This kind of "self driving" shouldn't even be legal. Giving a driver a explicit reason not to pay attention but still instructing them and expecting them to pay attention is a recipe for disaster. I don't know whose bright idea that was, maybe an accident lawyer, but it has been quite deadly.

Of all the concerning shit facing Autopilot and FSD, the adjectives used in the marketing materials are the least of my concerns.

I’m more concerned that half baked shit is allowed to be on the road. I have literally had to run in front of a summoned Model 3 so the sensors would stop the vehicle and not hit a child.

Sigh.

When a free market absolutist meets a free speech absolutist.

Elon / Teslea needs money more than you need to live.

One of the state laws that Tesla complains about is Cal. Veh. Code § 24011.5, which says that companies "shall not name any partial driving automation feature, or describe any partial driving automation feature in marketing materials, using language that implies or would otherwise lead a reasonable person to believe, that the feature allows the vehicle to function as an autonomous vehicle."

So Tesla accepts they mislead the customers but that's their constitutional right?

I would love for somebody to honestly defend/show a different interpretation. It sounds so bad I can't on my own understand how people still defend this.

Corporations don't have rights.

This is the best summary I could come up with:

Tesla is trying to use a free speech argument to defeat a complaint that it falsely advertised "Autopilot" as an autonomous vehicle system.

In response to the California Department of Motor Vehicles allegation about Autopilot, Tesla claims the state laws cited by the DMV violate the US Constitution's First Amendment.

Tesla's response, which was filed last week and published yesterday in a story by The Register, says that several California statutes and regulations cited by the DMV "are unconstitutional under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 2, of the California Constitution, as they impermissibly restrict Tesla's truthful and nonmisleading speech about its vehicles and their features."

Despite Tesla's free speech claim, the US and state governments can enforce laws banning deceptive practices that harm consumers.

"Beyond the category of common-law fraud, the Supreme Court has also said that false or misleading commercial speech may be prohibited," a Congressional Research Service report last year stated.

The California DMV's 2022 complaint, alleging deceptive practices that violate state law, said that Tesla "made or disseminated statements that are untrue or misleading, and not based on facts, in advertising vehicles as equipped, or potentially equipped, with advanced driver assistance system (ADAS) features...

The original article contains 487 words, the summary contains 204 words. Saved 58%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!