Tesla says California's Autopilot action violates its free speech rights
- Reference: 1702327015
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2023/12/11/tesla_california_autopilot_lawsuit/
- Source link:
In a [1]document [PDF] filed with California's Office of Administrative Hearings last week lawyers representing Elon Musk's electric car company didn't directly challenge the DMV's specific [2]allegations that Tesla may have overblown Autopilot's autonomy, marketing it less as an advanced driver assist system (ADAS) and more of a [3]full self-driving platform.
Instead, they said that the DMV's case, filed in July 2022, ought to be tossed because it's "facially invalid under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 2, of the California Constitution.
[4]
"These statutes and regulations, as applied to Tesla in this proceeding, are unconstitutional … as they impermissibly restrict Tesla's truthful and non-misleading speech about its vehicles and their features," Tesla lawyers argued.
[5]
[6]
It's not clear whether the "truthful and non-misleading speech" refers to Autopilot's capabilities, which the biz doesn't otherwise defend in its rebuttal. We've reached out to Tesla and its lawyers in this case.
Various US regulatory bodies have launched investigations into the hype surrounding Autopilot's capabilities, [7]including the US Department of Justice. The DoJ [8]subpoenaed Tesla in the case in October, requesting additional information about Autopilot's capabilities.
[9]
The US National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is also looking into [10]whether Tesla's marketing of Autopilot has led to drivers placing too much faith in the system's capabilities, exacerbating safety risks.
All the ways Tesla says the DMV case fails
In addition to its first amendment argument, Tesla also said that the California DMV is violating its rights to have a jury trial, under the US Constitution's [11]7th Amendment and Article I, [12]Section 16 of California's Constitution, both of which cover rights to trial by a jury. The DMV's actions violate that right because the case is before an administrative law judge and not a panel of citizens, the lawyers argue.
[13]Tesla, Musk likely aware of Autopilot deficiencies behind Florida fatality, says judge
[14]Tesla swerves liability in Autopilot death lawsuit
[15]Tesla to license Full Self-Driving stack to other automakers, says Musk
[16]Tesla's Autopilot boasts, safety probed by California AG
Tesla also claims that the DMV has no right to prosecute it for false advertising of Autopilot's capabilities because it knew perfectly well how the company had been describing it, but didn't take action before.
"Claimant has been aware that Tesla has been using the brand names Autopilot and Full Self-Driving Capability since Tesla started using those names in 2014 and 2016 respectively," Tesla said.
"Before Claimant filed the original Accusation in July 2022, Claimant had never told Tesla to stop using these brand names or otherwise indicated to Tesla that these brand names or its advertising were in any way problematic."
Tesla also argued that the DMV has investigated its ADAS advertising twice before, in 2014 and 2017, and decided at the time to take no action. We asked the DMV why it waited after its investigations to file a claim against Tesla, but haven't heard back.
[17]
Additionally, Tesla said that California opted to remove the terms "self-driving," "automated," and "auto-pilot," from the state's Statement About Autonomous Technology [18]regulation , meaning there's no prohibition against using such language in an advertisement.
The Statement does mention, however, that the use of terms that "will likely induce a reasonably prudent person to believe a vehicle is autonomous … constitute an advertisement that the vehicle is autonomous for the purposes of this section," making it unclear whether Tesla's argument here would hold much water.
Tesla is seeking a hearing to have the case tossed with prejudice. ®
Get our [19]Tech Resources
[1] https://regmedia.co.uk/2023/12/11/ca-dmv-tesla-autopilot-advertising-response.pdf
[2] https://www.theregister.com/2022/08/08/tesla_california_autopilot/
[3] https://www.theregister.com/2023/02/28/tesla_has_to_fix_safety/
[4] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/personaltech&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2ZXeUmbQvEtNZ7GcdZQSmxgAAABE&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[5] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/personaltech&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44ZXeUmbQvEtNZ7GcdZQSmxgAAABE&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[6] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/personaltech&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33ZXeUmbQvEtNZ7GcdZQSmxgAAABE&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[7] https://www.theregister.com/2022/10/27/doj_self_driving_car_criminal/
[8] https://www.theregister.com/2023/10/23/telsa_doj_investigation/
[9] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/personaltech&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44ZXeUmbQvEtNZ7GcdZQSmxgAAABE&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[10] https://www.theregister.com/2022/06/09/nhtsa_tesla_autopilot/
[11] https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-7/
[12] https://law.justia.com/constitution/california/article-i/section-16/
[13] https://www.theregister.com/2023/11/22/tesla_autopilot_flaw_liability/
[14] https://www.theregister.com/2023/10/31/tesla_fatal_crash_verdict/
[15] https://www.theregister.com/2023/07/20/tesla_to_license_fsd_software/
[16] https://www.theregister.com/2023/07/28/tesla_california_ag_investigation/
[17] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/personaltech&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33ZXeUmbQvEtNZ7GcdZQSmxgAAABE&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[18] https://www.law.cornell.edu/regulations/california/13-CCR-228.28
[19] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Re: According to Musk, fraud is protected under the 1st Amendment
That's the state of, eh, "the states"... from the outside it sort of sounds like he could get away with it.
Re: According to Musk, fraud is protected under the 1st Amendment
If the courts upheld that view then for example the FDA would no longer be able to regulate claims drugmakers make or require them to notify potential users of that drug of side effects. That's sort of a "be careful what you wish for" thing because while sociopaths like Musk would probably support that it would totally destroy the drug market - because no one is going to trust drugmakers if they can make claims without any standards for those claims being true, or tell you about any side effects they know about.
Musk has taken a page of Trump's playbook the last couple years, and has his lawyers make cases they know have no chance, just because he wants the publicity of being seen to "fight the system". Because "the system" according to Trump and Musk is biased against white male billionaires, of course!
Re: According to Musk, fraud is protected under the 1st Amendment
And Musk also appears to be insisting that pointing out Tesla was lying is not "free speech" and should thus be restricted.
What Musk will make of this article, I wonder: [1] https://www.businessinsider.com/tesla-cybertruck-safety-guideless-missile-experts-say-2023-12?amp
[1] https://www.businessinsider.com/tesla-cybertruck-safety-guideless-missile-experts-say-2023-12?amp
Re: According to Musk, fraud is protected under the 1st Amendment
Your title says it all and is true of every U.S. corporation and the very tall ladder of grifters below them.
So...Musk is arguing that he is free to do so (lying; that he misrepresented Autopilot's capabilities) under the US Constitution; that his right to free speech is being violated.
Tesla also claims that the DMV has no right to prosecute it for false advertising of Autopilot's capabilities because it knew perfectly well how the company had been describing it...(translation: you've known all along I've been lying and that I do that for a living. Therefore it's perfectly legal).
And, folks, he wants these actions to be dropped with prejudice , meaning they can never be brought again. Nice try, Mush.
This is what happens when you have a Liar-In-Chief of the United States; the 'leader of the free world' who should also be its moral leader, act absolutely and precisely this same way.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Maya Angelou-- "When a person tells you who they are, believe them the first time."
All the more reason
This is just all the more reason it needs to be firmly enshrined in law that only meat sack humans have first amendment rights. Since a free press is explicitly called out in the US Constitution, that is the one and only exception. Tesla, Microsoft, Xitter, Costco, BNSF, Walmart... fictional entities that only exist on paper and in the collective imaginations of meat sack humans, do not have any rights whatsoever. They exist at our pleasure and can be taken out back and shot at any time if they step out of line, including the government coming along, forcibly removing the entire leadership under whose watch bad things happened, bringing the company into compliance with the law, and then turning it over to a new set of leaders with instructions to do better. Rinse and repeat as needed, or just wind down operations if it's determined that there is no feasible way for the company to operate and comply with applicable regulations.
I suppose if one day someone creates a sentient AI we'll have to consider whether to revise this policy, but that's a problem for if and when it happens.
Introducing the new supersonic flying TeslaAero!
Max speed 4000 mph, runs on water, can travel 8000 miles on half a pint, control it with the inbuilt Psychic Mind Interface or let our AI pilot take the strain! Buy now and get a free InfiniteBeer dispenser!
* No returns accepted, we can claim whatever we like, it's free speech right?
I promise to pay $140k for a Model X
Until I decide not to.
Do corporations even get the right to free speech?
According to Musk, fraud is protected under the 1st Amendment
So Tesla's position is that lying in advertising is protected speech even if it is fraud. Good to know.