After I first wrote about the Tesla Files, it surprised me people were not giving them the attention they deserved – especially in the US. So I wrote about why these documents are crucial for American Tesla employees and customers. To a large number of these folks, the importance relates solely to being properly informed: arbitration rules prevent them from even thinking about suing the BEV maker.
All Tesla employees have to agree not to go to court should they have any legal dispute with the company. This is what made it so hard for Cristina Balan to sue Tesla for defamation after it publicly accused her of embezzlement and kickback in a Huffington Post story. The Romanian engineer is now fighting breast cancer while trying to clean her name. And she is far from being the only example of how this compulsory arrangement can prevent people from pursuing adequate compensation for Tesla's mistakes.
Owen Diaz only got to sue Tesla for racism because he was a contract worker. Melvin Berry was an employee and had to go to arbitration for the same complaint. The BEV maker lost and had to pay him $1 million. Diaz was initially supposed to receive $136.9 million, but Tesla managed to reduce that to $3.2 million. Assuming that this is the final decision in Diaz's case, it is still theoretically three times more than Berry was granted. Ultimately, he received only $266,000 because more than $755,000 went to attorneys and legal fees.
Any of the more than 100,000 employees listed on the Tesla files would have to go to arbitration to require the company to fix its data protection policies and pay them for exposing their information. It is more likely that regulators will be the ones punishing the BEV maker for the leak – if any penalty happens, mind you. In California, the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) took the initiative to sue the company on behalf of its employees.
Regarding Tesla customers, Bob Atkins recently shared with me a bitter discovery. When he tried to help his mother-in-law join the class action that compares the BEV maker's over-the-air (OTA) updates to hacker attacks, he received this automatic message from the attorneys' website:
"Please respond to this email if you are not bound by a Tesla arbitration clause. You are not bound by a Tesla arbitration clause if you (1) purchased from a private seller/dealer, (2) opted out of arbitration, (3) already submitted a case for arbitration, or (4) if your sales agreement did not contain an arbitration clause."
Atkins discovered that his mother-in-law did not reject the arbitration provision when she took delivery of her 2014 Tesla Model S.
How many of Tesla's customers do that? We'd ask the company about the percentage of buyers that refuse that clause, but it abolished its PR department years ago. That said, it is not unlikely that most people with their data included in the Tesla Files cannot sue the BEV maker. Sadly for them, their cases will be another reminder of the precautions they have to take before buying their electric vehicles from Tesla. Apart from a thorough inspection of the brand-new car to make sure it does not have serious defects or damages, they must also remember to check the box that sets them free from arbitration as the only legal remedy available. The Tesla Files case is a good example of why that is necessary. Unfortunately, it is also not the only one.
BMS_u029 error messages are emerging mostly after the MCUv1 recall. Some owners get that in an even worse circumstance: after paying to have the MCUv2 computer because they want their Model S units to have the most recent hardware possible. Little did many of them know that it would also lead them to need a new battery pack for at least $15,000 a pop. The lawsuit shows these customers want a better explanation from Tesla than just crappy bad luck with components that can fail for six major causes, including water ingress.
The Tesla Files also mention crashes and Autopilot issues such as phantom braking and sudden unintended acceleration (SUA) episodes. So far, the best explanation for them is a pedal confusion that apparently emerges from how the software makes the vehicle move without driver intervention. In forums, you can see some commenters making fun of the drivers who claim SUA caused them to crash their Teslas.
I have no doubt some of the 2,400 people who complained about the problem (until March 2022) eventually did the same. Or that the ones mocking their fellow Tesla owners will see themselves in the same boat. It will be inevitable unless the BEV maker applies the same recall it performed in China to the US. The deal is that none of them will get to challenge Tesla in court if they forgot to tick the box rejecting arbitration clauses. All they have left is to pray for regulators to take measures.
Owen Diaz only got to sue Tesla for racism because he was a contract worker. Melvin Berry was an employee and had to go to arbitration for the same complaint. The BEV maker lost and had to pay him $1 million. Diaz was initially supposed to receive $136.9 million, but Tesla managed to reduce that to $3.2 million. Assuming that this is the final decision in Diaz's case, it is still theoretically three times more than Berry was granted. Ultimately, he received only $266,000 because more than $755,000 went to attorneys and legal fees.
Regarding Tesla customers, Bob Atkins recently shared with me a bitter discovery. When he tried to help his mother-in-law join the class action that compares the BEV maker's over-the-air (OTA) updates to hacker attacks, he received this automatic message from the attorneys' website:
"Please respond to this email if you are not bound by a Tesla arbitration clause. You are not bound by a Tesla arbitration clause if you (1) purchased from a private seller/dealer, (2) opted out of arbitration, (3) already submitted a case for arbitration, or (4) if your sales agreement did not contain an arbitration clause."
Atkins discovered that his mother-in-law did not reject the arbitration provision when she took delivery of her 2014 Tesla Model S.
BMS_u029 error messages are emerging mostly after the MCUv1 recall. Some owners get that in an even worse circumstance: after paying to have the MCUv2 computer because they want their Model S units to have the most recent hardware possible. Little did many of them know that it would also lead them to need a new battery pack for at least $15,000 a pop. The lawsuit shows these customers want a better explanation from Tesla than just crappy bad luck with components that can fail for six major causes, including water ingress.
I have no doubt some of the 2,400 people who complained about the problem (until March 2022) eventually did the same. Or that the ones mocking their fellow Tesla owners will see themselves in the same boat. It will be inevitable unless the BEV maker applies the same recall it performed in China to the US. The deal is that none of them will get to challenge Tesla in court if they forgot to tick the box rejecting arbitration clauses. All they have left is to pray for regulators to take measures.