Tesla hit by class action sueball over autopilot software updates

Claimants say features not included, updates were dangerous

By Gareth Corfield

Posted in Internet of Things, 20th April 2017 14:08 GMT

A class-action lawsuit has been launched against Tesla on the basis that updates to its cars' autopilots are "vapourware."

The three sample claimants say that they all paid for a variety of extra features and updates to their Tesla Model S cars, including updates to version 2 of the Enhanced Autopilot, AP2.0, at $5,000 each.

Other paid-for features they say did not work or were not bundled with their new cars include automatic emergency braking and side collision warnings.

Over-the-air updates were either not delivered, they claim, or degraded performance of their cars' autopilots compared to the original version. It is said that 50,000 Model S cars are affected by the disputed updates.

"Rather than deliver safe and advanced autopilot features, Tesla has delivered software that causes vehicles to behave erratically... The Enhanced Autopilot Features are simply too dangerous to be used, and are therefore, completely useless notwithstanding the $5,000 premium that Dean paid for Enhanced Autopilot," says their claim, filed in California on Thursday.

Tesla's website boasts that its Model S is "designed from the ground up to be the safest, most exhilarating sedan on the road", as quoted in the complaint.

The three complainants – Dean Sheikh of Denver, Colorado; John Kelner of Davie, Florida; and Tim Milone of Jackson, New Jersey – allege that Tesla has broken a number of US state laws, including consumer prosecution laws, "unjust enrichment" laws in Florida, and fraud by concealment.

They want a court injunction against Tesla stopping it from "continuing the unlawful, deceptive, fraudulent and unfair business practices alleged in this complaint" and a mandatory buyback of affected Model S cars – plus the inevitable lawyers' fees and damages on top of that.

Tesla has yet to file a response to the suit, number 5:17-cv-02193-NC in the US District Court for Northern California. ®

Sign up to our NewsletterGet IT in your inbox daily

23 Comments

More from The Register

Google's cell network Project Fi charged me for using Wi-Fi – lawsuit

Ad giant billed subscribers for Wi-Fi data, punters claim

Congressional group asks FBI boss Wray to explain Apple lawsuit

How dark can crims really go?

Women reboot gender discrimination lawsuit against Google

Chocolate Factory hit with ex-Googlers' revised pay-gap complaint

You get a lawsuit! And you get a lawsuit! And you! Now Apple sued over CPU security flaws

iGiant up next in the Meltdown-Spectre-sueball-a-palooza

Basket case lawsuit: Fancy fruit florists flail Google over rotten ads, demand $200m damages

Search results serve our rivals, not our produce, biz complains

HP coughs up $6.5m to make dodgy laptop display lawsuit go away

Pavillion notebook screen died back in 2003? There might be a small check for you

Who's that at Ring's door? Why, it's Skybell with a begging cup, er, patent rip-off lawsuit

Smart home gizmo maker could do with a few extra bucks

Apple's 'shoddy' Beats headphones get slammed in lawsuit

Claims of sweat resistance and durability are lies, litigious customers contend

Uber hack coverup: Your next US state lawsuit arrives in four minutes

Illinois, Washington sue 'reckless' transit upstart

SpaceX settles $3.9m shift pattern class action lawsuit

Workers couldn't take their legally mandated breaks