Posted by Timothy O’Shea.
Tesla Motors, an automotive company in the Automotive Energy Storage industry, “who’s mission is to accelerate the world’s transition to sustainable energy.”(tesla.com) It “was founded in 2003 by a group of engineers in Silicon Valley who wanted to prove that electric cars could be better than gasoline-powered cars”(tesla.com). As of now, all Tesla Cars will be made with complete self-driving software. It is their belief that these self-driven vehicles will help to improve safety while also aiding in the transition to the world’s sustainability. However, Tesla’s autonomy options have had some challenges and have caused Tesla some trouble. Tesla has now faced a number of lawsuit’s regarding false advertising and marketing, more specifically false advertising and marketing of the car’s “Insane Mode”, a performance mode intended for fast acceleration, and also for the car’s autonomous mode.
After a few crashes, one of which was fatal, Tesla Motors has been receiving criticism for the way in which it chose to market and deploy its Autopilot driving-assist system. In the summer of 2016, Tesla was admittedly being investigated by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, for its first reported fatality in a self-driving vehicle, while a second potential crash, involving the Autopilot feature, arose. Multiple cases have erected in China after Tesla crashes, with one resulting in fatality, a 23 year old driver whose “dashboard camera showed the car hitting a cleaning truck from behind while traveling on a highway in central Hebei province.”(forbes.com) Another fatal crash took place in Florida, where Joshua Brown, 40 year old supporter of Tesla, was hit by a tractor trailer which was undetected by neither driver nor autopilot. A final crash that raise concern against Tesla’s Autopilot software occurred on the Pennsylvania Turnpike on July 1, where Albert Scaglione reportedly activated the self-driving feature prior to hitting the guard rail “off the right side of the roadway… crossed over the eastbound lanes and hit the concrete median.”
Amongst the many crashes and accusations, Tesla has continued to stand behind it’s autopilot saying that the crashes resulted from human error, rather than system error, and in most cases the opposing parties have not been able to prove otherwise. On a bold posting on its website, the company said “there is no car company in the world that cares more about safety than Tesla and our track record reflects that.”(usatoday.com) This statement resulted from the NHTSA’s disclosure it was further investigating the electric car company for the possibility of having their customers sign non-disclosure agreements that would impede reporting. With repeated complaints, the NHTSA continues to investigate the validity of Tesla motors vehicle safety but has not found any major problems at this time. From suspension concerns, to accusations of false advertising, to crashes and claims against the Autopilot feature, Tesla remains under consistent fire and has been on its toes ready to adapt and turn its feedback into more environmentally, economically, and logistically friendly features.
In more current news, Tesla has been running into some speed bumps in its growth and develop in Germany. The Federal Motor Transport Authority of Germany, has recently sent a request to Tesla asking them to stop advertising the “electric vehicles’ Autopilot function, claiming that this feature misleads drivers into unsafe inattention to the road.”(eetimes.com) Yhe claim released in late September, implies that Motor companies must refrain from using misleading terms like “auto-pilot”, “automated”, or “self-driving” if their cars do not possess the ability to control themselves completely independent of human involvement.” (eetimes.com) Tesla has responded saying its “Autopilot always requires that the driver remain engaged and ready to take over at any time.” (electrek.com)
Timothy O’Shea is an undecided business major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2019.
Sources:
Tesla issues thorough response following harsh critique of Autopilot by German authorities
http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1330633
https://www.tesla.com/about
http://www.forbes.com/sites/dougyoung/2016/09/19/tesla-takes-new-china-hit-with-driver-death-lawsuit/#37346299284f
Posted by Ali Paladino.
Recently, on September 1, 2016, the electric car maker Tesla Motors was called out for attempting to sell their vehicles directly to their customers in Missouri. The judge ruled Tesla’s efforts to rule out the middleman, car dealerships, violated state law. The Missouri Revenue Department “gave the California-based manufacturer a license for a University City dealership in 2013 and a franchise license for a Kansas City dealership in 2014.” Both of these licenses allowed Tesla motors to sell their vehicles directly to their customers, disregarding any use of dealerships.
The court ruled this was not suitable, and Missouri Automobile Dealers Association agreed. The Association sued the State claiming that “it had given Tesla special privileges,” in their attempts to disregard using franchised dealerships to sell their vehicles. The court ruled that Tesla’s action was not technically unconstitutional, but held the licensing was not allowed. Tesla argued the ruling against them was going to damage the company and suppress their ability to compete with other motor vehicle companies. The company also argued the order was an “attempt” to “limit consumer choice in Missouri.” Yet, Tesla appears to be determined to try and continue to sell to their customers directly in the hopes that this will improve their bottom-line. Doug Smith, head of the Dealers Association, however, does not agree with Tesla’s actions and believes that it is not fair to other manufacturers. He believes all manufacturers should be “treated the same in Missouri.”
I have to agree with Doug Smith. I do not think Tesla should have the right to sell directly to their customers and completely bypassing dealerships, only because it puts the company on a different playing field than other motor vehicle companies. I do not believe that is fair.
Tesla has looked at other ways to get around laws in other states in order to improve their sales; however, I do not agree with this either. In this situation, the law stands blurry and unclear and it is intriguing to see how far Tesla will go in attempts to get around the law.
Ali is a finance major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2019.
Posted by Kirill Ivanov.
Tesla, a popular tech firm, is commonly known for its production of electronically-powered cars and batteries. Tesla Motors is among many ventures pioneered by Elon Musk, who has commanded the SpaceX programs as well as many other development projects. Tesla vehicles are not as popular as those produced by Honda or Toyota; while one may occasionally spot a Tesla model out on the road, sightings are few and far between. In order to expand their sales and drive more Tesla vehicles out onto the roads, Tesla Motors initiated a referral program. This referral program, which was based on rewarding customers for purchasing the company’s products, boasted many incentives for potential Tesla buyers as well as current owners.
According to Tesla Motors, anyone who ordered a brand new Tesla Model S before October 31st using a referral link from a current Tesla owner would get $1,000 off the listed purchase price. In return, the current owner providing the referral would receive a $1,000 voucher for a Tesla service center visit or a Tesla accessory. The offer went on to offer a $25,000 discount for a new Tesla Founder Series Model X, which is not available to the public, when a person provides ten referrals. Why was this program illegal? Tesla Motors simply created a way to thank its customers for building the Tesla community while simultaneously reeling in new customers to expand the existing community.
Unfortunately, Tesla’s referral program happened to violate a California State Law, which is quite ironic due to the fact that the company’s headquarters are located in Palo Alto, California. The company’s referral program violated the California Automobile Sales Finance Act, which states the following:
It is unlawful for any seller to induce or attempt to induce any person to enter into a contract subject to this chapter by offering a rebate, discount, commission, or other consideration, contingent upon the happening of a future event, on the condition that the buyer either sells, or gives information or assistance for the purpose leading to a sale by the seller of, the same or related goods.
As a result of its failure to comply with California State Laws, the Tesla Motors referral program did not attract the customers the company had hoped it would. Many businesses use referral programs to benefit loyal customers while simultaneously attracting new ones, but it is extremely important for such business to be aware of local laws. Ignorance on a company’s part can result in catastrophic legal damages, but lucky enough for Tesla the company only received a written warning from the California Department of Motor Vehicles.
Kirill is an accounting major at the Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University, Class of 2018.
Source:
Title: DMV warns Tesla it’s referral program is unlawful
Author: Mark Glover
Published: October 15, 2015
Link: ( http://www.sacbee.com/news/business/article39309483.html )