Tesla beats lawsuit claiming it monopolizes repairs, parts::A U.S. judge dismissed an antitrust lawsuit accusing Elon Musk’s electric car company Tesla of forcing customers to pay high prices and suffer long waits for repairs by monopolizing the markets for vehicle maintenance and replacement parts.
You must log in or register to comment.
"U.S. District Judge Trina Thompson in San Francisco said customers in the proposed class action failed to show either that the alleged problems were “not generally known” when they bought their vehicles, or that they could not predict the costs to keep their vehicles running.
“To be sure, plaintiffs allege that defendant misled them about…how much maintenance its EVs are designed to need and how long that maintenance ought to take,” Thompson wrote. “But nowhere do plaintiffs allege that consumers are in fact unaware of the supposedly supracompetitive prices and exorbitant wait times.”
So, basically, most people know Tesla service is shit, so they should have known what they were getting into when they bought their car?
failed to show either that the alleged problems were “not generally known”
That’s reversing the burden of proof, you can’t prove a negative.
Also this:
She also said customers could not prove that Tesla coerced them into using its services and parts simply because they had bought their vehicles in the first place.
That’s a clear case of blaming the victim.
It’s like that case where Elon Musk gets off, calling a rescuer a pedophile because he is butthurt. This reeks of corruption in the courts.
I really don’t get how judges are allowed to have a political affiliation in the US. Everyone has a right to their own political beliefs but politicians shouldn’t be appointing judges at all imo, that just leads to bias or making favourable decisions due to “politics”
Corruption or rank incompetence and ignorance of how the law works. Either way, that judge should definitely be investigated.
The burden of proof is on the accuser. This is a court, not an academic debate.
The terms were unfair, in part because you were not informed. You cannot prove you were not informed.
The opposition can easily show to what degree they inform customers.
I suppose even courts use some sort of reason?It’s not about being informed; it’s about general knowledge.
If it were about being informed, the plaintiff could attest “I was not informed” which would be reasonable in a court as they’re talking about what they have direct experience of. But they defence is saying “you may not have been specifically informed, but you should have known anyway because it was in the news.”
The plaintiffs did not say “there was no general awareness of these problems” - had they done so, maybe that would have been sufficient, or more likely they would have needed to enter evidence like statements from a sufficiently broad body of customers. But they didn’t do that, so they didn’t contest the argument which the judge decided was at least enough if was true.
The real question here is whether “general awareness of issues” is enough to defend cases like these.
“You will own nothing and you will be happy about it.” - 1100 C.E. The Feudal System
The funniest this is this quote is for the anti-socialism propaganda but instead it applies 100% in this capitalism hellscape…
That’s the case with most antisocialism propaganda: what they claim to be an inevitable consequence of socialism, communism or left-anarchy is usually an inevitable consequence of underregulated capitalism.
This might actually have a Streisand effect, in that many people who were looking to buy an electric car may not have heard of this, and so will now factor this in to their purchasing decisions and pick something else.
The ruling says people already know this when they buy it, so would it actually have any extra impact?
Also service is getting better, but the road ahead of them is quite long
The ruling says people already know this
The ruling might say that, but it’s a shit ruling that at least one point reverses the burden of proof, so all bets are off, really 🤷
Besides, this case was about Tesla specifically, not EVs generally.
Musk is infamous for overpromising to the point of just making shit up and Teslas have notoriously shoddy build quality resulting from a quality assurance policy of “don’t”, so it’s hardly a surprise that they’re at the shop much more than Musk said they would be…
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Nov 18 (Reuters) - A U.S. judge dismissed an antitrust lawsuit accusing Elon Musk’s electric car company Tesla (TSLA.O) of forcing customers to pay high prices and suffer long waits for repairs by monopolizing the markets for vehicle maintenance and replacement parts.
In a Friday night decision, U.S. District Judge Trina Thompson in San Francisco said customers in the proposed class action failed to show either that the alleged problems were “not generally known” when they bought their vehicles, or that they could not predict the costs to keep their vehicles running.
She also said customers could not prove that Tesla coerced them into using its services and parts simply because they had bought their vehicles in the first place.
“But nowhere do plaintiffs allege that consumers are in fact unaware of the supposedly supracompetitive prices and exorbitant wait times.”
She said customers may choose to amend their complaint, which combined five lawsuits and covered drivers who have paid for Tesla repairs and parts since March 2019.
According to the complaint, drivers whose vehicles are powered by traditional engines can have repairs done at dealerships or independent shops, and use parts made by original manufacturers or other companies.
The original article contains 340 words, the summary contains 198 words. Saved 42%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Another one bites the dust
