not full self driving.

On 8/9/2022 at 12:00 AM, dalekphalm said:

With current technology? I would trust one in a "I'm watching the system and the road but this is cool" kind of way, but I wouldn't trust it to cover all eventualities and scenarios. I wouldn't have a nap or otherwise ignore the road.

I don't know if I could trust myself not getting distracted if I wasn't the one actively driving.

On 8/9/2022 at 12:00 AM, dalekphalm said:

In the future? Frankly it's just a matter of time before a true Level 5 autonomous driving experience is possible.

I do wonder about that - you can definitely get pretty close to that and I think with extensive road scanning and mapping you might even get to a point where in most scenarios the car is completely autonomous, however ironing out the last few edge cases might take decades if it even is possible.

 

Personally I'd be content if I could let the car drive on the highway without having to pay any attention and I think that's achievable with current tech, iirc mercedes allows that on some parts of the autobahn.

On 8/16/2022 at 4:03 PM, Senzelian said:

Imagine they would find a better name, do any of you actually think that the kind of person that takes their hands off the wheel and let their car drive would stop doing that because of a name change? Or that they wouldn't do it in the first place? 

 

You might aswell try to stop a bank robber with a STOP sign. 

It's about what the customer expects when buying the feature, not about what they do once they get it.

[Senzelian]

59 minutes ago, Sauron said:

It's about what the customer expects when buying the feature, not about what they do once they get it.

how does that solve any actual problem?

[Sauron]

33 minutes ago, Senzelian said:

how does that solve any actual problem?

What, knowing exactly what you're about to spend 12k on before you spend them? I'd say that solves quite a few problems for your wallet. That's the whole reason false advertising is illegal. Otherwise why not just lie on every advertisement?

[Senzelian]

40 minutes ago, Sauron said:

What, knowing exactly what you're about to spend 12k on before you spend them? I'd say that solves quite a few problems for your wallet.

Each and every single customer knows that. Please don't tell me you'd run into a Tesla dealership and drive off with your hands off the steering wheel and your eyes closed, because it's called "full self driving".

 

42 minutes ago, Sauron said:

That's the whole reason false advertising is illegal. Otherwise why not just lie on every advertisement?

I guess I shouldn't have to tell you this, but a lot of companies get away with false or misleading advertisements.

 

It's like that quote from Far Cry 3 that people like to mention all the time:
"Did I ever tell you what the definition of insanity is? Insanity is doing the exact... same fucking thing... over and over again expecting... shit to change..."