Tesla must face part of 'phantom braking' lawsuit, US judge rules
By Mike Scarcella
Nov 22 (Reuters) -Elon Musk’s electric vehicle maker Tesla failed to persuade a U.S. judge to throw out a consumer lawsuit accusing it of failing to warn buyers about an alleged defect that can cause the cars to brake automatically when there is no actual collision risk.
In a ruling on Friday, U.S. District Judge Georgia Alexakis in Chicago trimmed the case but said the proposed class action could move ahead on a claim that Tesla concealed the "phantom braking" safety defect from would-be purchasers.
Alexakis dismissed other parts of the lawsuit, including claims that drivers overpaid for car insurance premiums sold through the Tesla's insurance arm because of the company's allegedly flawed collision monitoring.
Tesla had asked the judge to dismiss the entire lawsuit.
Tesla and attorneys representing two residents of Illinois and Ohio who filed the lawsuit did not immediately respond to requests for comment on Friday.
The consumers' 2023 complaint said Tesla’s “forward collision monitoring system” often falsely alerts to a crash ahead, even when there is no risk of a collision.
The consumers alleged they are paying higher premiums based on data from their cars showing false collision warnings. The plaintiffs contend Tesla knew about the alleged defect as early as 2015 and did not warn customers.
Tesla denied that it had knowledge of the alleged braking defect before one of the plaintiffs purchased his vehicle in early 2021.
The company argued that the plaintiffs had not pointed to any specific communications with buyers that concealed information about the defect.
Alexakis said the lawsuit “successfully connects the dots” between Tesla’s alleged omission of safety information on its website and buyers' reliance on the website to make purchase decisions.
The judge said the plaintiffs could file an amended complaint seeking to revive their insurance premium claims.
The case is Joshua Santiago et al v. Tesla, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois, No. 1:23-cv-02891.
For plaintiffs: Eugene Turin and Andrew Heldut of McGuire Law
For defendant: Livia Kiser and Susan Clare of King & Spalding
Read more:
Tesla launched its own car insurance. These drivers say it's a lemon.
Tesla swaps law firms in antitrust case as Cravath exits
Tesla gets more time to defend against driver class action over insurance
Tesla, autopilot crash victim's estate clash over damages in Florida appeal
Related Assets
Latest News
Disclaimer: The XM Group entities provide execution-only service and access to our Online Trading Facility, permitting a person to view and/or use the content available on or via the website, is not intended to change or expand on this, nor does it change or expand on this. Such access and use are always subject to: (i) Terms and Conditions; (ii) Risk Warnings; and (iii) Full Disclaimer. Such content is therefore provided as no more than general information. Particularly, please be aware that the contents of our Online Trading Facility are neither a solicitation, nor an offer to enter any transactions on the financial markets. Trading on any financial market involves a significant level of risk to your capital.
All material published on our Online Trading Facility is intended for educational/informational purposes only, and does not contain – nor should it be considered as containing – financial, investment tax or trading advice and recommendations; or a record of our trading prices; or an offer of, or solicitation for, a transaction in any financial instruments; or unsolicited financial promotions to you.
Any third-party content, as well as content prepared by XM, such as: opinions, news, research, analyses, prices and other information or links to third-party sites contained on this website are provided on an “as-is” basis, as general market commentary, and do not constitute investment advice. To the extent that any content is construed as investment research, you must note and accept that the content was not intended to and has not been prepared in accordance with legal requirements designed to promote the independence of investment research and as such, it would be considered as marketing communication under the relevant laws and regulations. Please ensure that you have read and understood our Notification on Non-Independent Investment. Research and Risk Warning concerning the foregoing information, which can be accessed here.
