Tesla Owners Reimburse Bosplus Salesperson After Misleading Self-Driving Claims Lead to Refunds

Tesla Buyers Win Full Refund After “Robot Driving” Claims Fall Flat

A New Zealand couple has secured a full refund for their Tesla model 3 after discovering the vehicle lacked the “Full Self-Driving” (FSD) capabilities promised by a salesman.Jiahui Wang and Yuxuan Li purchased the 2020 Model 3 earlier this year for $44,000 from Bosplus Ltd in Auckland, believing it included the advanced FSD feature.

Despite the name, Tesla’s FSD doesn’t equate to full autonomy. It’s designed to identify traffic signals and signs, and automatically adjust the vehicle’s speed. However,the couple’s Tesla hadn’t been equipped with the software.

Salesman Bojia Liu had reportedly assured the buyers that the car could “drive like a robot,” referencing a personal trip from Auckland to Tauranga where he claimed minimal steering wheel intervention was required.He further explained the price difference between models, stating the additional $6,000 covered increased range, horsepower, all-wheel drive, and the FSD feature via text message.

Upon realizing the car lacked the advertised functionality and faced compatibility issues with New Zealand charging stations, Wang and Li took their case to the Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal.

During the tribunal hearing, Liu admitted to copying FSD information from Tesla’s website into the vehicle advertisement without verifying its accuracy. He was unaware the car didn’t actually possess the feature. The vehicle was equipped with Tesla’s Autopilot and Enhanced Autopilot systems – offering features like traffic-matched speed,lane assistance,and parking support – but not the promised FSD.

Tesla confirmed to the couple that their imported Japanese model couldn’t be retrofitted with FSD and also highlighted a charging port incompatibility that would result in slower charging speeds if modified.Tribunal adjudicator Crystal Euden ruled in favor of the buyers, stating Bosplus had engaged in misleading sales practices. “Bosplus clearly represented that the vehicle had FSD capabilities…specifically Tesla’s Traffic Light and Stop Sign Control functions,” Euden stated in her ruling. She added that the couple would not have made the purchase had they known about the missing features, particularly given Liu’s specific claims about the added cost being tied to FSD.

As a result, Bosplus was ordered to provide a full refund to Wang and Li.

What legal recourse do consumers have when faced with misleading claims about ADAS capabilities during a vehicle purchase?

Tesla Owners reimburse Bosplus Salesperson After Misleading Self-Driving Claims Led to Refunds

The Bosplus Controversy: A Deep Dive

Recent events have seen Tesla owners collectively reimburse a former Bosplus salesperson,following accusations of misleading claims regarding the capabilities of Tesla’s “Full Self-Driving” (FSD) and Autopilot features. This unusual outcome highlights growing consumer frustration with pre-sale representations and the complexities surrounding advanced driver-assistance systems (ADAS). the situation centers around alleged overpromising of FSD functionality,leading to vehicle purchases based on expectations that didn’t align with the reality of the technology.

How the Misleading Claims Unfolded

The core of the issue revolves around a Bosplus salesperson, identified through online forums like MOTOR-TALK (see source https://www.motor-talk.de/forum/tesla-model-s-kaufberatung-neu-gebraucht-t5848335.html), who reportedly presented FSD as being significantly more capable than it currently is. Specific claims included assurances of near-complete autonomous driving in all conditions, minimizing the need for driver intervention.

These claims, made during the sales process, directly influenced purchasing decisions for a group of Tesla owners. when the delivered vehicles failed to perform as promised, a wave of refund requests followed. Tesla ultimately processed these refunds, but the owners felt the salesperson should bear some duty for the misrepresentation.

The Collective Reimbursement Effort

Rather of pursuing legal action – a perhaps lengthy and costly process – the affected Tesla owners organized a collective effort to recoup the salesperson’s commission earned from their sales. This unique approach, facilitated through online communication and a shared understanding of the situation, resulted in a prosperous reimbursement. The amount collected was then voluntarily paid back to the salesperson.

This action wasn’t about punishment, but rather about holding the individual accountable for the discrepancy between the sales pitch and the delivered product. It also served as a signal to othre dealerships and salespeople regarding the importance of accurate representation of Tesla’s ADAS features.

Understanding Tesla’s Autopilot and FSD: What’s the Reality?

it’s crucial to understand the current state of tesla’s Autopilot and FSD. Both are classified as Level 2 advanced driver-assistance systems, requiring active driver supervision at all times.

Here’s a breakdown:

Autopilot: Includes features like Traffic-Aware Cruise Control and Autosteer. These assist with steering, accelerating, and braking, but the driver must remain attentive and ready to take control.

Full Self-Driving Capability (FSD): A more advanced package offering Navigate on Autopilot, Auto Lane Change, Autopark, Summon, and Traffic Light and Stop Sign Control. Despite the name,FSD is not fully autonomous. It still requires constant driver supervision and intervention.

Misunderstandings often arise from the “Full Self-Driving” moniker, leading consumers to believe the system is more capable than it actually is.Tesla has faced scrutiny from regulatory bodies, like the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), regarding the naming and marketing of these features.

Legal Implications of Misleading ADAS Claims

The Bosplus case highlights potential legal ramifications for dealerships and salespeople making false or misleading claims about ADAS technology.

False Advertising: Misrepresenting the capabilities of FSD or Autopilot could be considered false advertising, violating consumer protection laws.

Breach of Contract: If sales contracts contain specific promises about ADAS functionality that aren’t met, buyers may have grounds for a breach of contract claim.

Negligence: in cases where misleading claims contribute to accidents or injuries, dealerships or salespeople could face negligence lawsuits.

Protecting Yourself When Buying a Tesla (or Any Vehicle with ADAS)

Here are practical steps to take when purchasing a Tesla, or any vehicle equipped with advanced driver-assistance systems:

1. Thorough Research: Don’t rely solely on the salesperson’s claims. Research the ADAS features independently, consulting official Tesla documentation and reputable reviews.
2. Ask specific Questions: Inquire about the limitations of Autopilot and FSD. Specifically ask about scenarios where driver intervention is required*.
3. Test Drive Extensively: During the test drive, actively engage the ADAS features in various driving conditions to assess their performance firsthand.
4. Review the Contract Carefully: Ensure the sales contract accurately reflects the ADAS features included and doesn’t contain any misleading promises.
5. Document Everything: Keep records of all communications with the salesperson, including any promises or representations made.

The Future of ADAS and Consumer Protection

the Bosplus incident underscores the need for greater openness and consumer education regarding ADAS technology. As these systems become more sophisticated, it’s vital that consumers understand their capabilities and limitations. Increased regulatory oversight and standardized testing procedures could help prevent future misrepresentations and ensure that