- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Tesla Owners File Class Action Suit Over False EV Range Claims
Tesla Owners File Class Action Suit Over False EV Range Claims
Tesla owners from California have filed proposed class action lawsuit against the automaker Tesla. The legal complaint alleged that Tesla had engaged in false advertising of the estimated driving ranges of its electric vehicles.
The lawsuit has been filed at the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California accusing Tesla of forming a ‘Diversion Team’ in Nevada to handle the overwhelming number of owner complaints regarding range-related issues. The team formed aimed to cancel as many range-related appointments as possible.
Moreover, the lawsuit outlined a decades old decision by the company to write algorithms for its in-dash range meter that would display ‘rosy’ projections to drivers regarding the distance their car could travel on a full battery.
The lawsuit alleged Tesla had breached vehicle warranties and engaged in fraud and unfair competition.
The three plaintiffs of the lawsuit, quoted events when their Tesla’s were unsuccessful to achieve close to their advertised ranges and said they had complained to the company without success.
One of the complainants, James Porter, a Petaluma, California-based Model Y owner, said in the lawsuit that on one trip he lost approximately 182 miles (293 km) of range despite only driving 92 miles (148 km).
The lawsuit seeks to represent all customers in California who purchased Tesla electric cars including Model 3, Model S, Model Y, and Model X; and seek unspecified damages.
The lawsuit contended, “Had Tesla honestly advertised its electric vehicle ranges, consumers either would not have purchased Tesla model vehicles, or else would have paid substantially less for them.” The complaint seeks class-action status to represent “all persons in California who purchased a new Tesla Model 3, Model S, Model Y, and Model X vehicle.”
Earlier in April 2023, a California Tesla owner had also filed a proposed consumer class action against the company alleging that Tesla employees had shared on an internal messaging system sensitive images and videos captured by cars’ cameras.
The lawsuit accused Tesla of violating the privacy of its customers however, the company had vehemently denied such allegations.