Remember that $5,000 you spent on Tesla's Autopilot and then sued when it didn't deliver? We have good news...

You get $20

Tesla has reached a court settlement over its alleged "essentially unusable and demonstrably dangerous" Autopilot system.

The automaker was sued in the US by its electric car owners last year after it failed to meet its own deadlines and targets regarding its Enhanced Autopilot feature – which was supposed to grant vehicles the ability to drive themselves semi-autonomously under human supervision. Customers paid $5,000 for the package, and were told that it would be updated with new features that never arrived.

A draft of the settlement, leaked earlier this month, revealed that $5m would be set aside to end the legal battle, which meant that those who paid for the system would receive between $20 and $280 depending on when they bought the kit.

Elon Musk

As Tesla hits speed bump after speed bump, Elon Musk loses his mind in anti-media rant


Those who had coughed up an additional $3,000 on top of the $5,000 for a "fully self-driving" package will get nothing, though – because Tesla didn't put a timeline on its unmet promises.

In the lawsuit, car owners Dean Sheikh of Colorado, John Kelner of Florida, and Tom Milone of New Jersey claimed Tesla had essentially defrauded them by making promises that it knew it couldn't keep, whereas Tesla argued that it had simply been over-optimistic about the rollout timeline.

The truth is that Tesla found it much harder to deliver what it claimed it could – a persistent theme with the biz. In this case, the ongoing delays are in large part thanks to a big falling out with the supplier of its safety cameras, Mobileye, which resulted in the company refusing to supply Tesla with any more of its products.

Mobileye claimed that Tesla was progressing too fast with its self-driving technology and risked putting people's lives at risk; Tesla claimed that Mobileye was trying to punish it because it had decided to develop its own camera technology.


It didn't help either that several key members of Tesla's Autopilot team left – for reasons unknown, but speculation is that they were also unhappy with how Tesla and CEO Elon Musk was overhyping the technology's capabilities.

The agreement was filed in court late Thursday and still has to be approved by a judge. Both sides agreed to mediation, presumably because Tesla knew it had screwed up but didn't want to go through the legal process - which could have revealed details of the company's technology and rollout - and the car owners knew that proving fraud was going to be difficult when Tesla is notorious for over-promising.

It is notable that Tesla has refused to agree to one of the seemingly reasonable requests of the plaintiffs – that it reimburse them the cost of the system – another pointer that the company is rapidly running out of money.

Tesla put out a statement on the settlement which, in typical Tesla fashion, claimed it was doing a great job and had only settled the case because it was "the right thing to do."

Since rolling out our second generation of Autopilot hardware in October 2016, we have continued to provide software updates that have led to a major improvement in Autopilot functionality. This has included an extensive overhaul of the underlying architecture of our Autopilot software that enabled a step-change improvement in its machine learning capabilities. Our neural net, which expands as our customer fleet grows, is able to collect and analyze more high-quality data than ever before, which will enable us to roll out a series of new Autopilot features in 2018 and beyond. The customer response to our recent Autopilot updates has been overwhelmingly positive, so we know we’re on the right track.

That said, as time passed since we first unveiled Hardware 2, it eventually became clear that it was taking us longer to roll out these features than we would have liked or initially expected. We want to do right by those customers, so as part of a proposed settlement agreement for a class action lawsuit filed last year, we’ve agreed to compensate customers who purchased Autopilot on Hardware 2 vehicles who had to wait longer than we expected for these features. If the settlement is approved by the court, customers will receive different amounts depending on when they purchased and took delivery of their cars. Although the settlement is specific to customers in the US, if it is approved by the court, we’ve decided to compensate all customers globally in the same way. There’s no legal obligation to do so, but it's the right thing to do.

Earlier this week, consumer advocacy groups wrote to the also the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) asking it to investigate Tesla’s "deceptive and misleading" use of the name "Autopilot" for something that is not by any measure an autopilot.

Meanwhile Tesla CEO Elon Musk continues to complain about news coverage of car crashes that may have been caused by the Autopilot system. ®

Narrower topics

Other stories you might like

  • It's 2022 and there are still malware-laden PDFs in emails exploiting bugs from 2017
    Crafty file names, encrypted malicious code, Office flaws – ah, it's like the Before Times

    HP's cybersecurity folks have uncovered an email campaign that ticks all the boxes: messages with a PDF attached that embeds a Word document that upon opening infects the victim's Windows PC with malware by exploiting a four-year-old code-execution vulnerability in Microsoft Office.

    Booby-trapping a PDF with a malicious Word document goes against the norm of the past 10 years, according to the HP Wolf Security researchers. For a decade, miscreants have preferred Office file formats, such as Word and Excel, to deliver malicious code rather than PDFs, as users are more used to getting and opening .docx and .xlsx files. About 45 percent of malware stopped by HP's threat intelligence team in the first quarter of the year leveraged Office formats.

    "The reasons are clear: users are familiar with these file types, the applications used to open them are ubiquitous, and they are suited to social engineering lures," Patrick Schläpfer, malware analyst at HP, explained in a write-up, adding that in this latest campaign, "the malware arrived in a PDF document – a format attackers less commonly use to infect PCs."

    Continue reading
  • New audio server Pipewire coming to next version of Ubuntu
    What does that mean? Better latency and a replacement for PulseAudio

    The next release of Ubuntu, version 22.10 and codenamed Kinetic Kudu, will switch audio servers to the relatively new PipeWire.

    Don't panic. As J M Barrie said: "All of this has happened before, and it will all happen again." Fedora switched to PipeWire in version 34, over a year ago now. Users who aren't pro-level creators or editors of sound and music on Ubuntu may not notice the planned change.

    Currently, most editions of Ubuntu use the PulseAudio server, which it adopted in version 8.04 Hardy Heron, the company's second LTS release. (The Ubuntu Studio edition uses JACK instead.) Fedora 8 also switched to PulseAudio. Before PulseAudio became the standard, many distros used ESD, the Enlightened Sound Daemon, which came out of the Enlightenment project, best known for its desktop.

    Continue reading
  • VMware claims 'bare-metal' performance on virtualized GPUs
    Is... is that why Broadcom wants to buy it?

    The future of high-performance computing will be virtualized, VMware's Uday Kurkure has told The Register.

    Kurkure, the lead engineer for VMware's performance engineering team, has spent the past five years working on ways to virtualize machine-learning workloads running on accelerators. Earlier this month his team reported "near or better than bare-metal performance" for Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers (BERT) and Mask R-CNN — two popular machine-learning workloads — running on virtualized GPUs (vGPU) connected using Nvidia's NVLink interconnect.

    NVLink enables compute and memory resources to be shared across up to four GPUs over a high-bandwidth mesh fabric operating at 6.25GB/s per lane compared to PCIe 4.0's 2.5GB/s. The interconnect enabled Kurkure's team to pool 160GB of GPU memory from the Dell PowerEdge system's four 40GB Nvidia A100 SXM GPUs.

    Continue reading

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022