Tesla scores Autopilot victory as judge rules owners must use arbitration
Adds comment from plaintiffs' lawyer Andrew Kirtley in paragraphs 6-7
By Daniel Wiessner
Oct 2 (Reuters) -In a victory for Tesla TSLA.O, a judge has ruled that a group of vehicle owners must pursue claims that the company misled about its Autopilot features in individual arbitration rather than court.
The ruling means Tesla will not have to face class action claims on behalf of much larger groups of vehicle owners.
U.S. District Judge Haywood Gilliam in Oakland, California, in a decision issued on Saturday said four Tesla owners who filed a proposed class action last year had agreed to arbitrate any legal claims against the company when they accepted its terms and conditions while purchasing vehicles through a Tesla website.
A fifth plaintiff who did not sign an arbitration agreement waited too long to sue, Gilliam ruled in dismissing that plaintiffs' claims.
Tesla did not respond to requests for comment on Monday.
Andrew Kirtley, a lawyer for some of the plaintiffs, said he was prepared to file thousands of individual arbitration cases on behalf of Tesla customers.
"It is telling that Tesla doesn’t want to defend its marketing practices in public in open court but instead has fought to get as many of these claims as possible sent to private arbitration," Kirtley said in an email.
The lawsuit accuses Tesla of repeatedly making false statements indicating that its advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS) technology was on the verge of delivering fully self-driving vehicles.
The plaintiffs all said that they paid thousands of dollars to purchase the optional ADAS technology when they bought Tesla cars between 2017 and 2022.
But instead of delivering on its promises, Tesla's technology has been unreliable and has led to accidents, injuries and deaths, the plaintiffs claimed.
Tesla has denied wrongdoing. The company moved to send the claims to arbitration, citing the plaintiffs' acceptance of the arbitration agreement.
Gilliam on Saturday rejected claims by the plaintiffs that the agreements signed by four of the plaintiffs were unenforceable.
The decision came in the midst of the first U.S. trial over allegations that Tesla's Autopilot feature led to a death because it was based on untested experimental technology that should not have been sold to the public.
The plaintiffs in that trial in California state court allege the Autopilot system caused a Model 3 to veer off a highway near Los Angeles at 65 mph (105 kph), strike a palm tree and burst into flames, killing the owner and injuring two passengers.
Tesla has said the accident was the result of driver error.
In Tesla trial over Autopilot fatality, lawyer cites 'experimental vehicles' nL1N3B42FH
FACTBOX-Tesla's Autopilot faces unprecedented scrutiny nL4N31V01U
Reporting by Daniel Wiessner in Albany, New York; Editing by Alexia Garamfalvi and Deepa Babington
Related Assets
Latest News
Disclaimer: The XM Group entities provide execution-only service and access to our Online Trading Facility, permitting a person to view and/or use the content available on or via the website, is not intended to change or expand on this, nor does it change or expand on this. Such access and use are always subject to: (i) Terms and Conditions; (ii) Risk Warnings; and (iii) Full Disclaimer. Such content is therefore provided as no more than general information. Particularly, please be aware that the contents of our Online Trading Facility are neither a solicitation, nor an offer to enter any transactions on the financial markets. Trading on any financial market involves a significant level of risk to your capital.
All material published on our Online Trading Facility is intended for educational/informational purposes only, and does not contain – nor should it be considered as containing – financial, investment tax or trading advice and recommendations; or a record of our trading prices; or an offer of, or solicitation for, a transaction in any financial instruments; or unsolicited financial promotions to you.
Any third-party content, as well as content prepared by XM, such as: opinions, news, research, analyses, prices and other information or links to third-party sites contained on this website are provided on an “as-is” basis, as general market commentary, and do not constitute investment advice. To the extent that any content is construed as investment research, you must note and accept that the content was not intended to and has not been prepared in accordance with legal requirements designed to promote the independence of investment research and as such, it would be considered as marketing communication under the relevant laws and regulations. Please ensure that you have read and understood our Notification on Non-Independent Investment. Research and Risk Warning concerning the foregoing information, which can be accessed here.
