California judge rules that Tesla engaged in deceptive marketing for Autopilot(cnbc.com)
cnbc.com
California judge rules that Tesla engaged in deceptive marketing for Autopilot
https://www.cnbc.com/2025/12/16/california-judge-says-tesla-engaged-in-deceptive-autopilot-marketing-.html
15 comments
Long overdue, IMO.
And they'll keep paying the premium. I haven't looked at the Tesla website since Musk turned the corner, but is anyone actually paying this charlatan $8k for "Full Self-Driving (Supervised)"? After years of empty lies how is anyone still sucker enough?
And then... "Currently enabled features require active driver supervision and do not make the vehicle autonomous. The activation and use of these features are dependent on development and regulatory approval, which may take longer in some jurisdictions."
I can't believe they aren't forced to say that this may never happen, which is the reality given the history of it.
And then... "Currently enabled features require active driver supervision and do not make the vehicle autonomous. The activation and use of these features are dependent on development and regulatory approval, which may take longer in some jurisdictions."
I can't believe they aren't forced to say that this may never happen, which is the reality given the history of it.
You see them in basically every HN thread mentioning Tesla with more than 20 comments defending everything Tesla or Musk do.
I'm annoyed by the stay, but I'm more annoyed that the desired penalty is just a 30 day suspension. No fine, no refunds for sales made under false pretenses.
I honestly don't want to make this political and I'm not a libertarian. But this reminds me of something a libertarian once said. That courts would find companies liable for their crimes and someone would go to jail.
My question: Why isn't someone going to jail, when they have clearly broken a law?
My question: Why isn't someone going to jail, when they have clearly broken a law?
> My question: Why isn't someone going to jail, when they have clearly broken a law?
Because the law in question is civil, not criminal, and because the violation was found by an executive branch administrative law judge, not by a court of general jurisdiction in even a civil lawsuit.
Because the law in question is civil, not criminal, and because the violation was found by an executive branch administrative law judge, not by a court of general jurisdiction in even a civil lawsuit.
Honestly, the slowest actor here was the regulator.
If the name “Full Self-Driving” was unacceptable, they could have stopped it years ago.
“Autopilot” is already a technical aviation term — planes don’t fly themselves while the pilot sleeps — so the misunderstanding comes from the public, not the term.
And without a legal framework defining responsibility for autonomous systems, the liability naturally falls back to the human who activates the feature.
So the root issue isn’t the marketing; it’s the regulatory vacuum that let the ambiguity persist.
(Just my impression as a non-expert observer.)
“Autopilot” is already a technical aviation term — planes don’t fly themselves while the pilot sleeps — so the misunderstanding comes from the public, not the term.
And without a legal framework defining responsibility for autonomous systems, the liability naturally falls back to the human who activates the feature.
So the root issue isn’t the marketing; it’s the regulatory vacuum that let the ambiguity persist.
(Just my impression as a non-expert observer.)
Completely agree. FTC has never acted on it either. Tesla is playing the game as have every other automaker.
Exactly — if the terminology were truly unacceptable, the FTC would likely have intervened much earlier.
Regulators implicitly allowed the ambiguity to persist, and are now attempting to reframe or correct it retroactively.
It’s possible there were political or practical considerations — for example, a belief that successful autonomous driving would make future regulation easier, or at least postpone difficult legislative debates.
We can’t know what the internal reasoning was, but the long delay suggests more than simple oversight.
Regulators implicitly allowed the ambiguity to persist, and are now attempting to reframe or correct it retroactively.
It’s possible there were political or practical considerations — for example, a belief that successful autonomous driving would make future regulation easier, or at least postpone difficult legislative debates.
We can’t know what the internal reasoning was, but the long delay suggests more than simple oversight.
>if the terminology were truly unacceptable, the FTC would likely have intervened much earlier.
Lol wtf? Next you're going to tell me Bernie Madoff wasn't that bad because the SEC didn't intervene earlier.
Lol wtf? Next you're going to tell me Bernie Madoff wasn't that bad because the SEC didn't intervene earlier.
I’m not making a conspiracy claim, nor arguing that regulators are always reliable.
I’m describing a structural question:
Why was the terminology tolerated for years before being deemed unacceptable?
Regardless of whether one trusts the FTC/SEC/etc., two things remain true:
1. If the naming was truly deceptive from day one, early intervention would have prevented later misunderstandings.
2. The long delay created a regulatory vacuum in which ambiguity grew.
That’s the frame I’m pointing to — not defending regulators, just asking why the shift happened only now.
I’m describing a structural question:
Why was the terminology tolerated for years before being deemed unacceptable?
Regardless of whether one trusts the FTC/SEC/etc., two things remain true:
1. If the naming was truly deceptive from day one, early intervention would have prevented later misunderstandings.
2. The long delay created a regulatory vacuum in which ambiguity grew.
That’s the frame I’m pointing to — not defending regulators, just asking why the shift happened only now.
I assume because Tesla, via Musk 's public proclamations kept claiming full self driving was just around the corner?
If you're assertion is that the FTC should be much more sceptical of claims by corporations, then you have a point.
If you're assertion is that the FTC should be much more sceptical of claims by corporations, then you have a point.
It's not like they weren't told multiple times to look into it. Lina Khan confirmed it was on their radar. She's one of the most pro consumer chairs we've had. She had 4 years to make a move if she thought a lawsuit was appropriate.
https://www.blumenthal.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2021.08.18%2...
https://progresschamber.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/AV_-F...
https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/tesla-...
https://www.congress.gov/118/meeting/house/116199/documents/... page 40,41.
https://www.blumenthal.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2021.08.18%2...
https://progresschamber.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/AV_-F...
https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/tesla-...
https://www.congress.gov/118/meeting/house/116199/documents/... page 40,41.
Yes — that’s one plausible explanation, and it still fits the same structural question.
Whether the delay came from optimistic expectations about imminent progress, political or economic incentives, or simple regulatory inertia, the core issue remains the same: the terminology was tolerated for a long period, and that tolerance allowed ambiguity to accumulate.
My point isn’t about defending Tesla or trusting regulators’ judgment — it’s about asking why the shift happened only after years of implicit acceptance, and what effects that delay had on public understanding and responsibility.
Whether the delay came from optimistic expectations about imminent progress, political or economic incentives, or simple regulatory inertia, the core issue remains the same: the terminology was tolerated for a long period, and that tolerance allowed ambiguity to accumulate.
My point isn’t about defending Tesla or trusting regulators’ judgment — it’s about asking why the shift happened only after years of implicit acceptance, and what effects that delay had on public understanding and responsibility.
> Why was the terminology tolerated for years before being deemed unacceptable?
Politics and/or incompetence. Nothing to do with conspiracy theories. Government agencies are very transparent (implicitly historically; these days were explicitly and you can also now add outright corruption to that) in general (not just regarding Tesla specifically)
Politics and/or incompetence. Nothing to do with conspiracy theories. Government agencies are very transparent (implicitly historically; these days were explicitly and you can also now add outright corruption to that) in general (not just regarding Tesla specifically)