throbber
Case 3:22-cv-05264-AGT Document 1 Filed 09/15/22 Page 1 of 74
`
`
`
`BOTTINI & BOTTINI, INC.
`Francis A. Bottini, Jr. (SBN 175783)
` fbottini@bottinilaw.com
`Nicholaus H. Woltering (SBN 337193)
` nwoltering@bottinilaw.com
`7817 Ivanhoe Avenue, Suite 102
`La Jolla, CA 92037
`Telephone: (858) 914-2001
`Facsimile: (858) 914-2002
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff and the
`Proposed Class
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`DOMINICK BATTIATO, on behalf of himself
`and all others similarly situated,
`
`Case No. _________________
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`TESLA, INC., dba TESLA MOTORS, INC.;
`TESLA LEASE TRUST; and
`TESLA FINANCE LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`1. VIOLATION OF THE CALIFORNIA
`UNFAIR COMPETITION LAW
`
`2. VIOLATION OF THE CALIFORNIA
`FALSE ADVERTISING LAW
`
`3. VIOLATION OF THE CALIFORNIA
`CONSUMERS LEGAL REMEDIES ACT
`
`4. VIOLATION OF THE MAGNUSON-
`MOSS WARRANTY ACT
`
`5. BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY
`
`6. BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTIES
`
`7. FRAUD AND DECEIT
`
`8. NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION
`
`9. UNJUST ENRICHMENT
`
`10. NEGLIGENCE
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-05264-AGT Document 1 Filed 09/15/22 Page 2 of 74
`
`
`
`I. 
`
`II. 
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 1 
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE .................................................................................................... 4 
`
`III.  PARTIES ....................................................................................................................................... 5 
`A. 
`Plaintiff ............................................................................................................................. 5 
`B. 
`Defendants ........................................................................................................................ 5 
`
`IV.  FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS ........................................................................................................ 6 
`
`V.  CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS ............................................................................................ 24 
`
`VI.  CLAIMS FOR RELIEF ............................................................................................................... 28 
`FIRST CLAIM 
`Violation of the California Unfair Competition Law 
`Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq. ................................................................................... 28 
`SECOND CLAIM 
`Violation of the California False Advertising Law 
`Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500, et seq. ................................................................................... 32 
`THIRD CLAIM 
`Violation of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act 
`Cal. Civ. Code § 1750, et seq. .................................................................................................. 33 
`FOURTH CLAIM 
`Violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act 
`15 U.S.C. § 2301, et seq. .......................................................................................................... 35 
`FIFTH CLAIM 
`Breach of Express Warranty 
`Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1791.2(a), 1794 ........................................................................................... 37 
`SIXTH CLAIM 
`Breach of Implied Warranties 
`Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1791.1, 1792, 1794 ...................................................................................... 39 
`SEVENTH CLAIM 
`Fraud and Deceit ....................................................................................................................... 41 
`EIGHTH CLAIM 
`Negligent Misrepresentation ..................................................................................................... 43 
`NINTH CLAIM 
`Unjust Enrichment .................................................................................................................... 43 
`TENTH CLAIM 
`Negligence ................................................................................................................................ 44 
`
`VII.  PRAYER FOR RELIEF .............................................................................................................. 45 
`
`VIII. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL ................................................................................................... 45 
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-05264-AGT Document 1 Filed 09/15/22 Page 3 of 74
`
`
`
`Plaintiff Dominick Battiato, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
`(i.e., the members of the Class described and defined within this Complaint), brings this class action
`complaint against Defendants Tesla, Inc., dba Tesla Motors, Inc., Tesla Lease Trust, and Tesla Finance
`LLC (collectively, “Defendants” or “Tesla”), and alleges as follows:
`I.
`INTRODUCTION
`1.
`This consumer class action arises out of Tesla’s misleading and deceptive statements
`regarding its advanced driver assistance systems (“ADAS”) technology. Tesla’s ADAS technology is
`deceptively and misleadingly marketed as autonomous driving technology under various names,
`including “Autopilot,” “Enhanced Autopilot,” and “Full Self-Driving Capability” (“FSD”). Tesla
`deceived and misled consumers regarding the abilities of its ADAS technology and by representing
`that it was perpetually on the cusp of perfecting that technology and finally producing a fully self-
`driving car.
`2.
`Tesla has known for years that its statements regarding its ADAS technology were
`deceptive and misleading, but the company made them anyway. Tesla did so to generate excitement
`and interest in the company’s vehicles and thereby improve its financial condition by, among other
`things, attracting investment, increasing sales, avoiding bankruptcy, driving up Tesla’s stock price,
`and helping to establish Tesla as a dominant player in the electric vehicle market.
`3.
`For example, in 2016 Elon Musk tweeted a bold prediction—that a Tesla vehicle
`would complete a fully self-driving trip across the United States by “next year.” Later in 2016, Tesla
`announced on its official blog that “All Tesla Cars Being Produced Now Have Full Self-Driving
`Hardware.” The blog post included the misleading October 2016 video of a Tesla car purportedly
`driving itself without incident, and suggested that Tesla was on the cusp of bringing to market cars
`that would be fully “self-driving” and have “full autonomy.”1 When Tesla and Musk made these
`statements, they knew there was no reasonable chance of Tesla being able to meet those promises.
`
`
`1 See The Tesla Team, “All Tesla Cars Being Produced Now Have Full Self-Driving Hardware,”
`https://www.tesla.com/blog/all-tesla-cars-being-produced-now-have-full-selfdriving-hardware (Oct.
`19, 2016).
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`1
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-05264-AGT Document 1 Filed 09/15/22 Page 4 of 74
`
`
`
`4.
`From approximately 2017 to 2019, Tesla’s website describing its “Full Self-Driving
`Capability” technology represented that consumers who purchased or leased cars with the FSD
`version of its ADAS technology would receive cars capable of “full self-driving in almost all
`circumstances,” including being able to “conduct short and long distance trips with no action required
`by the person in the driver’s seat” and with a “probability of safety at least twice as good as the
`average human driver.” On the same webpage, Tesla went on to state:
`
`
`All you will need to do is get in and tell your car where to go. If you don’t
`say anything, the car will look at your calendar and take you there as the
`assumed destination or just home if nothing is on the calendar. Your Tesla
`will figure out the optimal route, navigate urban streets (even without lane
`markings), manage complex intersections with traffic lights, stop signs
`and roundabouts, and handle densely packed freeways with cars moving
`at high speed.
`
`5.
`Indeed, in every year since 2016, Tesla has repeatedly made deceptive and misleading
`statements to consumers indicating that a fully self-driving, fully autonomous Tesla vehicle was just
`around the corner, often expressly stating that would occur by the end of that calendar year or within
`the “next year.”2 For example, in May 2019, after years of failing to deliver on prior promises, Musk
`again promised consumers that a fully self-driving Tesla car would be available by the end of that
`year, tweeting that “everyone with Tesla Full Self-Driving will be able” to take a fully automated trip
`in their Tesla from Los Angeles to New York.3 While tens of thousands of U.S. and California
`consumers have purchased or leased new Tesla vehicles with ADAS technology in 2019 and every
`year since, Tesla has yet to deliver on its repeated promises of a fully self-driving car at any
`distance—much less a fully automated three-thousand-mile journey across the country.
`6.
`The reality of Tesla’s ADAS technology is far different from what Tesla and Musk have
`spent years telling consumers. Instead of providing its customers the “Full Self-Driving Capability”
`they paid for, Tesla uses them as guinea pigs to test drive its experimental FSD Beta software on
`public roadways, which generates data that Tesla can use to improve its software. Along the way,
`
`
`2 See, e.g., The Dawn Project, “Elon Musk’s broken promises,” https://dawnproject.com/wp-
`content/uploads/2022/06/The-Dawn-Project-Musk-promises-1min-NA.mp4?_=2 (collecting video
`clips of Musk making such promises from 2014 to 2021).
`3 Elon Musk, https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1126611407984779264 (May 9, 2019, 3:14 pm).
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`2
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-05264-AGT Document 1 Filed 09/15/22 Page 5 of 74
`
`
`
`scores of Tesla owners who believed Tesla’s deceptive and misleading statements about the
`capabilities of Tesla’s ADAS technology have been killed and seriously injured when that technology
`failed, often in the face of routine roadway scenarios.
`7.
`Even Tesla itself has admitted that “Full Self-Driving” is an inaccurate name. In
`response to California regulators’ concerns about Musk’s public announcements in late 2020 indicating
`that a new FSD Beta update would make Tesla vehicles autonomous, Tesla attorneys sent private
`emails to those regulators (later disclosed in response to Public Records Act requests) walking those
`statements back and making clear they were false. Tesla attorneys told the regulators that Tesla
`vehicles equipped with so-called “Full Self-Driving Capability” were not fully self-driving at all, but
`still required the driver to steer, brake, and accelerate as needed. In the meantime, Tesla and Musk
`continued their deceptive marketing to consumers.
`8.
`Plaintiff Dominick Battiato is California resident, who owns a 2021 Tesla Model 3
`Performance and a 2022 Tesla Model Y Performance.
`9.
`Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit on behalf of himself and fellow consumers who
`purchased or leased a new Tesla vehicle with Tesla’s ADAS technology but never received the self-
`driving car that Tesla promised them. Plaintiff brings claims against Tesla for violations of the federal
`Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and California’s False Advertising Law, Consumers Legal Remedies
`Act, and Unfair Competition Law, as well as common law claims for fraud and deceit, negligent
`misrepresentation, negligence, and unjust enrichment. Plaintiff seeks various relief on behalf of
`himself and the proposed Class, including injunctive relief prohibiting Tesla from continuing its
`deceptive and misleading marketing of its ADAS technology, restitution of the money Plaintiff and
`Class members paid for technology that Tesla promised but never delivered, and all available damages
`including punitive damages to punish Tesla for years of using deceptive and misleading marketing to
`eventually establish itself as a dominant player in the electric vehicle market.
`10.
`Based on information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that at all times mentioned herein,
`Defendants and all unknown co-conspirators were an agent, servant, employee and/or joint venture of
`each other, and were at all times acting within the course and scope of said agency, service,
`employment, and/or joint venture with full knowledge, permission, and consent of each other. In
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-05264-AGT Document 1 Filed 09/15/22 Page 6 of 74
`
`
`
`addition, each of the acts and/or omissions of each Defendant and unknown co-conspirator alleged
`herein were made known to, and ratified by, Defendants. Plaintiff will seek leave of Court to amend
`this Complaint to reflect the true names and capacities of the unknown co-conspirators when such
`identities become known.
`11.
`To the extent that there are any statutes of limitations applicable to Plaintiff’s and Class
`members’ claims, the running of the limitations periods has been tolled by, inter alia, the following
`doctrines or rules: equitable tolling, the discovery rule, the fraudulent concealment rules, equitable
`estoppel, the repair rule, and/or class action tolling.
`II.
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`Subject Matter Jurisdiction. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this
`12.
`action under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d), as Plaintiff seeks
`damages and other relief on behalf of a class consisting of hundreds of thousands of individuals. This
`action meets CAFA’s jurisdictional requirements because the sum or value of the relief sought
`exceeds $5,000,000 exclusive of interest and costs, and because at least one Class member is a citizen
`of a state different from Defendants under § 1332(d)(2)(A) and/or a citizen of a foreign state under §
`1332(d)(2)(B). The Court also has federal question jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s Magnuson-Moss
`Warranty Act claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law
`claims under § 1367.
`Personal Jurisdiction. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because
`13.
`they have conducted and continue to conduct substantial business in California, and have sufficient
`minimum contacts with California in that (1) from the beginning of the Class Period (as defined
`herein) until December 2021, Defendant Tesla, Inc. was headquartered in Palo Alto, California, and
`thus designed, developed, manufactured, tested, and marketed its vehicles and ADAS technology at
`issue in this action in California throughout that period; (2) throughout the Class Period, Tesla, Inc.
`tested and manufactured a substantial percentage of the Class Vehicles (as defined herein) at its factory
`in Fremont, California; (3) throughout the Class Period, Tesla, Inc. has been the direct or indirect
`owner and operator of dozens of retail Tesla stores in California (accounting for more than a quarter of
`Tesla stores nationwide) that market and sell or lease new Tesla vehicles, including a substantial
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-05264-AGT Document 1 Filed 09/15/22 Page 7 of 74
`
`
`
`percentage of Class Vehicles; (4) throughout the Class Period, California has been by far the largest
`U.S. market for sales and leases of new electric vehicles, including sales and leases of new Tesla
`vehicles and Class Vehicles; (5) throughout the Class Period, Defendants developed the marketing
`scheme at issue in this action in California and targeted California consumers with that marketing
`scheme, including deceptive and misleading statements about Tesla’s vehicles and ADAS technology
`on Tesla’s website and Musk’s Twitter feed; (6) Tesla, Inc. is registered with the California Secretary
`of State to do business in the State of California, and is licensed by the California Department of Motor
`Vehicles as a vehicle dealer and a vehicle manufacturer; and (7) Defendant Tesla Finance LLC has its
`principal place of business in California.
`Venue. Venue is proper in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
`14.
`California under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) because Defendants are subject to the Court’s personal
`jurisdiction with respect to this action and therefore reside in this District for purposes of venue, under
`§ 1391(b)(2) because a substantial part of the events and omissions giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims
`occurred in this District (including both Defendants’ wrongful conduct and the resulting harm to
`Plaintiff and Class members residing in this District), and under § 1391(b)(2) because a substantial
`part of the property that is the subject of this action is situated in this District.
`III.
`PARTIES
`A.
`Plaintiff
`15.
`Plaintiff Dominick Battiato is a resident of Valencia, California. In June 2021, Plaintiff
`purchased a new 2021 Tesla Model 3 Performance. In March 2022, he purchased a new 2022 Tesla
`Model Y Performance. Plaintiff made the decision to purchase these vehicles after researching,
`viewing, and relying on Tesla’s online and other public statements, including those made by Musk,
`which were disseminated to consumers throughout the State of California, the U.S., and the world.
`Plaintiff has experienced sudden and unexpected braking in both vehicles as a result of defects related
`to Tesla’s ADAS technology.
`B.
`Defendants
`Tesla, Inc. Defendant Tesla, Inc., dba Tesla Motors, Inc., is a Delaware corporation
`16.
`that had its principal place of business in Palo Alto, California, from approximately 2003 until
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-05264-AGT Document 1 Filed 09/15/22 Page 8 of 74
`
`
`
`December 1, 2021, at which point it moved its principal place of business to Austin, Texas. Defendant
`designs, develops, manufactures, tests, markets, distributes, sells, and leases electric vehicles under
`the brand name “Tesla.” Defendant also offers services related to those vehicles, including designing,
`developing, and periodically sending over-the-air updates for the ADAS software in Tesla vehicles.
`17.
`Tesla, Inc. has a vertically integrated business model. (a) Tesla designs, develops,
`manufacturers, and tests its electric vehicles and the ADAS software on those vehicles. This includes
`all versions of Tesla’s ADAS technology (e.g., Autopilot, Enhanced Autopilot, FSD), which were and
`are designed, developed, manufactured, and tested by Tesla in the State of California at its Palo Alto
`offices, Fremont factory, and other California offices and facilities. On information and belief, all or a
`substantial majority of the Class Vehicles (as defined herein) were manufactured and tested in
`California. (b) Tesla markets its vehicles on its website, in marketing materials, in its brick-and-
`mortar galleries and showrooms, and through the tweets, media interviews, news conferences,
`earnings calls, conferences, forums, and other public events and statements by its representatives and
`agents, including Elon Musk, all of which are intended and designed to generate media coverage, and
`have been historically successful at doing so. (c) Tesla sells and leases its electric vehicles directly to
`consumers, including through its website and retail stores, which Tesla owns and operates.
`Tesla Lease Trust. Defendant Tesla Lease Trust is a Delaware statutory trust, and its
`18.
`initial beneficiary is Tesla Finance LLC. Tesla Lease Trust is the title holder to the Tesla vehicles that
`are leased under a leasing program managed by Tesla Finance LLC.
`Tesla Finance LLC. Defendant Tesla Finance LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary of
`19.
`Tesla, Inc., and is the beneficial owner of the leasing assets held in Trust by Tesla Lease Trust and, as
`an agent of the Tesla Lease Trust, originates, services, administers, and collects leases for Tesla Lease
`Trust. Tesla Finance LLC is incorporated in Delaware and has its principal place of business in
`California.
`IV.
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`A.
`The Technology of Autonomous Vehicles
`20.
`SAE International, formerly the Society of Automotive Engineers, is a U.S.-based
`professional association and standards development organization founded in the early 20th century.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-05264-AGT Document 1 Filed 09/15/22 Page 9 of 74
`
`
`
`In 2014, SAE International took a leading role in the development of autonomous vehicle technology
`standards by publishing the initial version of SAE J3016 Recommended Practice: Taxonomy and
`Definitions for Terms Related to Driving Automation Systems for On-Road Motor Vehicles,
`commonly referred to as the SAE Levels of Driving Automation (“SAE Levels”). Following this,
`SAE International published revised versions of the SAE Levels in 2016, 2018, and 2021.4
`21.
`The SAE Levels provide a taxonomy of vehicle driving automation systems with
`detailed definitions for six levels for driving automation, ranging from no driving automation (SAE
`Level 0) to full driving automation (SAE Level 5). The SAE Levels can be summarized as follows:
`Level 0: No Driving Automation. The human driver performs all driving tasks (steering,
`acceleration, braking, etc.), although vehicles may have safety features like automatic emergency
`braking and forward collision warning. Level 1: Driver Assistance. The vehicle has features that
`provide a small degree of automation over the vehicle’s acceleration, braking, or steering (e.g.,
`adaptive cruise control, lane-keeping assistance). Level 2: Partial Driving Automation. The vehicle
`can perform multiple driving tasks (e.g., acceleration, steering) but remains under the human driver’s
`constant supervision, responsibility, and control. Level 3: Conditional Driving Automation. The
`vehicle can take full control of certain driving tasks such that the human driver need not remain
`constantly alert but must be ready to intervene upon request from the vehicle. Level 4: High Driving
`Automation. The vehicle can perform all driving tasks in specific locations or environments, but
`human override is still an option. Level 5: Full Driving Automation. The vehicle can perform all
`driving tasks under all conditions, with zero human attention or interaction required.
`22.
`The SAE Levels are a widely accepted international standard and have been adopted
`by regulatory agencies such as the National Transportation Safety Board (“NTSB”), National
`Highway Traffic Safety Administration (“NHTSA”), and U.S. Department of Transportation.
`23.
`SAE International refers to SAE Level 1 and 2 technologies as systems or features that
`provide “driver support,” whereas it refers to SAE Level 3, 4, and 5 technologies as systems or
`features that provide “automated driving.” When SAE International published the current version of
`
`4 See SAE International, “Taxonomy and Definitions for Terms Related to Driving Automation
`Systems for On-Road Motor Vehicles” (revised Apr. 30, 2021), https://www.sae.org/
`standards/content/j3016_202104.
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`7
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-05264-AGT Document 1 Filed 09/15/22 Page 10 of 74
`
`
`
`the SAE Levels in 2021, it noted that for SAE Level 2 driver-support features, “You are driving
`whenever these driver support features are engaged” and “You must constantly supervise these
`support features.”5
`
`24.
`In May 2022, the NHTSA published a graphic summarizing the SAE Levels, which
`drives home many of the same points as the 2021 SAE International graphic—i.e., that at SAE Levels
`0 to 2, the driver is fully responsible for driving the car (“You drive, you monitor”), whereas
`autonomous technology does not begin until SAE Level 3 (“System drives, you must be able to take
`over upon request”), and fully self-driving technology does not occur until SAE Levels 4 and 5
`(“System drives, you ride”).6
`25. While Tesla and Musk have routinely promised Tesla’s SAE Level 2 ADAS
`technology (including Autopilot and FSD) would rapidly advance to SAE Level 5 abilities within a
`year or other short period of time, Tesla’s technology has never advanced beyond SAE Level 2.
`26. While Tesla has spent year after year stuck at SAE Level 2, other vehicle
`manufacturers have successfully designed and developed SAE Level 3 features, including Audi in
`2017, Honda in 2021, and Mercedes-Benz in 2021. Honda and Mercedes-Benz both currently offer
`automobiles with Level 3 features for sale or lease to the public in their respective home markets of
`Japan and Europe. Meanwhile, Waymo has been operating limited SAE Level 4 taxi service on public
`roadways in some areas of Phoenix (since 2018) and San Francisco (since 2021).
`27. Whereas Tesla’s Level 2 technology relies heavily on cameras (with limited assistance
`from a single forward-facing radar unit), the successful design and development of safer and more
`advanced Level 3 and 4 systems to date has universally relied on a more robust and expensive
`combination of cameras, multiple radar units, and one or more lidar units. The general consensus
`among autonomous vehicle experts is that truly autonomous, self-driving cars cannot be achieved
`without some reliance on lidar technology, which Tesla has always refused to use because of
`considerations related to expense and aesthetics.
`
`5 SAE International, “SAE Levels of Driving Automation Refined for Clarity and International
`Audience” (May 3, 2021), https://www.sae.org/blog/sae-j3016-update.
`6 NHTSA, “Levels of Automation” (May 2022), available at https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/
`files/2022-05/Level-of-Automation-052522-tag.pdf.
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`8
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-05264-AGT Document 1 Filed 09/15/22 Page 11 of 74
`
`
`
`B.
`Tesla’s “Autopilot”
`28.
`In 2014, Tesla began equipping its Model S sedan with hardware that (although the
`necessary software was not yet active) was intended to allow vehicles to automate some steering,
`braking, and acceleration functions. Consistent with widely used industry terminology, Tesla
`originally called this feature “advanced driver assistance” before Tesla executives led by Musk
`decided to change the name to “Autopilot.” Tesla engineers expressed concerns that the name was
`misleading and suggested less misleading options such as “Copilot,” which Tesla rejected.7
`29.
`In October 2015, Tesla released its version 7.0 software, which enabled Autopilot on
`Model S vehicles. Robert Rose, the head of the Autopilot project, left Tesla shortly before the release.
`Evan Nakano, a Tesla Autopilot engineer who had worked on safety features, objected that Autopilot
`was not ready for release. When Tesla ignored his concerns, Nakano resigned in protest and wrote a
`resignation letter, circulated widely among Tesla employees, that called Autopilot’s development
`based on “reckless decision making that has potentially put customer lives at risk.”8
`30.
`By December 2015, Musk was publicly stating that Tesla vehicles would drive
`themselves within about two years. He told Fortune magazine, “I think we have all the pieces, and it’s
`just about refining those pieces, putting them in place, and making sure they work across a huge
`number of environments—and then we’re done. It’s a much easier problem than people think it is.”9
`31.
`In January 2016, Musk announced on a conference call with reporters that Autopilot
`was “probably better” than a human driver. He stated that Tesla vehicles would be able to drive
`significantly better than humans within two to three years, and that within approximately two years
`drivers would be able to use Tesla’s “Summon” feature, which allows drivers to remotely instruct
`
`
`7 Cade Metz & Neal E. Boudette, “Inside Tesla as Elon Musk Pushed an Unflinching Vision for Self-
`Driving Cars,” The New York Times (Dec. 6, 2021), available at https://www.nytimes.com/
`2021/12/06/technology/tesla-autopilot-elon-musk.html Tesla, “Tesla Self-Driving Demonstration”
`(Nov. 18, 2016), https://www.tesla.com/videos/autopilot-self-driving-hardware-neighborhood-long.
`8 Ianthe Jeanne Dugan & Mike Spector, “Tesla’s Push to Build a Self-Driving Car Sparked Dissent
`Among Its Engineers,” The Wall Street Journal (Aug. 24, 2017), available at
`https://www.wsj.com/articles/teslas-push-to-build-a-self-driving-car-sparks-dissent-among-its-
`engineers-1503593742.
`9 Kristen Korosec, “Elon Musk Says Tesla Vehicles Will Drive Themselves in Two Years,” Fortune
`(Dec. 21, 2015), available at https://fortune.com/2015/12/21/elon-musk-interview/.
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`9
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-05264-AGT Document 1 Filed 09/15/22 Page 12 of 74
`
`
`
`their vehicle to drive to a specified location, to summon a vehicle from the other side of the country.10
`32.
`Ten days later, on January 20, 2016, 23-year-old Gao Yaning, who had a history of
`relying on Autopilot to drive, was killed in China on the way home from a family wedding when his
`Tesla Model S crashed at full speed on a highway into the back of a large street sweeper. The facts of
`the accident strongly indicate that Autopilot was engaged at the time of the crash.11
`33.
`In February 2016, Consumer Reports tested Tesla’s new Summon feature, which Tesla
`claimed makes the car able to drive itself for short distances without anyone in the car, such as to
`enter or leave a parking space or garage. Although Consumer Reports had previously given Tesla
`vehicles rave reviews (scoring Tesla’s Model S a 99 out of 100 and calling it “the best car we have
`every tested” in 2013, and scoring another version of the Model S even higher in 2015), this time
`Consumer Reports’ testing revealed that the Summon feature failed to detect “several large objects
`that a homeowner might leave in a driveway or on the floor of a garage—such as a duffel bag and
`bicycle—and the car failed to stop before hitting them.” Consumer Reports’ testers also encountered
`other problems related to difficulties they had remotely stopping the car, which resulted in damage to
`one of the car’s wheels and raised significant safety concerns.12
`34.
`On May 7, 2016, Tesla driver Joshua Brown was killed in Florida when the Autopilot
`on his Tesla Model S failed to recognize a tractor-trailer crossing in front his car, which resulted in
`Brown’s car striking and passing under the trailer at 74 mph.13 The top third of Brown’s car was
`sheared off. Brown was a Tesla enthusiast who had previously made videos of himself using
`Autopilot, one of which was retweeted by Elon Musk just a few weeks earlier.14 Tesla later publicly
`
`
`10 Elon Musk, https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/686279251293777920 (Jan. 10, 2016, 12:11 pm).
`11 Neal Boudette, “Autopilot cited in Death of Chinese Tesla Driver,” The New York Times (Sept. 14,
`2016), available at https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/15/business/fatal-tesla-crash-in-china-involved-
`autopilot-government-tv-says.html.
`12 Jake Fisher, “Tesla to Fix Self-Parking Feature After Consumer Reports Raises Safety Concern,”
`Consumer Reports (Feb. 10, 2016), available at https://www.consumerreports.org/car-safety/tesla-
`fixes-self-parking-feature-after-consumer-reports-raises-safety-concern/.
`13 NTSB, Investigation No. HWY16FH018, Dkt. No. 2, “Crash Summary Report” (June 19, 2017),
`available at https://data.ntsb.gov/Docket/Document/docBLOB?ID=40453253&FileExtension
`=.PDF&FileName=Crash%20Summary-Master.PDF.
`14 Rachel Abrams & Annalyn Kurtz, “Joshua Brown, Who Died in Self-Driving Accident, Tested
`Limits of His Tesla,” The New York Times (July 1, 2016), available at https://www.nytimes.com/
`2016/07/02/business/joshua-brown-technology-enthusiast-tested-the-limits-of-his-tesla.html.
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`10
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-05264-AGT Document 1 Filed 09/15/22 Page 13 of 74
`
`
`
`stated that the Autopilot software on Brown’s car failed to detect the

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket