COMPLAINT against All Defendants by Neil Karunatilaka. Attorney Zohdy, Tarek H. added. (Filing fee $ 402, receipt number ACAEDC-11201256) (Attachments: # (1) Civil Cover Sheet)(Zohdy, Tarek)
Page 1
Tarek H. Zohdy (CA Bar No. 247775)
Tarek.Zohdy@capstonelawyers.com
Cody R. Padgett (CA Bar No. 275553)
Cody.Padgett@capstonelawyers.com
Laura H. Goolsby (CA Bar No. 321721)
Laura.Goolsby@capstonelawyers.com
CAPSTONE LAW APC
1875 Century Park East, Suite Los Angeles, California Telephone: (310) 556-Facsimile:
(310) 943-
Attorneys for Plaintiff
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
NEIL KARUNATILAKA, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated,
Case No.
Plaintiff,
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
v.
TESLA, INC. d/b/a TESLA MOTORS,
INC.,
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Defendant.
27Page 2
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Plaintiff Neil Karunatilaka (“Plaintiff”) brings this action on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, against Defendant Tesla, Inc. (d/b/a Tesla Motors, Inc.) (“Tesla”).
Plaintiff’s allegations are based upon personal knowledge and belief as to his own acts, upon the
investigation of his counsel, and, where specifically stated, upon information and belief.
INTRODUCTION
1.
Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of a proposed class of
similarly situated owners of Tesla model vehicles. This action arises out of Tesla’s false
advertising of its electric vehicles’ range, which Tesla grossly overvalued when selling the
vehicles to consumers.
2.
Tesla designs, manufactures, advertises, markets, and sells electric vehicles to
consumers.
3.
A key feature of electric vehicles is the “range” of the electric vehicle—that is,
the distance the electric vehicle can be driven on a single battery charge, before requiring the
driver to stop and recharge the vehicle. The electric vehicle’s range directly correlates to the
electric vehicle’s battery charge. An electric vehicle’s range is roughly equivalent to a gas-
powered vehicle’s potential range it can be driven on a single tank of gas, or it’s “distance to
empty.”
4.
The electric vehicle’s range is one of the most important features that consumers
generally consider when purchasing an electric vehicle, because it correlates to the distance they
can travel before needing to recharge the vehicle. In fact, when a consumer visits Tesla’s website
to view any of Tesla’s various electric vehicle models, “range” is the first listed feature
advertised among other key features.
5.
Understanding that this would be an important feature (if not the most important
feature) to many consumers, and preying on this fact, Tesla marketed its electric vehicles as
having a grossly overvalued range in an effort to increase sales to consumers. As it so happens,
Tesla advertised its vehicles as having ranges that, in some instances, were 26% over the actual
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINTPage 3
average range of the electric vehicle.
6.
After purchasing their Tesla electric vehicles, many Tesla owners noticed that the
average range in their vehicles was well-below the range Tesla had advertised prior to their
purchase. As some owners grew concerned, they contacted Tesla to schedule service
appointments to confirm whether anything was wrong with their electric vehicle or its battery.
7.
However, many consumers who complained or scheduled appointments with
Tesla regarding the below-advertised ranges in their vehicles discovered that Tesla would cancel
such appointments and would explain that their electric vehicle was performing as intended.
8.
As a result of Tesla’s unfair, deceptive, and/or fraudulent business practices in
advertising grossly overestimated range statistics for its electric vehicles to consumers, Tesla
purchasers, including Plaintiff, were harmed.
9.
Had Plaintiff and putative Class Members known that the advertised range of
Tesla vehicles were grossly overestimated, they would not have bought Tesla model vehicles, or
else would have paid substantially less for them.
10.
As a result of Tesla’s tactics and false advertising, Plaintiff and Class Members
suffered an injury in fact, incurred damages, and have been harmed by Tesla’s conduct.
11.
Accordingly, Plaintiff brings this action to redress Tesla’s violations of state
of implied warranty, violation of California’s Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, and unjust
enrichment.
PARTIES
12.
Plaintiff Neil Karunatilaka is a resident and citizen of Citrus Heights (Sacramento
County), California. In November 2022, Plaintiff purchased a pre-owned 2019 Tesla Model
Reuters, “Tesla created secret team to suppress thousands of driving range complaints”
https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/tesla-batteries-range/ (last accessed, Nov.
14, 2023).
Id.
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINTPage 4
vehicle from Tracy Volkswagen in Tracy, California (2605 Auto Plaza Way, Tracy, California
95304). The vehicle had 64,349 miles on it at the time of purchase.
13.
Defendant Tesla, Inc. d/b/a Tesla Motors, Inc. is a Delaware corporation, with its
headquarters in Austin, Texas, and maintains its engineering headquarters in Palo Alto,
California.
14.
Prior to December 2021, Tesla maintained its headquarters in Palo Alto,
California. In December 2021, Tesla moved its headquarters from Palo Alto, California, to
Austin, Texas.
15.
Despite moving its headquarters to Austin, Texas, Tesla continued to operate
locations in California, including one of its factories in Fremont, California, which produces
Model S, Model 3, Model X, and Model Y vehicles. 4 In addition to its dealerships throughout
the state, Tesla also maintained locations in Lathrop, Los Angeles, and San Diego, California.
By 2022, Tesla employed approximately 47,000 employees in California alone. 6 While Tesla
grew worldwide, Elon Musk, Tesla’s CEO since October 2008 and a member of its board since
April 2004, 7 noted that Tesla continued to expand in California in particular and that he expects
Tesla, “Contact” https://www.tesla.com/contact (last accessed, Nov. 14, 2023); The Associated
Press, “Tesla officially moves headquarters from California to Texas”
https://www.tesla.com/manufacturing (last visited Nov. 14, 2023).
Tesla | Careers, “Manufacturing” https://www.tesla.com/manufacturing (last accessed, Nov. 14,
2023).
CNET Highlights, Elon Musk's Remarks During Engineer HQ Debut, YouTube (Feb. 23,
2023), https://youtu.be/vl-Av28e0fo?t=82 (last accessed, Nov. 14, 2023) (remarks and
presentation at the opening of Tesla’s Global Engineering Headquarters by Elon Musk, noting
Tesla’s California locations).
CNET Highlights, Elon Musk's Remarks During Engineer HQ Debut, YouTube (Feb. 23,
2023), https://youtu.be/vl-Av28e0fo?t=178 (last accessed, Nov. 14, 2023) (noting Tesla’s “large
impact in California”); CleanTechnica, “Tesla’s Engineering Headquarters in California”
https://cleantechnica.com/2023/03/17/teslas-engineering-headquarters-incalifornia/#:~:text=Now%2C%20Tesla's%20engineerin
s%20and%20USA%20Today (last accessed, Nov. 14, 2023).
Tesla | Investor Relations, “Corporate Governance - Elon Musk”
https://ir.tesla.com/corporate/elon-musk (last accessed, Nov. 14, 2023).
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINTPage 5
such expansions in the state to continue. 8 Moreover, Elon Musk noted that Tesla created almost
$45 million worth of value per day in California’s economy alone.
16.
In February 2023, Tesla announced that it would be returning its headquarters to
California by opening its “Global Engineering Headquarters” in Palo Alto, California. 10 During
an event marking the opening of the facility, Elon Musk, Tesla’s CEO, stated that Tesla’s Global
Engineering Headquarters was “effectively a headquarters of Tesla” and that Tesla was “kind of
a dual-headquartered company.” 11 Elon Musk also described Tesla as “a California-Texas
company.”
17.
Regardless of the terminology Tesla may use, Tesla maintains two headquarters,
located in Austin, Texas, and in Palo Alto, California. Tesla maintains substantial and continuous
contacts in the States of Texas and California. Tesla maintains its principal place of business
either in the State of Texas or the State of California, and maintains substantial and continuous
contacts in the other State, such that the exercise of general jurisdiction in either Texas or
California is proper.
18.
Accordingly, for jurisdictional purposes, Defendant Tesla, Inc. d/b/a Tesla
Motors, Inc. is a citizen of the States of Delaware, Texas, and California, and is subject to the
jurisdiction of the States of Delaware, Texas, and California.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
19.
This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. This
Court also has supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
because those claims are related to the federal claims and form part of the same case and
See supra note 6.
CNET Highlights, Elon Musk's Remarks During Engineer HQ Debut, YouTube (Feb. 23,
2023), https://youtu.be/vl-Av28e0fo?t=178 (last accessed, Nov. 14, 2023).
Tesla, “Contact” https://www.tesla.com/contact (last accessed, Nov. 14, 2023).
CNBC, “Elon Musk meets with California Gov. Newsom at Tesla’s new engineering
headquarters to discuss expansion” https://www.cnbc.com/2023/02/22/elon-musk-meets-withcalifornia-gov-newsom-at-teslas-engineering-hq.html (last accessed, Nov. 14, 2023).
Id.
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINTPage 6
controversy.
20.
This Court also has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to the Class Action
Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d). The aggregated claims of the individual class members
exceed the sum or value of $5,000,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs; there are more than
100 putative class members; and at least one putative class member is from a state different from
Tesla.
21.
This Court has personal jurisdiction over Tesla because it conducts substantial
business in this District and because Tesla is registered to do business in California. Elon Musk,
Tesla’s CEO, has described Tesla as a “a dual-headquartered company,” because it maintains its
Global Engineering Headquarters in Palo Alto, California, which he noted was “effectively a
headquarters of Tesla.” 13 Thus, Tesla maintains a continuous and significant portion of its
business in California and in this District.
22.
Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because a substantial part
of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in this District. Venue is also proper
in this District under 18 U.S.C. § 1965 because Tesla transacts its affairs in this District and the
ends of justice require it.
GENERAL FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
23.
Tesla designs, manufactures, advertises, markets, and sells its electric vehicles
throughout the United States and worldwide.
24.
Tesla sells four main models of electric vehicles, each of which includes various
“sub-models” or versions: the Model 3, the Model Y, the Model S, and the Model X.
The Tesla Purchasing Experience
25.
Tesla sells its vehicles directly to consumers. Although Tesla has dealerships and
showrooms, Tesla maintains control over those dealerships and ensures that all sales of its
vehicles are directly through Tesla, rather than a third party.
Id.
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINTPage 7
26.
Consumers wishing to purchase a Tesla vehicle, thus, most often do so through
Tesla’s website, by selecting the preferred model and various features to “build” the vehicle they
will purchase.
27.
For example, a consumer wishing to purchase a Tesla Model 3—Tesla’s baseline
model vehicle—can view available inventory or create a custom order, by selecting the features
they most prefer.
28.
For the Model 3, for example, Tesla advertises three attributes above all others:
the price, the vehicle’s acceleration from 0-60 mph, and the vehicle’s range. See below:
29.
If a consumer wishes to explore available inventory, Tesla lists options available
for purchase directly from Tesla, including “key features” of the vehicle. Among these “key
features,” Tesla lists the range, top speed, and vehicle’s acceleration from 0-60 mph, in that
order, along with the price, model, and version of the vehicle (as indicated in the example
(last accessed, Nov. 14, 2023).
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINTPage 8
30.
Consumers also may “custom order” their Tesla vehicle, by choosing the
particular vehicle features and attributes they prefer. With this option, Tesla custom builds the
vehicle to the consumer’s preference.
31.
By custom ordering, a consumer can ensure they select a custom-tailored Tesla
vehicle to their preference, selecting the ideal version, range, wheel style, color, and interior
trim. Any time a feature selection is changed, the vehicle’s price, range, top speed, and
acceleration from 0-60 mph will be adjusted. While certain features may impact the vehicle’s
price, not all features will impact the vehicle’s range, speed, or acceleration. For example,
selecting a red paint style and black-and-white interior trim will increase the price by $3,
total, it will not impact the vehicle’s range, speed, or acceleration; but selecting 19” sport wheels
will increase the price by $1,500 total and will impact the vehicle’s range.
32.
For a rear-wheel drive Model 3 version—the base version of the Model 3—with
18” Aero Wheels, the listed range is 272 miles, with a 140-mph top speed, and 5.8 second
acceleration from 0-60 mph, as indicated below:
Tesla, “Design Your Own” Model 3 https://www.tesla.com/model3/design#overview (last
accessed, Nov. 14, 2023).
Id.
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINTPage 9
33.
34.
For a Dual Motor All-Wheel Drive Model 3 Long Range version with 18” Aero
Wheels, the listed range is 333 miles, with a 145-mph top speed, and 4.2 second acceleration
from 0-60 mph, as indicated below:
35.
And for a Dual Motor All-Wheel Drive Model 3 Performance version with 18”
Id.
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINTPage 10
Aero Wheels, the listed range is 315 miles, with a 162-mph top speed, and 3.1 second
acceleration from 0-60 mph, as indicated below:
36.
When customizing the vehicle, Tesla further notes that selecting a different style
of wheel may impact the vehicle’s range.
37.
Regardless of the method a consumer uses to purchase a Tesla model vehicle—
whether by exploring available inventory of vehicles or by custom ordering a vehicle—Tesla
advertises the electric vehicle’s range as a key factor of the vehicle.
38.
And at every turn, Tesla grossly overinflates the vehicle’s range.
Tesla Vehicles Display Real-Time Range Estimates
39.
Each of Tesla’s model vehicles comes equipped with a screen displaying
navigation, infotainment, vehicle settings, and key vehicle information, including battery charge
indicators and range information.
40.
Tesla vehicles provide range estimates in real-time. The intention is to provide
the driver with real-time updates on the electric vehicle battery’s performance, which directly
correlates to the range the vehicle can be driven. Accurate range estimates help to ensure that, as
the battery drains, the driver knows to pull over at a charging station before the battery drains
Id.
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINTPage 11
completely, leaving the driver and occupants stranded. Inaccurate range estimates can, indeed,
lead a driver to being stranded, as the battery drains completely—and unexpectedly, based upon
inaccurate range information.
41.
Tesla vehicles provide range estimates in two ways. First, through a meter on the
screen that is always displayed. This meter can be toggled to indicate either the electric vehicle
battery percentage remaining or the range (measured in miles or kilometers) remaining. Second,
through the vehicle’s navigation system, which estimates the range (indicated in battery
percentage) remaining, as compared to the set destination. However, if no destination is input
into the navigation system, the vehicle will not indicate a range estimate through this latter
method.
42.
Tesla has developed its own proprietary software and algorithms for estimating
and updating in real-time the range and battery performance in its vehicles, as displayed through
the Tesla system displayed on the screen.
Tesla Informs Consumers That They Should Not Charge Their Vehicle to Full Capacity
43.
Following purchase, each Tesla vehicle sets a suggested charge limit—that is, a
an upper limit to stop charging the battery. For example, if an 80% limit is set, the battery will
continue to charge until it reaches 80% capacity, then will stop charging. This effectively ensures
that the battery cannot be fully charged to 100%.
44.
A consumer can manually override the charge limit. However, Tesla recommends
that consumers not exceed the suggested charge limit. Tesla specifically suggests that consumers
“[c]harge the battery to the appropriate charge limit for your vehicle based on the installed
battery.”
45.
Tesla suggests that Tesla owners should charge their vehicle to full 100% capacity
only sparingly. In fact, Tesla’s chief executive officer, Elon Musk, suggests that owners should
Tesla | Support, “Range Tips” https://www.tesla.com/support/range (last accessed Nov. 14,
2023).
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINTPage 12
only charge to 90% or 95% when necessary.
46.
Setting charge limits directly impacts total range. Tesla’s advertised total range
of its vehicles are based on a full charge. However, because Tesla discourages owners from ever
charging their vehicles to 100%, it is increasingly difficult—if not impossible—to ever reach
that advertised range. For example, setting the vehicle’s charge limit at 80% can reduce the total
range by over a hundred miles, compared to the advertised range.
47.
Effectively, based upon Tesla’s suggested charge limits, Tesla vehicles cannot
reach the total ranges Tesla advertises.
48.
Notably, while Tesla openly advertises its total range estimates (which already
are exaggerated) to consumers at the point of purchase, it does not indicate to consumers that
they can expect to limit the vehicle’s total range by setting charge limits.
How Tesla Calculates the Ranges It Advertises
49.
Electric vehicle manufacturers are required by the Environmental Protection
Agency (“EPA”) to advertise fuel-efficiency information, as indicated in a miles-per-gallon
equivalent (“MPGe”) and estimate of the electric vehicle’s total range. The MPGe indication
allows consumers to compare the electric vehicle directly with gasoline and diesel vehicles. The
estimates of the vehicle’s total range allow consumers to examine how far an electric vehicle can
be expected to travel on a full charge, in combined city and highway driving.
50.
vehicle’s range, the EPA does not dictate precisely how this range is calculated.
Although the EPA requires that electric vehicle manufacturers advertise the
51.
The EPA provides a standardized formula, which converts fuel-economy results
from city and highway driving tests to calculate the vehicle’s total range figure. However,
Mashable, “Elon Musk explains why you shouldn't charge your Tesla battery to 100%”
https://mashable.com/article/tesla-battery-charge-max#:~:text=Tesla,Elon%20Musk%20explains%20why%20you%20shouldn't%20cha
20to%2090%2D95%25.&text=Electric%20car%20batteries%20should%20not,up%20to%0%25%20by%20default (last accessed Nov. 14, 2023); see also Electrek, “Tesla battery expert
recommends daily charging limit to optimize durability” https://electrek.co/2017/09/01/teslabattery-expert-recommends-daily-battery-pack-charging (last accessed Nov. 14, 2023).
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINTPage 13
electric vehicle manufacturers may conduct their own testing to establish the range estimates for
their vehicles. Generally, the only reason an electric vehicle manufacturer would choose to
conduct its own testing is to ensure that it generates a more favorable total range estimate.
52.
Numerous electric vehicle manufacturers, including Ford, Mercedes, and Porsche
choose to simply use the EPA’s standardized formula to calculate the range in their electric
vehicles. Doing so ensures that the potential range advertised to consumers reflects conservative
estimates based on real-world driving conditions.
53.
Tesla, however, does not use the EPA’s standardized formula for any of its
vehicles. Instead, Tesla conducts its own testing to calculate the total range for each of its model
vehicles, resulting in inflated estimates compared to the ranges drivers actually experience.
54.
In a recent audit, the EPA reviewed the estimated ranges in six Tesla models since
the 2020 model year. Based on the EPA’s testing, Tesla was required to lower the estimated
ranges in all six of those model vehicles, because Tesla consistently was overestimating the range
of its vehicles.
55.
When selling a used vehicle, for example, Tesla owners can go visit
www.fueleconomy.gov to download a Used Vehicle Fuel Economy label by using the provided
online tool, which employs established EPA standardized formulae for estimating electric
vehicle range.
56.
An example of a fuel economy label developed by using this tool for a 2020 Tesla
Model Y Performance vehicle is included below:
See supra note 1.
Id.
Id.
U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy
https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/UsedCarLabel.jsp (last accessed Nov. 14, 2023).
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINTPage 14
57.
Notably, this label describes the estimated electric vehicle range in these terms:
“When fully charged, vehicle can travel about . . .” Describing the estimated range in this manner
makes clear that the advertised range is available only at full 100% battery charge.
58.
When selling their vehicles , Tesla does not describe the estimated vehicle range
in these terms or with equivalent warnings.
59.
Further, the label makes clear that “[a]ctual results will vary for many reasons
including driving conditions.” For a used vehicle, it also indicates that range may be impacted
by “how the car was driven, maintained, or modified.”
Tesla Exaggerates the Ranges of Its Vehicles
60.
For years, Tesla has been exaggerating the range of its vehicles—that is, the
vehicle’s potential driving distance before requiring the driver to recharge the electric vehicle’s
battery.
See supra note 1.
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINTPage 15
61.
On July 27, 2023, Reuters published a special report, by Steve Stecklow and
Norihiko Shirouzu, detailing Tesla’s tactics of seriously exaggerating the ranges of its vehicles
(the “Reuters report”).
62.
Based upon information from those familiar with Tesla’s early vehicle software
designs, the Reuters report explains that Tesla developed algorithms for estimating the range of
its electric vehicles, which would display to drivers “rosy” projections for the distance the
vehicle could travel on a full battery.
63.
However, once the battery reached 50% capacity, the algorithm would change
and begin showing the driver more realistic projections. This would cause the estimated range
of the vehicle to fluctuate drastically from that point.
64.
The decision to include these algorithms to present inflated range estimates came
directly from Tesla’s chief executive officer, Elon Musk. 30 As the Reuters report indicates, “Elon
[and Tesla] wanted to show good range numbers when fully charged . . . . When you buy a car
off the lot seeing 350-mile, 400-mile range, it makes you feel good.”
65.
Tesla’s tactics to inflate the range estimates for its vehicles has continued.
Recently, South Korean regulators fined Tesla for false advertising the ranges of its vehicles.
Specifically, the Korea Fair Trade Commission found that Tesla exaggerated the “driving ranges
of its cars on a single charge, their fuel cost-effectiveness compared to gasoline vehicles as well
as the performance of its Superchargers.” 32 It was determined that, for example, the range of
Tesla electric vehicles could drop by up to 50.5% in cold weather, as compared to the advertised
Id.
Id.
Id.
Id.
Id.
See Reuters, “South Korea fines Tesla $2.2 mln for exaggerating driving range of EVs”
https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/south-korea-fines-tesla-22-mln-exaggeratingdriving-range-evs-2023-01-03 (last accessed Nov. 14, 2023).
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINTPage 16
ranges.
66.
their advertised ranges.
Other recent studies determined that various Tesla models averaged 26% below
67.
Beginning with 2020 model year vehicles, the EPA has required Tesla to reduce
the range estimates Tesla advertised to consumers.
68.
Various factors can impact a Tesla model vehicle’s range, including: high driving
speeds, cold temperatures, “stop-and-go” traffic, driving uphill, and inclement weather (such as
rain, snow, or headwinds).
69.
However, recent testing has found that Tesla vehicles deliver actual ranges well
below their advertised ranges. In 2022 and 2023, Recurrent, an electric vehicle analytics
company, surveyed more than 8,000 Tesla model vehicles. The results of this survey determined
that Tesla vehicles fail to accurately reflect how various factors or conditions will negatively
impact the vehicle’s range.
70.
For example, while Tesla itself explains that temperature can negatively impact a
vehicle’s range, Recurrent’s testing determined that Tesla model vehicles still overwhelmingly
calculated that they could still deliver nearly the advertised full range, regardless of external
factors—with Tesla vehicles calculating that they could travel more than 90% of their advertised
range. Put simply, Tesla vehicles failed to accurately account for external factors impacting
battery performance and vehicle range, leading to a gross overestimate of the vehicle’s range.
71.
Other electric vehicle manufacturers do not overestimate the range of their
vehicles to the same extent. For example, Recurrent tested the Ford Mustang Mach-E, the
Chevrolet Bolt, and the Hyundai Kona—all electric vehicles and direct competitors to Tesla
See supra note 1.
Id.
Id.
Tesla | Support, “Range Tips” https://www.tesla.com/support/range (last accessed Nov. 14,
2023).
See supra note 1.
Id.
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINTPage 17
model vehicles—and found their estimated ranges to be more accurate. In fact, the Hyundai
Kona generally underestimated the range the vehicle could travel before requiring a recharge.
72.
Tesla, however, chose to “take[] a different path from most other automakers.”
While other electric vehicle manufacturers advertise conservative range estimates, Tesla
consistently advertised overly aggressive estimates of the range within its vehicles.
73.
Another recent study, which compared 21 different brands of electric vehicles,
analyzed whether electric vehicles could deliver the advertised range in actual use. 41 The study
found that three Tesla model vehicles posted the worst performances, falling short of their
advertised ranges by 26%, on average.
74.
In yet another recent study, all Tesla vehicles failed to meet their advertised range
estimates based on real-world driving tests. Edmunds.com, an automotive review website, tested
various electric vehicle manufacturers’ range estimate claims. As recently as July 2023, no Tesla
vehicle was able to meet its advertised range estimate.
Tesla Has Already Admitted It Falsely Advertised and Exaggerated Range Estimates
75.
South Korean regulators have already fined Tesla for falsely advertising the total
ranges of its vehicles in South Korea.
76.
The Korea Fair Trade Commission determined that Tesla failed to inform
consumers that the vehicle’s total range could be negatively impacted by various factors, and
that the range would likely be lower in normal driving conditions.
Id.
Id.
Gregory Pannone & Dave VanderWerp, Comparison of On-Road Highway Fuel Economy
and All-Electric Range to Label Values: Are the Current Label Procedures Appropriate for
Battery Electric Vehicles?, SAE Technical Paper (2023),
https://www.sae.org/publications/technical-papers/content/2023-01-0349 (last accessed, Nov.
14, 2023).
Id.; see also supra note 1.
Edmunds, “Edmunds Tested: Electric Car Rage and Consumption”
https://www.edmunds.com/car-news/electric-car-range-and-consumption-epa-vs-edmunds.html
(last accessed, Nov. 14, 2023).
See supra note 1.
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINTPage 18
77.
South Korean regulators required Tesla to publicly admit that it had misled
consumers regarding its range estimates for Tesla vehicles. In a June 19, 2023 statement, Tesla
executives, including Elon Musk, acknowledged that Tesla had employed “false/exaggerated
advertising.”
Tesla Owners Have Noticed that the Ranges in Their Vehicles Are Not as Advertised
78.
As Tesla owners used their vehicles, they soon realized that their vehicles did not
perform as expected or advertised because the electric vehicles were consistently incapable or
driving at the advertised ranges.
79.
As Reuters reported, one Tesla Model 3 owner was required to stop to charge his
electric vehicle numerous times during a road trip, and he noticed that he was only receiving
about 150 miles of range when his electric vehicle battery was fully charged, which was well
below the advertised range.
80.
This understandably caused great concern among Tesla owners, who were
worried that the batteries in their vehicles were defective or failing. Based on these concerns,
consumers began contacting Tesla to seek assistance and confirmation that the batteries in their
electric vehicles were not failing.
81.
Tesla provides a mobile app to all Tesla owners, which links to each owner’s
Tesla electric vehicle. The application allows the owner to control the vehicle, view information
about the vehicle, and, if necessary, to schedule a service appointment for diagnostics or repair
with a Tesla dealership or representative.
82.
Based on their concerns regarding potential issues with the batteries in their Tesla
electric vehicles—because the range was consistently falling short of advertised estimates—
consumers used their Tesla mobile app to register complaints or schedule service appointments
for a representative to check their vehicle.
Id.
Id.
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINTPage 19
Tesla Created a “Diversion” Team to Handle Complaints Related to Vehicle Range
83.
Facing mounting complaints and appointments regarding range concerns, Tesla
created a special “team” that was tasked specifically with handling these complaints.
84.
However, Tesla’s reasoning for creating this team was not to assuage Tesla
owners’ concerns. Rather, Tesla created this team to divert customers away from service
appointments, in an effort to save Tesla time and money in handling service appointments.
85.
This “Diversion Team” was created solely to handle complaints and service
appointments regarding concerns over vehicle range. Members of the Diversion Team were
tasked with “diverting” customers away from service appointments and would simply cancel any
service appointment that was nominally related to concerns over a vehicle’s range.
86.
Rather than allowing a customer to attend a service appointment regarding their
range concerns, the Diversion Team would run remote diagnostic on a complaining customer’s
vehicle. The Diversion Team would call the customer and explain that Tesla’s advertised range
was a “prediction,” rather than an actual measurement. The team was trained to explain to
customers that the electric vehicle’s batteries naturally degrade over time—and, thus, the
vehicle’s range will be reduced. 48 Upon information and belief, the team did not explain to
customers that Tesla’s method for calculating the originally advertised range was aggressive, or
that the software algorithm displaying the updated vehicle range in real-time did not accurately
reflect the range at higher battery percentages.
87.
Notably, when running diagnostics, if the diagnostic indicated some other issue
with a customer’s vehicle, the Diversion Team was instructed not to inform the customer and
instead was required to simply close the customer’s case.
88.
Tesla also updated the Tesla mobile app to disallow any customer who was
voicing concern over their vehicle’s range from scheduling a service appointment. Instead, the
Id.
Id.
Id.
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINTPage 20
app would only allow them to ask that a Tesla representative contact them regarding their
concern. All such complaints and concerns were routed directly to the Diversion Team.
89.
Following Tesla mobile app update, any time a customer complained or voiced
concerns about their Tesla vehicle’s range, the app would simply provide an explanation that the
vehicle’s range “depends on many factors, particularly your environment and personal driving
habits.” However, the app also would note that the “[d]isplayed range in your Tesla is adapted
based on fixed EPA test data, not your personal driving patterns,” as indicated below:
90.
Complaints and concerns regarding Tesla vehicle range continued to steadily
increase. At one point, the Diversion Team was handling 2,000 complaints a week. Customers
voiced understandable frustration over the fact that they were not allowed to book service
appointments regarding their concerns over their vehicles’ range.
91.
As complaints continued to increase, the Diversion Team was expected to handle
Id.
Id.
Id.
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINTPage 21
and close 750 cases per week. Diversion Team members were told to call complaining customers
just once. If the customer did not answer this single call, the Diversion Team would close the
customer’s case as being “nonresponsive.” If a customer did answer, the Diversion Team was
required to handle the call as quickly as possible—in five minutes or less. 53 This did not afford
adequate time to alleviate customers’ concerns.
92.
By late 2022, the Diversion Team stopped running remote diagnostics on
complaining customers’ vehicles altogether.
93.
Essentially, by late 2022, if a Tesla owner complained or voiced concern over the
range of their Tesla electric vehicle, Tesla would not even check to confirm if, in fact, anything
was indeed wrong with the electric vehicle or its battery. Put simply, Tesla ensured that its
representatives told thousands upon thousands of customers that there was nothing wrong with
their electric vehicles without ever first confirming if that was actually the case.
94.
The Diversion Team was created to alleviate pressure on Tesla, which was
mounting due to its inability to deliver its exaggerated advertised vehicle ranges, rather than
actually help customers or alleviate their concerns.
Tesla’s Conduct Violates Its Warranties
95.
Tesla warrants all its electric vehicles.
96.
Tesla model vehicles are covered by Tesla’s New Vehicle Limited Warranty,
which includes Tesla’s Basic Vehicle Limited Warranty, Tesla’s Supplemental Restraint System
Limited Warranty, and Tesla’s Battery and Drive Unit Limited Warranty. 56,
97.
Tesla’s Basic Vehicle Limited Warranty “covers the repair or replacement
necessary to correct defects in the materials or workmanship of any parts manufactured or
Id.
Id.
Id.
Tesla | Support, “Vehicle Warranty” https://www.tesla.com/support/vehicle-warranty (last
accessed, Nov. 14, 2023).
Tesla’s Supplemental Restraint System Limited Warranty addresses defects in the vehicle’s
seat belts or air bag system, and thus is not relevant to Plaintiff’s claims here.
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINTPage 22
supplied by Tesla under normal use for a period of 4 years or 50,000 miles (80,000 km),
whichever comes first.”
98.
Tesla’s Battery and Drive Unit Limited Warranty “covers the repair or
replacement of any malfunctioning or defective Battery or Drive Unit.” If a warranty repair is
required, “Tesla will repair the [Battery or Drive] unit, or replace it.” “[W]hen replacing a
Battery, Tesla will ensure that the energy capacity of the replacement Battery is at least equal to
that of the original Battery before the failure occurred.” For Tesla Model S and Model X vehicles,
the Battery and Drive Unit Limited Warranty offers coverage for “8 years or 150,000 miles
(240,000 km), whichever comes first, with minimum 70% retention of Battery capacity over the
warranty period.” For Tesla Model 3 Rear-Wheel Drive vehicles, the Battery and Drive Unit
Limited Warranty offers coverage for “8 years or 100,000 miles (160,000 km), whichever comes
first, with minimum 70% retention of Battery capacity over the warranty period.” For Tesla
Model 3 Long Range, Model 3 Performance, Model Y All-Wheel Drive, Model Y Long Range,
and Model Y Performance vehicles, the Battery and Drive Unit Limited Warranty offers
coverage for “8 years or 120,000 miles (192,000 km), whichever comes first, with minimum
70% retention of Battery capacity over the warranty period.” The “measurement method used to
determine Battery capacity . . . [is] at the sole discretion of Tesla.”
99.
Notably, the Battery and Drive Unit Limited Warranty explains that “the vehicle’s
range estimates are an imperfect measure of Battery capacity because they are affected by
additional factors separate from Battery capacity.”
100.
Tesla also offers a Used Vehicle Limited Warranty on all used vehicles purchased
through Tesla, which offers coverage for “the remainder of 4 years or 50,000 miles left on the
Tesla, “Model S Model X Model 3 Model Y New Vehicle Limited Warranty”
https://www.tesla.com/sites/default/files/downloads/tesla-new-vehicle-limited-warranty-enus.pdf (last accessed, Nov. 14, 2023).
Id.; Tesla | Support, “Vehicle Warranty” https://www.tesla.com/support/vehicle-warranty
(last accessed, Nov. 14, 2023).
See supra note 58.
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINTPage 23
Basic Vehicle Limited Warranty,” and after its expiration, “provides additional coverage of
year or 10,000 miles.”
101.
Despite offering coverage under the Battery and Drive Unit Limited Warranty,
including coverage for any “malfunctioning battery,” Tesla refused to provide such coverage to
Tesla owners who complained or voiced concerns regarding their electric vehicles’ range.
102.
Normally, in order to receive warranty coverage, a Tesla owner would schedule
a service appointment to determine whether the battery in their electric vehicle was
“malfunctioning.” If the battery was determined to be malfunctioning, under the Battery and
Drive Unit Limited Warranty, Tesla would be required to offer a repair or replacement.
103.
However, as explained above, Tesla established a Diversion Team that was
specifically tasked with canceling such service appointments. This ensured that customers’ Tesla
vehicles could not be reviewed to determine whether their range complaints arose, in fact, from
a malfunctioning battery. This effectively ensured that Tesla would not be required to potentially
offer more warranty repair or replacement coverages.
104.
Tesla’s conduct, effectuated through the Diversion Team, violated and breached
its warranties.
Tesla Knew That Its Advertised Range Estimates Exceeded the Actual Range of Its Vehicles
105.
Tesla was aware that its advertised electric vehicle ranges were exaggerated and
exceeded the actual range of the vehicle when driven in real-world driving conditions. Tesla,
which employs its own method for calculating the range of its electric vehicles, was aware that
this method of calculation produced aggressive and exaggerated range estimates.
106.
Further, Tesla was aware that various factors impacted the electric vehicle’s
range. Tesla understood that these factors were likely to occur in real-world driving conditions.
For example, Tesla stated in its Battery and Drive Unit Limited Warranty that “the vehicle’s
Tesla | Support, “Vehicle Warranty” https://www.tesla.com/support/vehicle-warranty (last
accessed, Nov. 14, 2023).
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINTPage 24
range estimates are an imperfect measure of Battery capacity because they are affected by
additional factors separate from Battery capacity.” Thus, Tesla was fully aware that its advertised
range estimates were an “imperfect measure” and that its electric vehicles’ ranges would vary
and be impacted by normal driving conditions.
107.
Nevertheless, despite knowing this, Tesla did not inform consumers of this
information when advertising their electric vehicle range estimates. For example, Tesla could
have warned potential purchasers that cold weather would drastically lower the electric vehicle’s
range, but Tesla did not issue such a warning, instead only advertising an exaggerated range
estimate.
108.
Tesla also was aware that its advertised range estimates were based on driving
the electric vehicle with a full 100% charge of the electric vehicle battery. However, because
Tesla suggests to customers that they establish a charge limit on their vehicles well-below full
capacity, Tesla was aware that, in reality, customers would be unable to ever actually experience
the full advertised range.
109.
Moreover, Tesla was aware that its software algorithms for displaying the vehicle
range in real-time to Tesla electric vehicle owners provided exaggerated, “rosy” projections—
particularly at higher percentages. Tesla understood that these algorithms did not accurately
reflect the actual range of the electric vehicle, again exaggerating the range.
110.
At the latest, Tesla was aware that its advertised range estimates exceeded the
vehicle’s actual capabilities under real-world driving and charging conditions when Tesla
established a Diversion Team to summarily handle, divert, and close customer complaints and
concerns regarding vehicle range issues.
111.
Tesla knew, or at the very least should have known, that the actual range of each
of its model vehicles was lower than the advertised estimated range before Tesla advertised such
ranges.
Had Tesla Honestly Advertised Its Vehicle Ranges, Consumers Would Have Acted Differently
112.
Had Tesla honestly advertised its electric vehicle ranges, consumers either would
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINTPage 25
not have purchased Tesla model vehicles, or else would have paid substantially less for them.
113.
Tesla, based on its superior knowledge, could have and should have warned
customers that its range estimates were based just that—estimates and hopeful projections that
did not reflect regular conditions.
114.
Tesla should have warned potential purchasers that the ranges of Tesla model
vehicles could be negatively impacted by various driving and environmental factors that were
likely to exist; but Tesla did not.
115.
Tesla should have warned potential purchasers that the ranges of Tesla model
vehicles were estimated based on full 100% battery charge, but that Tesla suggested that its
model vehicles not be charged to full 100% battery charge on a regular basis.
116.
Tesla should have warned potential purchasers that the ranges of Tesla model
vehicles were not estimated based on EPA standardized formulae—despite Tesla advertising the
range estimates as “EPA estimates”—but instead based on Tesla’s own proprietary method for
calculating range, which allowed for a more aggressive estimate of total electric vehicle range.
117.
In fact, Tesla could have described the estimated range of its electric vehicles in
terms similar to those included on fueleconomy.gov fuel economy labels, as described above,
including but not limited to explaining that the advertised range is based on “[w]hen [the vehicle
is] fully charged” or by warning consumers that the advertised range “will vary for many reasons
including driving conditions.” Tesla did not do so.
118.
Had Tesla revealed any of this information to potential purchasers at the time of
purchase, by issuing a warning or addendum attached to its advertised estimated vehicle ranges,
Plaintiff and Class Members would have either not purchased Tesla model vehicles or else would
have paid substantially less for them.
119.
and Class Members at the point of sale.
Tesla’s conduct in false advertising its estimated vehicle ranges harmed Plaintiff
PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS
120.
Plaintiff is a resident and citizen of Citrus Heights (Sacramento County),
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINTPage 26
California. In November 2022, Plaintiff purchased a used 2019 Tesla Model 3 vehicle from
Tracy Volkswagen in Tracy, California (2605 Auto Plaza Way, Tracy, California 95304). The
vehicle had 64,349 miles on it at the time of purchase. Plaintiff purchased his vehicle for
approximately $52,204.
121.
Plaintiff conducted research on Tesla vehicles and on the Model 3 specifically by
visiting the Tesla website as well as the Tracy Volkswagen dealership website. He also reviewed
the vehicle’s CARFAX report. The Tracy dealership listed the mileage range for the vehicle at
around 220-240 miles, as referenced on Tesla’s website, and verbally told Plaintiff the vehicle
could achieve this same range in person when he visited the dealership.
122.
At no point in his pre-purchase research or in his discussions with the dealership
was Plaintiff warned or told that the advertised range did not account for normal driving
conditions or that it was exaggerated.
123.
Plaintiff’s vehicle came with all Tesla applicable warranties, including the
remainder of the Basic Vehicle Limited Warranty, and Battery and Drive Unit Limited Warranty.
124.
After acquiring his Tesla vehicle, Plaintiff fully charged his vehicle to 100%
battery charge and took an approximately 8-hour trip, about 385 miles away, from Sacramento
to Los Angeles. Because his vehicle is advertised as getting 220 miles on a single charge,
Plaintiff expected to stop two times to charge the vehicle. However, Plaintiff had to stop to
charge the vehicle three times (about every 128 miles). In May 2023, when he made the same
trip again, Plaintiff had to stop five times to charge the vehicle (about every 77 miles).
125.
On average, on information and belief, Plaintiff gets less than 150 miles on a full
charge, despite the vehicle being advertised with a range of 220 miles.
126.
Since purchasing the vehicle, Plaintiff has contacted Tesla numerous times to
voice concerns over his vehicle’s range. On each occasion, Tesla responded by: (1) informing
him that they ran remote diagnostics, and that the battery is operating as intended; (2) not
responding at all and closing the ticket in reply to Plaintiff’s subsequent complaint; or (3) told
Plaintiff not to worry about actual miles driven.
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINTPage 27
127.
After Plaintiff’s initial service request to Tesla regarding his vehicle’s range was
denied, Plaintiff charged his vehicle to 100% multiple times over several months for his daily
work commute consisting of only city driving. Plaintiff did so in order to determine his vehicle’s
range on a fully charged battery. The maximum range Plaintiff achieved on his vehicle’s fully
charged battery was approximately 150 miles, well below Tesla’s advertised range of 240 miles.
128.
Plaintiff then made additional service requests to Tesla, which were also
summarily denied.
129.
At no point when Plaintiff spoke with Tesla representatives did Tesla
representatives warn or explain that the advertised range required the vehicle to be fully charged
to 100% battery capacity, required the driver not use other vehicle features (including other
electronics), did not account for normal, expected driving conditions, or that the advertised range
was exaggerated.
130.
The electric vehicle’s advertised range was one of the most important factors
Plaintiff considered when choosing to purchase his Tesla vehicle.
131.
Had Tesla truthfully revealed that the advertised range was exaggerated and not
based on normal driving conditions, Plaintiff would not have purchased his Tesla vehicle, or else
would have paid substantially less for it.
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
132.
Plaintiff brings this lawsuit as a class action on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated as members of the proposed Class pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
23(a) and 23(b)(3). This action satisfies the numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy,
predominance, and superiority requirements of those provisions.
133.
Class: All persons and entities in the United States who purchased a Tesla
Model 3, Model S, Model Y, and Model X vehicle. (the “Nationwide
Class” or “Class”).
The Class and Sub-Classes are defined as follows:
California Sub-Class: All members of the Nationwide Class who reside
in the State of California. (the “California Class”)
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINTPage 28
CLRA Sub-Class: All members of the California Class who are
“consumers” within the meaning of California Civil Code § 1761(d).
Implied Warranty Sub-Class: All members of the Nationwide Class
who purchased their vehicles in the State of California.
134.
Plaintiff reserves the right to modify or amend the definition of the proposed
Nationwide Class and State Class before the Court determines whether certification is
appropriate and as the parties engage in discovery.
135.
Numerosity: Members of the Class are so numerous that joinder of all members
is impracticable. While the exact number of Class Members remains unknown at this time, upon
information and belief, there are thousands of putative Class Members who are generally
ascertainable by appropriate discovery.
136.
Commonality: This action involves common questions of law and fact, which
predominate over questions affective individual Class Members. These common legal and
factual questions include, but are not limited to, the following:
a.
Whether Tesla model vehicles fail to deliver the advertised estimated
vehicle range in normal driving conditions;
b.
Whether Tesla exaggerated its advertised estimated vehicle ranges;
c.
Whether Tesla knew that its advertised estimated vehicle ranges were
exaggerated and could not be met under normal driving conditions;
d.
When Tesla gained such knowledge;
e.
Whether Tesla designed, manufacture, marketed, advertised, sold, or
otherwise placed its model vehicles into the stream of commerce with
such knowledge;
f.
Whether Tesla intentionally concealed the fact that its advertised
estimated vehicle ranges were exaggerated or otherwise could not be met
under normal driving conditions;
g.
Whether Tesla’s conduct to divert complaints from Class Members who
voiced concerns over their Tesla model vehicle’s range violated the terms
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINTPage 29
of Tesla’s warranties;
h.
Whether Plaintiff and Class Members were harmed by the fraud and
deceptive practices alleged herein;
i.
Whether Tesla was unjustly enriched by its deceptive practices; and
j.
Whether Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to equitable or injunctive
relief.
137.
Typicality: Plaintiff’s claims are typical or those of the other Class Members
because, inter alia, all Class Members were injured through the common misconduct described
above and were subject in the same manner to Tesla’s unfair, deceptive, and unlawful conduct.
Plaintiff is advancing the same claims and legal theories on behalf of himself and all members
of the Class.
138.
Adequacy of Representation: Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and
protect the interests of the Class in that he has no disabling conflicts of interest that would be
antagonistic to those of the other Class Members. Plaintiff seeks no relief that is antagonistic or
adverse to the other Class Members, and the infringement of the rights and the damages Plaintiff
has suffered are typical of other Class Members. Plaintiff has retained counsel experienced in
complex consumer class action litigation, and Plaintiff intends to prosecute this action
vigorously.
139.
Superiority: Class litigation is an appropriate method for the fair and efficient
adjudication of the claims involved. Class action treatment is superior to all other available
methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy alleged herein; it will permit a
large number of Class Members to prosecute their common claims in a single forum
simultaneously, efficiently, and without the unnecessary duplication of evidence, effort, and
expense that hundreds of individual actions would require. Class action treatment will permit the
adjudication of relatively modest claims by certain Class Members, who could not individually
afford to litigate a complex claim against large corporate defendants. Further, even for those
Class Members who could afford to litigate such a claim, it would still be economically
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINTPage 30
impractical.
140.
The nature of this action and the nature of laws available to Plaintiff and the Class
make the use of the class action device a particularly efficient and appropriate procedure to afford
relief to Plaintiff and the Class for the wrongs alleged because Tesla would necessarily gain an
unconscionable advantage since it would be able to exploit and overwhelm the limited resources
of each individual Class Member with superior financial and legal resources; the costs of
individual suits could unreasonably consume the amounts that would be recovered; proof of a
common course of conduct to which Plaintiff was exposed is representative of that experienced
by the Class and will establish the right of each Class Member to recover on the cause of action
alleged; and individual actions would create a risk of inconsistent results and would be
unnecessary and duplicative of this litigation.
141.
The class action is superior to all other available methods for the fair and efficient
adjudication of this controversy. Because of the number and nature of common questions of fact
and law, multiple separate lawsuits would not serve the interest of judicial economy.
142.
Notice of a certified class action and of any result or resolution of the litigation
can be provided to Class Members by first-class mail, email, or publication, or such other
methods of notice as deemed appropriate by the Court.
143.
Plaintiff does not anticipate any difficulty in the management of this litigation.
CAUSES OF ACTION
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY
(By Plaintiff on Behalf of All Classes)
144.
Plaintiff incorporates by reference all allegations of the preceding paragraphs as
though fully set forth herein.
145.
Tesla provided Plaintiff and Class Members with Tesla’s New Vehicle Limited
Warranty.
146.
Included in the New Vehicle Limited Warranty, Tesla provided Plaintiff and
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINTPage 31
Class Members with Tesla’s Basic Vehicle Limited Warranty, which expressly “covers the repair
or replacement necessary to correct defects in the materials or workmanship of any parts
manufactured or supplied by Tesla under normal use for a period of 4 years or 50,000 miles
(80,000 km), whichever comes first.”
147.
Tesla further provided Plaintiff and Class Members with Tesla’s Battery and
Drive Unit Limited Warranty, which expressly “covers the repair or replacement of any
malfunctioning or defective Battery or Drive Unit.” If a warranty repair is required, “Tesla will
repair the [Battery or Drive] unit, or replace it.” “[W]hen replacing a Battery, Tesla will ensure
that the energy capacity of the replacement Battery is at least equal to that of the original Battery
before the failure occurred.” For Tesla Model S and Model X vehicles, the Battery and Drive
Unit Limited Warranty offers coverage for “8 years or 150,000 miles (240,000 km), whichever
comes first, with minimum 70% retention of Battery capacity over the warranty period.” For
Tesla Model 3 Rear-Wheel Drive vehicles, the Battery and Drive Unit Limited Warranty offers
coverage for “8 years or 100,000 miles (160,000 km), whichever comes first, with minimum
70% retention of Battery capacity over the warranty period.” For Tesla Model 3 Long Range,
Model 3 Performance, Model Y All-Wheel Drive, Model Y Long Range, and Model Y
Performance vehicles, the Battery and Drive Unit Limited Warranty offers coverage for “8 years
or 120,000 miles (192,000 km), whichever comes first, with minimum 70% retention of Battery
capacity over the warranty period.”
148.
Tesla also offers a Used Vehicle Limited Warranty on all used vehicles purchased
through Tesla, which offers coverage for “the remainder of 4 years or 50,000 miles left on the
Basic Vehicle Limited Warranty,” and after its expiration, “provides additional coverage of
year or 10,000 miles.”
149.
The above express warranties became part of the basis of the bargain between
Plaintiff and Class Members and Tesla.
150.
Plaintiff presented concerns with their vehicles’ range to Tesla for repairs. Tesla,
however, refused to remedy or even address these concerns, instead choosing to divert the claim
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINTPage 32
and dismiss it.
151.
As explained above, Tesla established a Diversion Team that was specifically
tasked with canceling such service appointments. This ensured that customers’ Tesla vehicles
could not be reviewed to determine whether their range complaints arose, in fact, from a
malfunctioning battery. This effectively ensured that Tesla would not be required to potentially
offer more warranty repair or replacement coverages. It also effectively rendered the warranties
null.
152.
Plaintiff and Class Members notified Tesla of the breaches within a reasonable
time and/or were not required to do so because affording Tesla a reasonable opportunity to cure
its breach of written warranty would have been futile.
153.
Plaintiff and Class Members have complied with all obligations under the
warranty, or otherwise have been excused from performance of said obligations as a result of
Tesla’s conduct described herein.
154.
Plaintiff and Class Members are entitled to legal and equitable relief against
Tesla, including damages, consequential damages, specific performance, attorney fees, costs of
suit, and other relief as appropriate.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY
(By Plaintiff on Behalf of All Classes)
155.
Plaintiff incorporates by reference all allegations of the preceding paragraphs as
though fully set forth herein.
156.
Tesla provided Plaintiff and Class Members with an implied warranty that the
Tesla vehicles and any parts thereof are merchantable and fit for the ordinary purposes for which
they were sold. However, the Tesla vehicles are not fit for their ordinary purpose as electric
vehicles because the vehicles fail to deliver adequate range when operated under normal driving
conditions.
157.
Tesla impliedly warranted that the vehicles were of merchantable quality and fit
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINTPage 33
to provide adequate driving range for normal driving conditions.
158.
Contrary to the applicable implied warranties, the vehicles at the time of sale and
thereafter were not fit for their ordinary and intended purpose of providing Plaintiff and Class
Members with reliable vehicles.
159.
Tesla’s actions, as complained of herein, breached the implied warranty that the
Tesla vehicles were of merchantable quality and fit for such use.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
VIOLATIONS OF THE MAGNUSON-MOSS WARRANTY ACT
15 U.S.C. § 2301, et seq.
(By Plaintiff on Behalf of All Classes)
160.
Plaintiff incorporates by reference all allegations of the preceding paragraphs as
though fully set forth herein.
161.
The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (“MMWA”), 15 U.S.C. § 2301, et seq.,
imposes civil liability on any “warrantor” for failing to comply with any obligation under written
and implied warranties. 15 U.S.C. § 2310(d)(1).
162.
This Court has jurisdiction over this matter under CAFA and can therefore assert
alternative jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s MMWA claims.
163.
The Tesla vehicles are “consumer products” as defined by 15 U.S.C. § 2301(1).
164.
Plaintiff and Class Members are “consumers” as defined by 15 U.S.C. § 2301(3).
165.
Tesla is a “warrantor” and “supplier” as defined by 15 U.S.C. § 2301(4) and (5).
166.
As detailed above, Tesla breached its warranty obligations by failing to provide
a product that conformed to the promises and affirmations Tesla made about the Tesla vehicles,
by failing to truthfully advertise and warrant the range of its vehicles, and by establishing a
scheme to divert and systematically cancel customers’ customer complaints, concerns, and
service appointments relating to the range of their vehicles, which in turn created a system that
prevented the warranties from functioning as intended (and, thus, rendered the warranties null
and caused them to fail of their essential purpose).
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINTPage 34
167.
Tesla’s breach of warranty deprived Plaintiff and Class Members of the benefit
of their bargain.
168.
The amount in controversy meets or exceeds the sum or value of $50,
(exclusive of interest and costs) computed on the basis of all claims to be determined in this suit.
169.
Tesla has been afforded reasonable opportunity to cure its breaches of warranty.
Plaintiff previously provided reasonable notice to Tesla of their concerns and complaints
regarding the range of their vehicles, creating service appointments to address the issues, which
Tesla ultimately canceled. Despite this notice, to Plaintiff’s knowledge, Tesla has taken no steps
to correct its business practices or cure its breaches.
170.
In addition, resorting to any sort of informal dispute settlement procedure or
affording Tesla another opportunity to cure its breach of warranty is unnecessary and futile. Any
remedies available through any informal dispute settlement procedure would be inadequate
under the circumstances, as Tesla has repeatedly mispresented the true quality and nature of its
vehicles, has established a scheme to divert and systematically dispose of reasonable concerns
and warranty complaints regarding the range of its vehicles, and has indicated no desire to
participate in such a process at this time. Any requirement under the MMWA or otherwise that
Plaintiff submit to any informal dispute settlement procedure or otherwise afford Tesla a
reasonable opportunity to cure its breaches of warranty is excused and/or has been satisfied.
171.
As a direct and proximate result of Tesla’s warranty breaches, Plaintiff and Class
Members sustained damages and other losses to be determined at trial. Tesla’s conduct damaged
Plaintiff and Class Members, who are entitled to recover damages, specific performance, costs,
attorneys’ fees, and other appropriate relief.
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
VIOLATIONS OF THE SONG-BEVERLY CONSUMER WARRANTY ACT
Cal. Civ. Code § 1790, et seq.
(By Plaintiff on Behalf of the California Class)
172.
Plaintiff incorporates by reference all allegations of the preceding paragraphs as
though fully set forth herein.
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINTPage 35
173.
Plaintiff and Class Members are “buyers” as that term is defined in the California
Civil Code § 1791(b).
174.
The Tesla vehicles are “consumer goods” as that term is defined in the California
Civil Code § 1791(a).
175.
At all relevant times, Tesla was the “manufacturer, distributor, warrantor and/or
seller” of the Tesla vehicles within the meaning of the California Civil Code § 1791.
176.
Tesla provided Plaintiff and Class Members with express warranties that “covers
the repair or replacement necessary to correct defects in the materials or workmanship of any
parts manufactured or supplied by Tesla under normal use” and “covers the repair or replacement
of any malfunctioning or defective Battery or Drive Unit.”
177.
Plaintiff presented concerns with his vehicle’s range to Tesla for repairs. Tesla,
however, refused to remedy or even address these concerns, instead choosing to divert the claim
and dismiss it.
178.
As explained above, Tesla established a Diversion Team that was specifically
tasked with canceling such service appointments. This ensured that customers’ Tesla vehicles
could not be reviewed to determine whether their range complaints arose, in fact, from a
malfunctioning battery. This effectively ensured that Tesla would not be required to potentially
offer more warranty repair or replacement coverages.
179.
Tesla’s conduct as complained herein breached applicable warranties and
violated the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.
FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
FRAUD
(By Plaintiff on Behalf of All Classes)
202.
Plaintiff incorporates by reference all allegations of the preceding paragraphs as
though fully set forth herein.
203.
Tesla made material misrepresentations and omissions of fact in its advertising
and marketing of the Tesla vehicles by exaggerating the range capabilities of its electric vehicles.
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINTPage 36
204.
Tesla’s conduct was and continues to be fraudulent because it has the effect of
deceiving consumers into believing that the vehicles have a much greater vehicle range than
what could be achieved under normal driving conditions.
205.
Plaintiff considered the Tesla vehicle’s driving range to be an important factor
when purchasing his Tesla vehicles. The vehicle’s advertised range is material to the average,
reasonable consumer.
206.
Plaintiff and Class Members were actually misled and deceived and were induced
by Tesla to purchase the vehicles. Had Tesla truthfully advertised the vehicle’s range, Plaintiff
and Class Members would have either not purchased the vehicles, or else would have paid
substantially less for them.
207.
in an amount to be determined at trial.
SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION
(By Plaintiff on Behalf of All Classes)
As a result of Tesla’s conduct, Plaintiff and Class Members have been damaged
208.
Plaintiff incorporates by reference all allegations of the preceding paragraphs as
though fully set forth herein.
209.
Tesla had a duty to provide honest and accurate information to consumers so that
its customers could make informed decisions on the substantial purchase of a vehicle.
210.
Tesla misrepresented material facts regarding the Tesla vehicles’ range to
Plaintiff and Class Members, as described herein.
211.
Plaintiff and Class Members considered the Tesla vehicles’ driving range to be
an important factor when purchasing their Tesla vehicles. The vehicle’s advertised range is
material to the average, reasonable consumer.
212.
Tesla knew or reasonably should have known, that the average, reasonable
consumer would be misled by Tesla’s misleading and deceptive advertisements and statements,
which falsely exaggerate the true nature of its vehicles’ range.
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINTPage 37
213.
Plaintiff and Class Members justifiably relied on Tesla’s misrepresentations and
omissions and were actually misled and deceived and were induced by Tesla to purchase the
vehicles. Had Tesla truthfully advertised the vehicle’s range, Plaintiff and Class Members would
have either not purchased the vehicles, or else would have paid substantially less for them.
214.
As a result of Tesla’s conduct, Plaintiff and Class Members have been damaged
in an amount to be determined at trial.
SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
VIOLATIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA CONSUMER LEGAL REMEDIES ACT
Cal. Civ. Code § 1750, et seq.
(By Plaintiff on Behalf of the California Class)
215.
Plaintiff incorporate by reference all allegations of the preceding paragraphs as
though fully set forth herein.
216.
Tesla is a “person” as that term is defined in California Civil Code § 1761(c).
217.
Plaintiff and California Class Members are “consumers” as that term is defined
in California Civil Code § 1761(d).
218.
Tesla engaged in unfair and deceptive acts in violation of the California Legal
Remedies Act (“CLRA”) by the practices described above, and by knowingly and intentionally
misleading (through statements and omissions) Plaintiff and California Class Members in a
material way in the process of purchasing the Tesla vehicles by advertising estimated vehicle
ranges that were exaggerated or otherwise could not be met under normal driving conditions,
without explaining or warning consumers of that fact. These acts and practices violate, at a
minimum, the following sections of the CLRA:
California Civil Code § 1770(a)(2) Misrepresenting the source,
sponsorship, approval or certification of goods or services;
California Civil Code § 1770(a)(5) Representing that goods or
services have sponsorships, characteristics, uses, benefits or
quantities which they do not have, or that a person has a sponsorship,
approval, status, affiliation or connection which he or she does not
have;
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINTPage 38 California Civil Code § 1770(a)(7) Representing that goods or
services are of a particular standard, quality, or grade, or that goods
are of a particular style or model, if they are of another; and
California Civil Code § 1770(a)(9) Advertising goods and services
with the intent not to sell them as advertised.
219.
Tesla’s unfair or deceptive acts or practices occurred repeatedly in Tesla’s trade
or business and were capable of deceiving, and did deceive, a substantial portion of the
purchasing public.
220.
Throughout the relevant period, Tesla knew or reasonably should have known
that the Tesla vehicles failed to deliver the advertised estimated vehicle range under normal
driving conditions.
221.
Tesla was under a duty to Plaintiff and California Class Members to disclose the
true nature of the estimated vehicle range of the Tesla vehicles because:
a.
Tesla was in a superior position to know the true state of facts about the
vehicle range of the Tesla vehicles;
b.
Plaintiff and the California Class Members could not reasonably have
been expected to learn or discover that the vehicle range was exaggerated
and could not be met under normal driving conditions and thus were not
in accordance with Tesla’s advertisements and representations;
c.
Tesla knew that Plaintiff and the California Class Members could not
reasonably have been expected to learn or discover the true state of facts
about the vehicle range; and
d.
Tesla actively concealed and failed to disclose the fact that its advertised
estimated vehicle ranges were exaggerated or otherwise could not be met
under normal driving conditions from Plaintiff and the California Class.
222.
In exaggerating the true state of facts for the vehicle range at the time of sale,
Tesla has knowingly and intentionally misrepresented material facts and breached its duty not to
do so.
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINTPage 39
223.
Plaintiff and California Class Members considered the Tesla vehicles’ driving
range to be an important factor when purchasing their Tesla vehicles. The vehicle’s advertised
range is material to the average, reasonable consumer.
224.
The misrepresented facts concerning the vehicle range are also material because
they concern central functions of the electric vehicles (e.g., the distance the vehicle can travel
before needing to be recharged).
225.
Finally, the facts concerning the vehicle range that Tesla exaggerated in its
advertisements to customers are also material because they contradict affirmative representations
about Tesla vehicle range.
226.
Had Tesla disclosed the true vehicle range in its advertising, on its website’s
listing of Tesla vehicles, or through its dealerships, Plaintiff and the California Class Members
would have learned of the true vehicle range and would have acted differently. Had Plaintiff and
California Class Members known about the true state of facts of the vehicle range capabilities of
Tesla vehicles, they either would not have purchased the vehicles or else would have paid
substantially less for them. Accordingly, Plaintiff and California Class Members overpaid for
their Tesla vehicles and did not receive the benefit of their bargain.
227.
Plaintiff plausibly would have learned of the true state of facts of the vehicle range
if Tesla had accurately represented it through its advertising or to the sales representatives at
Tesla dealerships. Plaintiff and the other California Class Members’ injuries were proximately
caused by Tesla’s fraudulent and deceptive business practices.
228.
Pursuant to California Civil Code § 1782(a), Plaintiff provided Tesla with notice
of its violations under the CLRA on November 15, 2023. If, within 30 days, Defendant fails to
provide appropriate relief for its violations of the CLRA, Plaintiff will amend this Complaint to
seek monetary, compensatory, and punitive damages, in addition to the equitable relief that he
seeks now on behalf of himself and the CLRA Sub-Class.
229.
Plaintiff has attached his Declaration of Venue as Exhibit A to this Complaint,
establishing that this Action has been properly commenced in this District, because a significant
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINTPage 40
portion of the relevant facts occurred in Sacramento County. See Exhibit A.
230.
Pursuant to California Civil Code § 1780, Plaintiff seeks an order enjoining Tesla
from the unlawful practices described above and a declaration that Tesla’s conduct violated the
CLRA.
231.
Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and California Class Members, seeks equitable
relief and attorneys’ fees and costs.
EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
VIOLATIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA UNFAIR COMPETITION LAW
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq.
(By Plaintiff on Behalf of the California Class)
232.
Plaintiff incorporates by reference all allegations of the preceding paragraphs as
though fully set forth herein.
233.
The California Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) prohibits acts of “unfair
competition,” including any “unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice” and “unfair,
deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200.
234.
Tesla has engaged in unfair competition and unfair, unlawful, or fraudulent
business practices by the conduct and statements described above, and by knowingly and
intentionally misleading (through statements and omissions) Plaintiff and California Class
Members about the true nature of the vehicle range (and the costs and diminished value of the
Tesla vehicles as a result of Tesla’s conduct). Tesla knew or reasonably should have known
about the true nature of the vehicle range throughout the relevant period. Tesla should have
disclosed accurate and truthful information concerning the vehicle range in its advertising and
through its dealerships. Tesla was in a superior position to know the true facts related to the
vehicle range, and Plaintiff and California Class Members could not reasonably be expected to
learn or discover the true facts related to the vehicle range.
235.
These acts and practices have deceived Plaintiff and are likely to deceive the
public. In misrepresenting the vehicle range, Tesla breached its duties to disclose these facts,
violated the UCL, and caused injuries to Plaintiff and California Class Members.
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINTPage 41
236.
Plaintiff and California Class Members considered the Tesla vehicles’ driving
range to be an important factor when purchasing their Tesla vehicles. The vehicle’s advertised
range is material to the average, reasonable consumer.
237.
The misrepresented facts concerning the vehicle range are also material because
they concern central functions of the electric vehicles (e.g., the distance the vehicle can travel
before needing to be recharged).
238.
Had Tesla disclosed the true vehicle range in its advertising, on its website’s
listing of Tesla vehicles for sale or the website’s custom order tool, or through its dealerships,
Plaintiff and California Class Members would have learned of the true vehicle range and would
have acted differently. Had Plaintiff and California Class Members known about the true state
of facts of the vehicle range capabilities of Tesla vehicles, they either would not have purchased
the vehicles or else would have paid substantially less for them. Accordingly, Plaintiff and
California Class Members overpaid for their Tesla vehicles and did not receive the benefit of
their bargain.
239.
The injuries suffered by Plaintiff and California Class Members greatly outweigh
by any potential countervailing benefit, if any, to consumers or to competition. And such injuries
are not of a kind that Plaintiff and California Class Members should have, or could have,
reasonably avoided.
240.
Tesla’s acts and practices are unlawful because they violate California Civil Code
§§ 1668, 1709, 1710, and 1750, et seq., and California Commercial Code § 2313.
241.
Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and California Class Members, seeks to enjoin
further unlawful, unfair and/or fraudulent acts or practices by Tesla, to obtain restitutionary
disgorgement of all monies and revenues generated as a result of such practices, and all other
relief allowed under California Business & Professions Code § 17200 and under California law.
NINTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
VIOLATIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA FALSE ADVERTISING LAW
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500, et seq.
(By Plaintiff on Behalf of the California Class)
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINTPage 42
242.
Plaintiff incorporates by reference all allegations of the preceding paragraphs as
though fully set forth herein.
243.
The California False Advertising Law (“FAL”) states: ““It is unlawful for any . .
. corporation . . . with intent directly or indirectly to dispose of real or personal property . . . to
induce the public to enter into any obligation relating thereto, to make or disseminate or cause
to be made or disseminated . . . from this state before the public in any state, in any newspaper
or other publication, or any advertising device, . . . or in any other manner or means whatever,
including over the Internet, any statement . . . which is untrue or misleading, and which is known,
or which by the exercise of reasonable care should be known, to be untrue or misleading.” Cal.
Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500.
244.
Tesla caused to be made or disseminated throughout California and the United
States, through advertising, marketing and other publications, statements that were untrue or
misleading, and which were known, or which by the exercise of reasonable care should have
been known to Tesla, to be untrue and misleading (through statements and omissions) to
consumers, including Plaintiff and California Class Members.
245.
Tesla has violated the FAL because the misrepresentations and omissions
regarding the vehicle range in its vehicles as set forth in this Complaint were material and likely
to deceive a reasonable consumer.
246.
Plaintiff and California Class Members considered the Tesla vehicles’ driving
range to be an important factor when purchasing their Tesla vehicles. The vehicle’s advertised
range is material to the average, reasonable consumer.
247.
The misrepresented facts concerning the vehicle range are also material because
they concern central functions of the electric vehicles (e.g., the distance the vehicle can travel
before needing to be recharged).
248.
Plaintiff and California Class Members have suffered an injury in fact, including
the losses of money or property, as a result of Tesla’s unfair, unlawful, and/or deceptive
practices.
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINTPage 43
249.
Had Tesla disclosed the true vehicle range in its advertising, on its website’s
listing of Tesla vehicles for sale or the website’s custom order tool, or through its dealerships,
Plaintiff and the California Class Members would have learned of the true vehicle range and
would have acted differently. Had Plaintiff and California Class Members known about the true
state of facts of the vehicle range capabilities of Tesla vehicles, they either would not have
purchased the vehicles or else would have paid substantially less for them. Accordingly, Plaintiff
and California Class Members overpaid for their Tesla vehicles and did not receive the benefit
of their bargain.
250.
All of the wrongful conduct alleged herein occurred in the conduct of Tesla’s
business.
251.
Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and California Class Members, seeks to enjoin
further unlawful, unfair and/or fraudulent acts or practices by Tesla, to obtain restitutionary
disgorgement of all monies and revenues generated as a result of such practices, and all other
relief allowed under California Business & Professions Code § 17200 and under California law.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and members of the proposed Classes,
respectfully requests that the Court:
a.
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, and issue an order certifying one or
more classes as defined above;
b.
c.
Award all actual, general, special, incidental, statutory, punitive, and
consequential damages and restitution to which Plaintiff and the Class Members
are entitled;
Appoint Plaintiff as the representative of the Classes and his counsel as Class
counsel;
Determine that the claims alleged herein may be maintained as a class action
d.
Award pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on such monetary relief;
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINTPage 44
e.
Grant appropriate injunctive and/or declaratory relief, including, without
limitation, an order that enjoins Tesla from falsely advertising the estimated
ranges of its model vehicles;
f.
Award reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs; and
g.
Grant such further relief that this Court deems appropriate.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable.
DATED: November 22, /s/ Tarek H. Zohdy
Tarek H. Zohdy (SBN 247775)
Tarek.Zohdy@capstonelawyers.com
Cody R. Padgett (SBN 275553)
Cody.Padgett@capstonelawyers.com
Laura H. Goolsby (SBN 321721)
Laura.Goolsby@capstonelawyers.com
CAPSTONE LAW APC
1875 Century Park East, Suite Los Angeles, California Telephone: (310) 556-Facsimile:
(310) 943-Attorneys for Plaintiff
and the Proposed Class
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
PDF Page 1
PlainSite Cover Page
PDF Page 2
Case 2:23-cv-02742-AC Document 1 Filed 11/22/23 Page 1 of 44
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Tarek H. Zohdy (CA Bar No. 247775)
Tarek.Zohdy@capstonelawyers.com
Cody R. Padgett (CA Bar No. 275553)
Cody.Padgett@capstonelawyers.com
Laura H. Goolsby (CA Bar No. 321721)
Laura.Goolsby@capstonelawyers.com
CAPSTONE LAW APC
1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000
Los Angeles, California 90067
Telephone: (310) 556-4811
Facsimile:
(310) 943-0396
8
Attorneys for Plaintiff
9
10
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11
12
NEIL KARUNATILAKA, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated,
Case No.
13
Plaintiff,
14
15
16
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
v.
TESLA, INC. d/b/a TESLA MOTORS,
INC.,
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
17
Defendant.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
PDF Page 3
Case 2:23-cv-02742-AC Document 1 Filed 11/22/23 Page 2 of 44
1
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
2
Plaintiff Neil Karunatilaka (“Plaintiff”) brings this action on behalf of himself and all
3
others similarly situated, against Defendant Tesla, Inc. (d/b/a Tesla Motors, Inc.) (“Tesla”).
4
Plaintiff’s allegations are based upon personal knowledge and belief as to his own acts, upon the
5
investigation of his counsel, and, where specifically stated, upon information and belief.
6
7
INTRODUCTION
1.
Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of a proposed class of
8
similarly situated owners of Tesla model vehicles. This action arises out of Tesla’s false
9
advertising of its electric vehicles’ range, which Tesla grossly overvalued when selling the
10
11
12
13
vehicles to consumers.
2.
Tesla designs, manufactures, advertises, markets, and sells electric vehicles to
consumers.
3.
A key feature of electric vehicles is the “range” of the electric vehicle—that is,
14
the distance the electric vehicle can be driven on a single battery charge, before requiring the
15
driver to stop and recharge the vehicle. The electric vehicle’s range directly correlates to the
16
electric vehicle’s battery charge. An electric vehicle’s range is roughly equivalent to a gas-
17
powered vehicle’s potential range it can be driven on a single tank of gas, or it’s “distance to
18
empty.”
19
4.
The electric vehicle’s range is one of the most important features that consumers
20
generally consider when purchasing an electric vehicle, because it correlates to the distance they
21
can travel before needing to recharge the vehicle. In fact, when a consumer visits Tesla’s website
22
to view any of Tesla’s various electric vehicle models, “range” is the first listed feature
23
advertised among other key features.
24
5.
Understanding that this would be an important feature (if not the most important
25
feature) to many consumers, and preying on this fact, Tesla marketed its electric vehicles as
26
having a grossly overvalued range in an effort to increase sales to consumers. As it so happens,
27
Tesla advertised its vehicles as having ranges that, in some instances, were 26% over the actual
1
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
PDF Page 4
Case 2:23-cv-02742-AC Document 1 Filed 11/22/23 Page 3 of 44
1
average range of the electric vehicle. 1
2
6.
After purchasing their Tesla electric vehicles, many Tesla owners noticed that the
3
average range in their vehicles was well-below the range Tesla had advertised prior to their
4
purchase. As some owners grew concerned, they contacted Tesla to schedule service
5
appointments to confirm whether anything was wrong with their electric vehicle or its battery.
6
7.
However, many consumers who complained or scheduled appointments with
7
Tesla regarding the below-advertised ranges in their vehicles discovered that Tesla would cancel
8
such appointments and would explain that their electric vehicle was performing as intended. 2
9
8.
As a result of Tesla’s unfair, deceptive, and/or fraudulent business practices in
10
advertising grossly overestimated range statistics for its electric vehicles to consumers, Tesla
11
purchasers, including Plaintiff, were harmed.
12
9.
Had Plaintiff and putative Class Members known that the advertised range of
13
Tesla vehicles were grossly overestimated, they would not have bought Tesla model vehicles, or
14
else would have paid substantially less for them.
15
16
10.
As a result of Tesla’s tactics and false advertising, Plaintiff and Class Members
suffered an injury in fact, incurred damages, and have been harmed by Tesla’s conduct.
17
11.
Accordingly, Plaintiff brings this action to redress Tesla’s violations of state
18
consumer fraud statutes, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, breach of express warranty, breach
19
of implied warranty, violation of California’s Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, and unjust
20
enrichment.
21
PARTIES
22
23
12.
Plaintiff Neil Karunatilaka is a resident and citizen of Citrus Heights (Sacramento
County), California. In November 2022, Plaintiff purchased a pre-owned 2019 Tesla Model 3
24
25
26
27
1
Reuters, “Tesla created secret team to suppress thousands of driving range complaints”
https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/tesla-batteries-range/ (last accessed, Nov.
14, 2023).
2
Id.
2
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
PDF Page 5
Case 2:23-cv-02742-AC Document 1 Filed 11/22/23 Page 4 of 44
1
vehicle from Tracy Volkswagen in Tracy, California (2605 Auto Plaza Way, Tracy, California
2
95304). The vehicle had 64,349 miles on it at the time of purchase.
3
13.
Defendant Tesla, Inc. d/b/a Tesla Motors, Inc. is a Delaware corporation, with its
4
headquarters in Austin, Texas, and maintains its engineering headquarters in Palo Alto,
5
California.
6
14.
Prior to December 2021, Tesla maintained its headquarters in Palo Alto,
7
California. In December 2021, Tesla moved its headquarters from Palo Alto, California, to
8
Austin, Texas. 3
9
15.
Despite moving its headquarters to Austin, Texas, Tesla continued to operate
10
locations in California, including one of its factories in Fremont, California, which produces
11
Model S, Model 3, Model X, and Model Y vehicles. 4 In addition to its dealerships throughout
12
the state, Tesla also maintained locations in Lathrop, Los Angeles, and San Diego, California. 5
13
By 2022, Tesla employed approximately 47,000 employees in California alone. 6 While Tesla
14
grew worldwide, Elon Musk, Tesla’s CEO since October 2008 and a member of its board since
15
April 2004, 7 noted that Tesla continued to expand in California in particular and that he expects
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
3
Tesla, “Contact” https://www.tesla.com/contact (last accessed, Nov. 14, 2023); The Associated
Press, “Tesla officially moves headquarters from California to Texas”
https://www.tesla.com/manufacturing (last visited Nov. 14, 2023).
4
Tesla | Careers, “Manufacturing” https://www.tesla.com/manufacturing (last accessed, Nov. 14,
2023).
5
CNET Highlights, Elon Musk's Remarks During Engineer HQ Debut, YouTube (Feb. 23,
2023), https://youtu.be/vl-Av28e0fo?t=82 (last accessed, Nov. 14, 2023) (remarks and
presentation at the opening of Tesla’s Global Engineering Headquarters by Elon Musk, noting
Tesla’s California locations).
6
CNET Highlights, Elon Musk's Remarks During Engineer HQ Debut, YouTube (Feb. 23,
2023), https://youtu.be/vl-Av28e0fo?t=178 (last accessed, Nov. 14, 2023) (noting Tesla’s “large
impact in California”); CleanTechnica, “Tesla’s Engineering Headquarters in California”
https://cleantechnica.com/2023/03/17/teslas-engineering-headquarters-incalifornia/#:~:text=Now%2C%20Tesla's%20engineering%20headquarters%20is,from%20Reuter
s%20and%20USA%20Today (last accessed, Nov. 14, 2023).
7
Tesla | Investor Relations, “Corporate Governance - Elon Musk”
https://ir.tesla.com/corporate/elon-musk (last accessed, Nov. 14, 2023).
3
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
PDF Page 6
Case 2:23-cv-02742-AC Document 1 Filed 11/22/23 Page 5 of 44
1
such expansions in the state to continue. 8 Moreover, Elon Musk noted that Tesla created almost
2
$45 million worth of value per day in California’s economy alone. 9
3
16.
In February 2023, Tesla announced that it would be returning its headquarters to
4
California by opening its “Global Engineering Headquarters” in Palo Alto, California. 10 During
5
an event marking the opening of the facility, Elon Musk, Tesla’s CEO, stated that Tesla’s Global
6
Engineering Headquarters was “effectively a headquarters of Tesla” and that Tesla was “kind of
7
a dual-headquartered company.” 11 Elon Musk also described Tesla as “a California-Texas
8
company.” 12
9
17.
Regardless of the terminology Tesla may use, Tesla maintains two headquarters,
10
located in Austin, Texas, and in Palo Alto, California. Tesla maintains substantial and continuous
11
contacts in the States of Texas and California. Tesla maintains its principal place of business
12
either in the State of Texas or the State of California, and maintains substantial and continuous
13
contacts in the other State, such that the exercise of general jurisdiction in either Texas or
14
California is proper.
15
18.
Accordingly, for jurisdictional purposes, Defendant Tesla, Inc. d/b/a Tesla
16
Motors, Inc. is a citizen of the States of Delaware, Texas, and California, and is subject to the
17
jurisdiction of the States of Delaware, Texas, and California.
18
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
19
19.
This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. This
20
Court also has supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367
21
because those claims are related to the federal claims and form part of the same case and
22
23
8
See supra note 6.
CNET Highlights, Elon Musk's Remarks During Engineer HQ Debut, YouTube (Feb. 23,
2023), https://youtu.be/vl-Av28e0fo?t=178 (last accessed, Nov. 14, 2023).
10
Tesla, “Contact” https://www.tesla.com/contact (last accessed, Nov. 14, 2023).
11
CNBC, “Elon Musk meets with California Gov. Newsom at Tesla’s new engineering
headquarters to discuss expansion” https://www.cnbc.com/2023/02/22/elon-musk-meets-withcalifornia-gov-newsom-at-teslas-engineering-hq.html (last accessed, Nov. 14, 2023).
12
Id.
9
24
25
26
27
4
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
PDF Page 7
Case 2:23-cv-02742-AC Document 1 Filed 11/22/23 Page 6 of 44
1
controversy.
2
20.
This Court also has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to the Class Action
3
Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d). The aggregated claims of the individual class members
4
exceed the sum or value of $5,000,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs; there are more than
5
100 putative class members; and at least one putative class member is from a state different from
6
Tesla.
7
21.
This Court has personal jurisdiction over Tesla because it conducts substantial
8
business in this District and because Tesla is registered to do business in California. Elon Musk,
9
Tesla’s CEO, has described Tesla as a “a dual-headquartered company,” because it maintains its
10
Global Engineering Headquarters in Palo Alto, California, which he noted was “effectively a
11
headquarters of Tesla.” 13 Thus, Tesla maintains a continuous and significant portion of its
12
business in California and in this District.
13
22.
Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because a substantial part
14
of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in this District. Venue is also proper
15
in this District under 18 U.S.C. § 1965 because Tesla transacts its affairs in this District and the
16
ends of justice require it.
17
GENERAL FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
18
19
23.
Tesla designs, manufactures, advertises, markets, and sells its electric vehicles
throughout the United States and worldwide.
20
24.
Tesla sells four main models of electric vehicles, each of which includes various
21
“sub-models” or versions: the Model 3, the Model Y, the Model S, and the Model X.
22
The Tesla Purchasing Experience
23
25.
Tesla sells its vehicles directly to consumers. Although Tesla has dealerships and
24
showrooms, Tesla maintains control over those dealerships and ensures that all sales of its
25
vehicles are directly through Tesla, rather than a third party.
26
27
13
Id.
5
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
PDF Page 8
Case 2:23-cv-02742-AC Document 1 Filed 11/22/23 Page 7 of 44
1
26.
Consumers wishing to purchase a Tesla vehicle, thus, most often do so through
2
Tesla’s website, by selecting the preferred model and various features to “build” the vehicle they
3
will purchase.
4
27.
For example, a consumer wishing to purchase a Tesla Model 3—Tesla’s baseline
5
model vehicle—can view available inventory or create a custom order, by selecting the features
6
they most prefer.
7
28.
8
For the Model 3, for example, Tesla advertises three attributes above all others:
the price, the vehicle’s acceleration from 0-60 mph, and the vehicle’s range. See below: 14
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
29.
If a consumer wishes to explore available inventory, Tesla lists options available
20
for purchase directly from Tesla, including “key features” of the vehicle. Among these “key
21
features,” Tesla lists the range, top speed, and vehicle’s acceleration from 0-60 mph, in that
22
order, along with the price, model, and version of the vehicle (as indicated in the example
23
below): 15
24
25
26
27
14
Tesla, “Model 3” https://www.tesla.com/model3 (last accessed, Nov. 14, 2023).
Tesla, “Inventory” Model 3
https://www.tesla.com/m3/order/5YJ3276_9cf71b05e29b56b2eb5242ecb2f0eafc?postal=3792
3&range=200®ion=TN&coord=35.9375,-84.073&titleStatus=new&redirect=no#overview
(last accessed, Nov. 14, 2023).
15
6
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
PDF Page 9
Case 2:23-cv-02742-AC Document 1 Filed 11/22/23 Page 8 of 44
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
30.
Consumers also may “custom order” their Tesla vehicle, by choosing the
11
particular vehicle features and attributes they prefer. With this option, Tesla custom builds the
12
vehicle to the consumer’s preference.
13
31.
By custom ordering, a consumer can ensure they select a custom-tailored Tesla
14
vehicle to their preference, selecting the ideal version, range, wheel style, color, and interior
15
trim. Any time a feature selection is changed, the vehicle’s price, range, top speed, and
16
acceleration from 0-60 mph will be adjusted. While certain features may impact the vehicle’s
17
price, not all features will impact the vehicle’s range, speed, or acceleration. For example,
18
selecting a red paint style and black-and-white interior trim will increase the price by $3,000
19
total, it will not impact the vehicle’s range, speed, or acceleration; but selecting 19” sport wheels
20
will increase the price by $1,500 total and will impact the vehicle’s range. 16
21
32.
For a rear-wheel drive Model 3 version—the base version of the Model 3—with
22
18” Aero Wheels, the listed range is 272 miles, with a 140-mph top speed, and 5.8 second
23
acceleration from 0-60 mph, as indicated below: 17
24
25
26
27
16
Tesla, “Design Your Own” Model 3 https://www.tesla.com/model3/design#overview (last
accessed, Nov. 14, 2023).
17
Id.
7
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
PDF Page 10
Case 2:23-cv-02742-AC Document 1 Filed 11/22/23 Page 9 of 44
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
33.
11
34.
For a Dual Motor All-Wheel Drive Model 3 Long Range version with 18” Aero
12
Wheels, the listed range is 333 miles, with a 145-mph top speed, and 4.2 second acceleration
13
from 0-60 mph, as indicated below: 18
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
35.
And for a Dual Motor All-Wheel Drive Model 3 Performance version with 18”
25
26
27
18
Id.
8
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
PDF Page 11
Case 2:23-cv-02742-AC Document 1 Filed 11/22/23 Page 10 of 44
1
Aero Wheels, the listed range is 315 miles, with a 162-mph top speed, and 3.1 second
2
acceleration from 0-60 mph, as indicated below: 19
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
36.
When customizing the vehicle, Tesla further notes that selecting a different style
of wheel may impact the vehicle’s range.
14
37.
Regardless of the method a consumer uses to purchase a Tesla model vehicle—
15
whether by exploring available inventory of vehicles or by custom ordering a vehicle—Tesla
16
advertises the electric vehicle’s range as a key factor of the vehicle.
17
18
38.
And at every turn, Tesla grossly overinflates the vehicle’s range.
Tesla Vehicles Display Real-Time Range Estimates
19
39.
Each of Tesla’s model vehicles comes equipped with a screen displaying
20
navigation, infotainment, vehicle settings, and key vehicle information, including battery charge
21
indicators and range information.
22
40.
Tesla vehicles provide range estimates in real-time. The intention is to provide
23
the driver with real-time updates on the electric vehicle battery’s performance, which directly
24
correlates to the range the vehicle can be driven. Accurate range estimates help to ensure that, as
25
the battery drains, the driver knows to pull over at a charging station before the battery drains
26
27
19
Id.
9
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
PDF Page 12
Case 2:23-cv-02742-AC Document 1 Filed 11/22/23 Page 11 of 44
1
completely, leaving the driver and occupants stranded. Inaccurate range estimates can, indeed,
2
lead a driver to being stranded, as the battery drains completely—and unexpectedly, based upon
3
inaccurate range information.
4
41.
Tesla vehicles provide range estimates in two ways. First, through a meter on the
5
screen that is always displayed. This meter can be toggled to indicate either the electric vehicle
6
battery percentage remaining or the range (measured in miles or kilometers) remaining. Second,
7
through the vehicle’s navigation system, which estimates the range (indicated in battery
8
percentage) remaining, as compared to the set destination. However, if no destination is input
9
into the navigation system, the vehicle will not indicate a range estimate through this latter
10
method.
11
42.
Tesla has developed its own proprietary software and algorithms for estimating
12
and updating in real-time the range and battery performance in its vehicles, as displayed through
13
the Tesla system displayed on the screen.
14
Tesla Informs Consumers That They Should Not Charge Their Vehicle to Full Capacity
15
43.
Following purchase, each Tesla vehicle sets a suggested charge limit—that is, a
16
an upper limit to stop charging the battery. For example, if an 80% limit is set, the battery will
17
continue to charge until it reaches 80% capacity, then will stop charging. This effectively ensures
18
that the battery cannot be fully charged to 100%.
19
44.
A consumer can manually override the charge limit. However, Tesla recommends
20
that consumers not exceed the suggested charge limit. Tesla specifically suggests that consumers
21
“[c]harge the battery to the appropriate charge limit for your vehicle based on the installed
22
battery.” 20
23
45.
24
Tesla suggests that Tesla owners should charge their vehicle to full 100% capacity
only sparingly. In fact, Tesla’s chief executive officer, Elon Musk, suggests that owners should
25
26
27
20
Tesla | Support, “Range Tips” https://www.tesla.com/support/range (last accessed Nov. 14,
2023).
10
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
PDF Page 13
Case 2:23-cv-02742-AC Document 1 Filed 11/22/23 Page 12 of 44
1
only charge to 90% or 95% when necessary. 21
2
46.
Setting charge limits directly impacts total range. Tesla’s advertised total range
3
of its vehicles are based on a full charge. However, because Tesla discourages owners from ever
4
charging their vehicles to 100%, it is increasingly difficult—if not impossible—to ever reach
5
that advertised range. For example, setting the vehicle’s charge limit at 80% can reduce the total
6
range by over a hundred miles, compared to the advertised range.
7
8
47.
Effectively, based upon Tesla’s suggested charge limits, Tesla vehicles cannot
reach the total ranges Tesla advertises.
9
48.
Notably, while Tesla openly advertises its total range estimates (which already
10
are exaggerated) to consumers at the point of purchase, it does not indicate to consumers that
11
they can expect to limit the vehicle’s total range by setting charge limits.
12
How Tesla Calculates the Ranges It Advertises
13
49.
Electric vehicle manufacturers are required by the Environmental Protection
14
Agency (“EPA”) to advertise fuel-efficiency information, as indicated in a miles-per-gallon
15
equivalent (“MPGe”) and estimate of the electric vehicle’s total range. The MPGe indication
16
allows consumers to compare the electric vehicle directly with gasoline and diesel vehicles. The
17
estimates of the vehicle’s total range allow consumers to examine how far an electric vehicle can
18
be expected to travel on a full charge, in combined city and highway driving.
19
20
50.
vehicle’s range, the EPA does not dictate precisely how this range is calculated.
21
22
Although the EPA requires that electric vehicle manufacturers advertise the
51.
The EPA provides a standardized formula, which converts fuel-economy results
from city and highway driving tests to calculate the vehicle’s total range figure. However,
23
21
24
25
26
27
Mashable, “Elon Musk explains why you shouldn't charge your Tesla battery to 100%”
https://mashable.com/article/tesla-battery-charge-max#:~:text=Tesla,Elon%20Musk%20explains%20why%20you%20shouldn't%20charge%20your%20Tesla,up%
20to%2090%2D95%25.&text=Electric%20car%20batteries%20should%20not,up%20to%209
0%25%20by%20default (last accessed Nov. 14, 2023); see also Electrek, “Tesla battery expert
recommends daily charging limit to optimize durability” https://electrek.co/2017/09/01/teslabattery-expert-recommends-daily-battery-pack-charging (last accessed Nov. 14, 2023).
11
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
PDF Page 14
Case 2:23-cv-02742-AC Document 1 Filed 11/22/23 Page 13 of 44
1
electric vehicle manufacturers may conduct their own testing to establish the range estimates for
2
their vehicles. Generally, the only reason an electric vehicle manufacturer would choose to
3
conduct its own testing is to ensure that it generates a more favorable total range estimate.
4
52.
Numerous electric vehicle manufacturers, including Ford, Mercedes, and Porsche
5
choose to simply use the EPA’s standardized formula to calculate the range in their electric
6
vehicles. Doing so ensures that the potential range advertised to consumers reflects conservative
7
estimates based on real-world driving conditions. 22
8
9
10
53.
Tesla, however, does not use the EPA’s standardized formula for any of its
vehicles. Instead, Tesla conducts its own testing to calculate the total range for each of its model
vehicles, resulting in inflated estimates compared to the ranges drivers actually experience. 23
11
54.
In a recent audit, the EPA reviewed the estimated ranges in six Tesla models since
12
the 2020 model year. Based on the EPA’s testing, Tesla was required to lower the estimated
13
ranges in all six of those model vehicles, because Tesla consistently was overestimating the range
14
of its vehicles. 24
15
55.
When selling a used vehicle, for example, Tesla owners can go visit
16
www.fueleconomy.gov to download a Used Vehicle Fuel Economy label by using the provided
17
online tool, which employs established EPA standardized formulae for estimating electric
18
vehicle range. 25
19
20
56.
An example of a fuel economy label developed by using this tool for a 2020 Tesla
Model Y Performance vehicle is included below:
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
22
See supra note 1.
Id.
24
Id.
25
U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy
https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/UsedCarLabel.jsp (last accessed Nov. 14, 2023).
23
12
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
PDF Page 15
Case 2:23-cv-02742-AC Document 1 Filed 11/22/23 Page 14 of 44
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
57.
Notably, this label describes the estimated electric vehicle range in these terms:
15
“When fully charged, vehicle can travel about . . .” Describing the estimated range in this manner
16
makes clear that the advertised range is available only at full 100% battery charge.
17
18
58.
When selling their vehicles , Tesla does not describe the estimated vehicle range
in these terms or with equivalent warnings.
19
59.
Further, the label makes clear that “[a]ctual results will vary for many reasons
20
including driving conditions.” For a used vehicle, it also indicates that range may be impacted
21
by “how the car was driven, maintained, or modified.”
22
Tesla Exaggerates the Ranges of Its Vehicles
23
60.
For years, Tesla has been exaggerating the range of its vehicles—that is, the
24
vehicle’s potential driving distance before requiring the driver to recharge the electric vehicle’s
25
battery. 26
26
27
26
See supra note 1.
13
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
PDF Page 16
Case 2:23-cv-02742-AC Document 1 Filed 11/22/23 Page 15 of 44
1
61.
On July 27, 2023, Reuters published a special report, by Steve Stecklow and
2
Norihiko Shirouzu, detailing Tesla’s tactics of seriously exaggerating the ranges of its vehicles
3
(the “Reuters report”). 27
4
62.
Based upon information from those familiar with Tesla’s early vehicle software
5
designs, the Reuters report explains that Tesla developed algorithms for estimating the range of
6
its electric vehicles, which would display to drivers “rosy” projections for the distance the
7
vehicle could travel on a full battery. 28
8
9
10
63.
However, once the battery reached 50% capacity, the algorithm would change
and begin showing the driver more realistic projections. This would cause the estimated range
of the vehicle to fluctuate drastically from that point. 29
11
64.
The decision to include these algorithms to present inflated range estimates came
12
directly from Tesla’s chief executive officer, Elon Musk. 30 As the Reuters report indicates, “Elon
13
[and Tesla] wanted to show good range numbers when fully charged . . . . When you buy a car
14
off the lot seeing 350-mile, 400-mile range, it makes you feel good.” 31
15
65.
Tesla’s tactics to inflate the range estimates for its vehicles has continued.
16
Recently, South Korean regulators fined Tesla for false advertising the ranges of its vehicles.
17
Specifically, the Korea Fair Trade Commission found that Tesla exaggerated the “driving ranges
18
of its cars on a single charge, their fuel cost-effectiveness compared to gasoline vehicles as well
19
as the performance of its Superchargers.” 32 It was determined that, for example, the range of
20
Tesla electric vehicles could drop by up to 50.5% in cold weather, as compared to the advertised
21
22
23
27
Id.
Id.
29
Id.
30
Id.
31
Id.
32
See Reuters, “South Korea fines Tesla $2.2 mln for exaggerating driving range of EVs”
https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/south-korea-fines-tesla-22-mln-exaggeratingdriving-range-evs-2023-01-03 (last accessed Nov. 14, 2023).
28
24
25
26
27
14
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
PDF Page 17
Case 2:23-cv-02742-AC Document 1 Filed 11/22/23 Page 16 of 44
1
ranges. 33
2
3
66.
their advertised ranges. 34
4
5
Other recent studies determined that various Tesla models averaged 26% below
67.
Beginning with 2020 model year vehicles, the EPA has required Tesla to reduce
the range estimates Tesla advertised to consumers. 35
6
68.
Various factors can impact a Tesla model vehicle’s range, including: high driving
7
speeds, cold temperatures, “stop-and-go” traffic, driving uphill, and inclement weather (such as
8
rain, snow, or headwinds). 36
9
69.
However, recent testing has found that Tesla vehicles deliver actual ranges well
10
below their advertised ranges. In 2022 and 2023, Recurrent, an electric vehicle analytics
11
company, surveyed more than 8,000 Tesla model vehicles. The results of this survey determined
12
that Tesla vehicles fail to accurately reflect how various factors or conditions will negatively
13
impact the vehicle’s range. 37
14
70.
For example, while Tesla itself explains that temperature can negatively impact a
15
vehicle’s range, Recurrent’s testing determined that Tesla model vehicles still overwhelmingly
16
calculated that they could still deliver nearly the advertised full range, regardless of external
17
factors—with Tesla vehicles calculating that they could travel more than 90% of their advertised
18
range. Put simply, Tesla vehicles failed to accurately account for external factors impacting
19
battery performance and vehicle range, leading to a gross overestimate of the vehicle’s range. 38
20
71.
Other electric vehicle manufacturers do not overestimate the range of their
21
vehicles to the same extent. For example, Recurrent tested the Ford Mustang Mach-E, the
22
Chevrolet Bolt, and the Hyundai Kona—all electric vehicles and direct competitors to Tesla
23
33
24
25
26
27
See supra note 1.
Id.
35
Id.
36
Tesla | Support, “Range Tips” https://www.tesla.com/support/range (last accessed Nov. 14,
2023).
37
See supra note 1.
38
Id.
34
15
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
PDF Page 18
Case 2:23-cv-02742-AC Document 1 Filed 11/22/23 Page 17 of 44
1
model vehicles—and found their estimated ranges to be more accurate. In fact, the Hyundai
2
Kona generally underestimated the range the vehicle could travel before requiring a recharge. 39
3
72.
Tesla, however, chose to “take[] a different path from most other automakers.”
4
While other electric vehicle manufacturers advertise conservative range estimates, Tesla
5
consistently advertised overly aggressive estimates of the range within its vehicles. 40
6
73.
Another recent study, which compared 21 different brands of electric vehicles,
7
analyzed whether electric vehicles could deliver the advertised range in actual use. 41 The study
8
found that three Tesla model vehicles posted the worst performances, falling short of their
9
advertised ranges by 26%, on average. 42
10
74.
In yet another recent study, all Tesla vehicles failed to meet their advertised range
11
estimates based on real-world driving tests. Edmunds.com, an automotive review website, tested
12
various electric vehicle manufacturers’ range estimate claims. As recently as July 2023, no Tesla
13
vehicle was able to meet its advertised range estimate. 43
14
Tesla Has Already Admitted It Falsely Advertised and Exaggerated Range Estimates
15
16
75.
South Korean regulators have already fined Tesla for falsely advertising the total
ranges of its vehicles in South Korea.
17
76.
The Korea Fair Trade Commission determined that Tesla failed to inform
18
consumers that the vehicle’s total range could be negatively impacted by various factors, and
19
that the range would likely be lower in normal driving conditions. 44
20
39
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Id.
Id.
41
Gregory Pannone & Dave VanderWerp, Comparison of On-Road Highway Fuel Economy
and All-Electric Range to Label Values: Are the Current Label Procedures Appropriate for
Battery Electric Vehicles?, SAE Technical Paper (2023),
https://www.sae.org/publications/technical-papers/content/2023-01-0349 (last accessed, Nov.
14, 2023).
42
Id.; see also supra note 1.
43
Edmunds, “Edmunds Tested: Electric Car Rage and Consumption”
https://www.edmunds.com/car-news/electric-car-range-and-consumption-epa-vs-edmunds.html
(last accessed, Nov. 14, 2023).
44
See supra note 1.
40
16
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
PDF Page 19
Case 2:23-cv-02742-AC Document 1 Filed 11/22/23 Page 18 of 44
1
77.
South Korean regulators required Tesla to publicly admit that it had misled
2
consumers regarding its range estimates for Tesla vehicles. In a June 19, 2023 statement, Tesla
3
executives, including Elon Musk, acknowledged that Tesla had employed “false/exaggerated
4
advertising.” 45
5
Tesla Owners Have Noticed that the Ranges in Their Vehicles Are Not as Advertised
6
78.
As Tesla owners used their vehicles, they soon realized that their vehicles did not
7
perform as expected or advertised because the electric vehicles were consistently incapable or
8
driving at the advertised ranges.
9
79.
As Reuters reported, one Tesla Model 3 owner was required to stop to charge his
10
electric vehicle numerous times during a road trip, and he noticed that he was only receiving
11
about 150 miles of range when his electric vehicle battery was fully charged, which was well
12
below the advertised range. 46
13
80.
This understandably caused great concern among Tesla owners, who were
14
worried that the batteries in their vehicles were defective or failing. Based on these concerns,
15
consumers began contacting Tesla to seek assistance and confirmation that the batteries in their
16
electric vehicles were not failing.
17
81.
Tesla provides a mobile app to all Tesla owners, which links to each owner’s
18
Tesla electric vehicle. The application allows the owner to control the vehicle, view information
19
about the vehicle, and, if necessary, to schedule a service appointment for diagnostics or repair
20
with a Tesla dealership or representative.
21
82.
Based on their concerns regarding potential issues with the batteries in their Tesla
22
electric vehicles—because the range was consistently falling short of advertised estimates—
23
consumers used their Tesla mobile app to register complaints or schedule service appointments
24
for a representative to check their vehicle.
25
26
27
45
46
Id.
Id.
17
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
PDF Page 20
Case 2:23-cv-02742-AC Document 1 Filed 11/22/23 Page 19 of 44
1
Tesla Created a “Diversion” Team to Handle Complaints Related to Vehicle Range
2
3
83.
Facing mounting complaints and appointments regarding range concerns, Tesla
created a special “team” that was tasked specifically with handling these complaints.
4
84.
However, Tesla’s reasoning for creating this team was not to assuage Tesla
5
owners’ concerns. Rather, Tesla created this team to divert customers away from service
6
appointments, in an effort to save Tesla time and money in handling service appointments.
7
85.
This “Diversion Team” was created solely to handle complaints and service
8
appointments regarding concerns over vehicle range. Members of the Diversion Team were
9
tasked with “diverting” customers away from service appointments and would simply cancel any
10
service appointment that was nominally related to concerns over a vehicle’s range. 47
11
86.
Rather than allowing a customer to attend a service appointment regarding their
12
range concerns, the Diversion Team would run remote diagnostic on a complaining customer’s
13
vehicle. The Diversion Team would call the customer and explain that Tesla’s advertised range
14
was a “prediction,” rather than an actual measurement. The team was trained to explain to
15
customers that the electric vehicle’s batteries naturally degrade over time—and, thus, the
16
vehicle’s range will be reduced. 48 Upon information and belief, the team did not explain to
17
customers that Tesla’s method for calculating the originally advertised range was aggressive, or
18
that the software algorithm displaying the updated vehicle range in real-time did not accurately
19
reflect the range at higher battery percentages.
20
87.
Notably, when running diagnostics, if the diagnostic indicated some other issue
21
with a customer’s vehicle, the Diversion Team was instructed not to inform the customer and
22
instead was required to simply close the customer’s case. 49
23
24
88.
Tesla also updated the Tesla mobile app to disallow any customer who was
voicing concern over their vehicle’s range from scheduling a service appointment. Instead, the
25
26
27
47
Id.
Id.
49
Id.
48
18
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
PDF Page 21
Case 2:23-cv-02742-AC Document 1 Filed 11/22/23 Page 20 of 44
1
app would only allow them to ask that a Tesla representative contact them regarding their
2
concern. All such complaints and concerns were routed directly to the Diversion Team. 50
3
89.
Following Tesla mobile app update, any time a customer complained or voiced
4
concerns about their Tesla vehicle’s range, the app would simply provide an explanation that the
5
vehicle’s range “depends on many factors, particularly your environment and personal driving
6
habits.” However, the app also would note that the “[d]isplayed range in your Tesla is adapted
7
based on fixed EPA test data, not your personal driving patterns,” as indicated below: 51
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
90.
Complaints and concerns regarding Tesla vehicle range continued to steadily
21
increase. At one point, the Diversion Team was handling 2,000 complaints a week. Customers
22
voiced understandable frustration over the fact that they were not allowed to book service
23
appointments regarding their concerns over their vehicles’ range. 52
24
91.
As complaints continued to increase, the Diversion Team was expected to handle
25
26
27
50
Id.
Id.
52
Id.
51
19
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
PDF Page 22
Case 2:23-cv-02742-AC Document 1 Filed 11/22/23 Page 21 of 44
1
and close 750 cases per week. Diversion Team members were told to call complaining customers
2
just once. If the customer did not answer this single call, the Diversion Team would close the
3
customer’s case as being “nonresponsive.” If a customer did answer, the Diversion Team was
4
required to handle the call as quickly as possible—in five minutes or less. 53 This did not afford
5
adequate time to alleviate customers’ concerns.
6
7
92.
By late 2022, the Diversion Team stopped running remote diagnostics on
complaining customers’ vehicles altogether. 54
8
93.
Essentially, by late 2022, if a Tesla owner complained or voiced concern over the
9
range of their Tesla electric vehicle, Tesla would not even check to confirm if, in fact, anything
10
was indeed wrong with the electric vehicle or its battery. Put simply, Tesla ensured that its
11
representatives told thousands upon thousands of customers that there was nothing wrong with
12
their electric vehicles without ever first confirming if that was actually the case. 55
13
94.
The Diversion Team was created to alleviate pressure on Tesla, which was
14
mounting due to its inability to deliver its exaggerated advertised vehicle ranges, rather than
15
actually help customers or alleviate their concerns.
16
Tesla’s Conduct Violates Its Warranties
17
95.
Tesla warrants all its electric vehicles.
18
96.
Tesla model vehicles are covered by Tesla’s New Vehicle Limited Warranty,
19
which includes Tesla’s Basic Vehicle Limited Warranty, Tesla’s Supplemental Restraint System
20
Limited Warranty, and Tesla’s Battery and Drive Unit Limited Warranty. 56, 57
21
22
97.
Tesla’s Basic Vehicle Limited Warranty “covers the repair or replacement
necessary to correct defects in the materials or workmanship of any parts manufactured or
23
53
24
25
26
27
Id.
Id.
55
Id.
56
Tesla | Support, “Vehicle Warranty” https://www.tesla.com/support/vehicle-warranty (last
accessed, Nov. 14, 2023).
57
Tesla’s Supplemental Restraint System Limited Warranty addresses defects in the vehicle’s
seat belts or air bag system, and thus is not relevant to Plaintiff’s claims here.
54
20
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
PDF Page 23
Case 2:23-cv-02742-AC Document 1 Filed 11/22/23 Page 22 of 44
1
supplied by Tesla under normal use for a period of 4 years or 50,000 miles (80,000 km),
2
whichever comes first.” 58
3
98.
Tesla’s Battery and Drive Unit Limited Warranty “covers the repair or
4
replacement of any malfunctioning or defective Battery or Drive Unit.” If a warranty repair is
5
required, “Tesla will repair the [Battery or Drive] unit, or replace it.” “[W]hen replacing a
6
Battery, Tesla will ensure that the energy capacity of the replacement Battery is at least equal to
7
that of the original Battery before the failure occurred.” For Tesla Model S and Model X vehicles,
8
the Battery and Drive Unit Limited Warranty offers coverage for “8 years or 150,000 miles
9
(240,000 km), whichever comes first, with minimum 70% retention of Battery capacity over the
10
warranty period.” For Tesla Model 3 Rear-Wheel Drive vehicles, the Battery and Drive Unit
11
Limited Warranty offers coverage for “8 years or 100,000 miles (160,000 km), whichever comes
12
first, with minimum 70% retention of Battery capacity over the warranty period.” For Tesla
13
Model 3 Long Range, Model 3 Performance, Model Y All-Wheel Drive, Model Y Long Range,
14
and Model Y Performance vehicles, the Battery and Drive Unit Limited Warranty offers
15
coverage for “8 years or 120,000 miles (192,000 km), whichever comes first, with minimum
16
70% retention of Battery capacity over the warranty period.” The “measurement method used to
17
determine Battery capacity . . . [is] at the sole discretion of Tesla.” 59
18
99.
Notably, the Battery and Drive Unit Limited Warranty explains that “the vehicle’s
19
range estimates are an imperfect measure of Battery capacity because they are affected by
20
additional factors separate from Battery capacity.” 60
21
22
100.
Tesla also offers a Used Vehicle Limited Warranty on all used vehicles purchased
through Tesla, which offers coverage for “the remainder of 4 years or 50,000 miles left on the
23
24
25
26
27
58
Tesla, “Model S Model X Model 3 Model Y New Vehicle Limited Warranty”
https://www.tesla.com/sites/default/files/downloads/tesla-new-vehicle-limited-warranty-enus.pdf (last accessed, Nov. 14, 2023).
59
Id.; Tesla | Support, “Vehicle Warranty” https://www.tesla.com/support/vehicle-warranty
(last accessed, Nov. 14, 2023).
60
See supra note 58.
21
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
PDF Page 24
Case 2:23-cv-02742-AC Document 1 Filed 11/22/23 Page 23 of 44
1
Basic Vehicle Limited Warranty,” and after its expiration, “provides additional coverage of 1
2
year or 10,000 miles.” 61
3
101.
Despite offering coverage under the Battery and Drive Unit Limited Warranty,
4
including coverage for any “malfunctioning battery,” Tesla refused to provide such coverage to
5
Tesla owners who complained or voiced concerns regarding their electric vehicles’ range.
6
102.
Normally, in order to receive warranty coverage, a Tesla owner would schedule
7
a service appointment to determine whether the battery in their electric vehicle was
8
“malfunctioning.” If the battery was determined to be malfunctioning, under the Battery and
9
Drive Unit Limited Warranty, Tesla would be required to offer a repair or replacement.
10
103.
However, as explained above, Tesla established a Diversion Team that was
11
specifically tasked with canceling such service appointments. This ensured that customers’ Tesla
12
vehicles could not be reviewed to determine whether their range complaints arose, in fact, from
13
a malfunctioning battery. This effectively ensured that Tesla would not be required to potentially
14
offer more warranty repair or replacement coverages.
15
104.
Tesla’s conduct, effectuated through the Diversion Team, violated and breached
16
its warranties.
17
Tesla Knew That Its Advertised Range Estimates Exceeded the Actual Range of Its Vehicles
18
105.
Tesla was aware that its advertised electric vehicle ranges were exaggerated and
19
exceeded the actual range of the vehicle when driven in real-world driving conditions. Tesla,
20
which employs its own method for calculating the range of its electric vehicles, was aware that
21
this method of calculation produced aggressive and exaggerated range estimates.
22
106.
Further, Tesla was aware that various factors impacted the electric vehicle’s
23
range. Tesla understood that these factors were likely to occur in real-world driving conditions.
24
For example, Tesla stated in its Battery and Drive Unit Limited Warranty that “the vehicle’s
25
26
27
61
Tesla | Support, “Vehicle Warranty” https://www.tesla.com/support/vehicle-warranty (last
accessed, Nov. 14, 2023).
22
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
PDF Page 25
Case 2:23-cv-02742-AC Document 1 Filed 11/22/23 Page 24 of 44
1
range estimates are an imperfect measure of Battery capacity because they are affected by
2
additional factors separate from Battery capacity.” Thus, Tesla was fully aware that its advertised
3
range estimates were an “imperfect measure” and that its electric vehicles’ ranges would vary
4
and be impacted by normal driving conditions.
5
107.
Nevertheless, despite knowing this, Tesla did not inform consumers of this
6
information when advertising their electric vehicle range estimates. For example, Tesla could
7
have warned potential purchasers that cold weather would drastically lower the electric vehicle’s
8
range, but Tesla did not issue such a warning, instead only advertising an exaggerated range
9
estimate.
10
108.
Tesla also was aware that its advertised range estimates were based on driving
11
the electric vehicle with a full 100% charge of the electric vehicle battery. However, because
12
Tesla suggests to customers that they establish a charge limit on their vehicles well-below full
13
capacity, Tesla was aware that, in reality, customers would be unable to ever actually experience
14
the full advertised range.
15
109.
Moreover, Tesla was aware that its software algorithms for displaying the vehicle
16
range in real-time to Tesla electric vehicle owners provided exaggerated, “rosy” projections—
17
particularly at higher percentages. Tesla understood that these algorithms did not accurately
18
reflect the actual range of the electric vehicle, again exaggerating the range.
19
110.
At the latest, Tesla was aware that its advertised range estimates exceeded the
20
vehicle’s actual capabilities under real-world driving and charging conditions when Tesla
21
established a Diversion Team to summarily handle, divert, and close customer complaints and
22
concerns regarding vehicle range issues.
23
111.
Tesla knew, or at the very least should have known, that the actual range of each
24
of its model vehicles was lower than the advertised estimated range before Tesla advertised such
25
ranges.
26
Had Tesla Honestly Advertised Its Vehicle Ranges, Consumers Would Have Acted Differently
27
112.
Had Tesla honestly advertised its electric vehicle ranges, consumers either would
23
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
PDF Page 26
Case 2:23-cv-02742-AC Document 1 Filed 11/22/23 Page 25 of 44
1
2
not have purchased Tesla model vehicles, or else would have paid substantially less for them.
113.
Tesla, based on its superior knowledge, could have and should have warned
3
customers that its range estimates were based just that—estimates and hopeful projections that
4
did not reflect regular conditions.
5
114.
Tesla should have warned potential purchasers that the ranges of Tesla model
6
vehicles could be negatively impacted by various driving and environmental factors that were
7
likely to exist; but Tesla did not.
8
9
10
11
115.
Tesla should have warned potential purchasers that the ranges of Tesla model
vehicles were estimated based on full 100% battery charge, but that Tesla suggested that its
model vehicles not be charged to full 100% battery charge on a regular basis.
116.
Tesla should have warned potential purchasers that the ranges of Tesla model
12
vehicles were not estimated based on EPA standardized formulae—despite Tesla advertising the
13
range estimates as “EPA estimates”—but instead based on Tesla’s own proprietary method for
14
calculating range, which allowed for a more aggressive estimate of total electric vehicle range.
15
117.
In fact, Tesla could have described the estimated range of its electric vehicles in
16
terms similar to those included on fueleconomy.gov fuel economy labels, as described above,
17
including but not limited to explaining that the advertised range is based on “[w]hen [the vehicle
18
is] fully charged” or by warning consumers that the advertised range “will vary for many reasons
19
including driving conditions.” Tesla did not do so.
20
118.
Had Tesla revealed any of this information to potential purchasers at the time of
21
purchase, by issuing a warning or addendum attached to its advertised estimated vehicle ranges,
22
Plaintiff and Class Members would have either not purchased Tesla model vehicles or else would
23
have paid substantially less for them.
24
25
119.
and Class Members at the point of sale.
26
27
Tesla’s conduct in false advertising its estimated vehicle ranges harmed Plaintiff
PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS
120.
Plaintiff is a resident and citizen of Citrus Heights (Sacramento County),
24
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
PDF Page 27
Case 2:23-cv-02742-AC Document 1 Filed 11/22/23 Page 26 of 44
1
California. In November 2022, Plaintiff purchased a used 2019 Tesla Model 3 vehicle from
2
Tracy Volkswagen in Tracy, California (2605 Auto Plaza Way, Tracy, California 95304). The
3
vehicle had 64,349 miles on it at the time of purchase. Plaintiff purchased his vehicle for
4
approximately $52,204.
5
121.
Plaintiff conducted research on Tesla vehicles and on the Model 3 specifically by
6
visiting the Tesla website as well as the Tracy Volkswagen dealership website. He also reviewed
7
the vehicle’s CARFAX report. The Tracy dealership listed the mileage range for the vehicle at
8
around 220-240 miles, as referenced on Tesla’s website, and verbally told Plaintiff the vehicle
9
could achieve this same range in person when he visited the dealership.
10
122.
At no point in his pre-purchase research or in his discussions with the dealership
11
was Plaintiff warned or told that the advertised range did not account for normal driving
12
conditions or that it was exaggerated.
13
14
15
123.
Plaintiff’s vehicle came with all Tesla applicable warranties, including the
remainder of the Basic Vehicle Limited Warranty, and Battery and Drive Unit Limited Warranty.
124.
After acquiring his Tesla vehicle, Plaintiff fully charged his vehicle to 100%
16
battery charge and took an approximately 8-hour trip, about 385 miles away, from Sacramento
17
to Los Angeles. Because his vehicle is advertised as getting 220 miles on a single charge,
18
Plaintiff expected to stop two times to charge the vehicle. However, Plaintiff had to stop to
19
charge the vehicle three times (about every 128 miles). In May 2023, when he made the same
20
trip again, Plaintiff had to stop five times to charge the vehicle (about every 77 miles).
21
22
23
125.
On average, on information and belief, Plaintiff gets less than 150 miles on a full
charge, despite the vehicle being advertised with a range of 220 miles.
126.
Since purchasing the vehicle, Plaintiff has contacted Tesla numerous times to
24
voice concerns over his vehicle’s range. On each occasion, Tesla responded by: (1) informing
25
him that they ran remote diagnostics, and that the battery is operating as intended; (2) not
26
responding at all and closing the ticket in reply to Plaintiff’s subsequent complaint; or (3) told
27
Plaintiff not to worry about actual miles driven.
25
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
PDF Page 28
Case 2:23-cv-02742-AC Document 1 Filed 11/22/23 Page 27 of 44
1
127.
After Plaintiff’s initial service request to Tesla regarding his vehicle’s range was
2
denied, Plaintiff charged his vehicle to 100% multiple times over several months for his daily
3
work commute consisting of only city driving. Plaintiff did so in order to determine his vehicle’s
4
range on a fully charged battery. The maximum range Plaintiff achieved on his vehicle’s fully
5
charged battery was approximately 150 miles, well below Tesla’s advertised range of 240 miles.
6
128.
Plaintiff then made additional service requests to Tesla, which were also
7
summarily denied.
8
129.
At no point when Plaintiff spoke with Tesla representatives did Tesla
9
representatives warn or explain that the advertised range required the vehicle to be fully charged
10
to 100% battery capacity, required the driver not use other vehicle features (including other
11
electronics), did not account for normal, expected driving conditions, or that the advertised range
12
was exaggerated.
13
14
15
130.
The electric vehicle’s advertised range was one of the most important factors
Plaintiff considered when choosing to purchase his Tesla vehicle.
131.
Had Tesla truthfully revealed that the advertised range was exaggerated and not
16
based on normal driving conditions, Plaintiff would not have purchased his Tesla vehicle, or else
17
would have paid substantially less for it.
18
19
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
132.
Plaintiff brings this lawsuit as a class action on behalf of himself and all others
20
similarly situated as members of the proposed Class pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
21
23(a) and 23(b)(3). This action satisfies the numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy,
22
predominance, and superiority requirements of those provisions.
23
133.
24
Class: All persons and entities in the United States who purchased a Tesla
Model 3, Model S, Model Y, and Model X vehicle. (the “Nationwide
Class” or “Class”).
25
26
27
The Class and Sub-Classes are defined as follows:
California Sub-Class: All members of the Nationwide Class who reside
in the State of California. (the “California Class”)
26
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
PDF Page 29
Case 2:23-cv-02742-AC Document 1 Filed 11/22/23 Page 28 of 44
1
2
3
4
CLRA Sub-Class: All members of the California Class who are
“consumers” within the meaning of California Civil Code § 1761(d).
Implied Warranty Sub-Class: All members of the Nationwide Class
who purchased their vehicles in the State of California.
134.
Plaintiff reserves the right to modify or amend the definition of the proposed
5
Nationwide Class and State Class before the Court determines whether certification is
6
appropriate and as the parties engage in discovery.
7
135.
Numerosity: Members of the Class are so numerous that joinder of all members
8
is impracticable. While the exact number of Class Members remains unknown at this time, upon
9
information and belief, there are thousands of putative Class Members who are generally
10
11
ascertainable by appropriate discovery.
136.
Commonality: This action involves common questions of law and fact, which
12
predominate over questions affective individual Class Members. These common legal and
13
factual questions include, but are not limited to, the following:
14
a.
15
Whether Tesla model vehicles fail to deliver the advertised estimated
vehicle range in normal driving conditions;
16
b.
Whether Tesla exaggerated its advertised estimated vehicle ranges;
17
c.
Whether Tesla knew that its advertised estimated vehicle ranges were
18
exaggerated and could not be met under normal driving conditions;
19
d.
When Tesla gained such knowledge;
20
e.
Whether Tesla designed, manufacture, marketed, advertised, sold, or
21
otherwise placed its model vehicles into the stream of commerce with
22
such knowledge;
23
f.
Whether Tesla intentionally concealed the fact that its advertised
24
estimated vehicle ranges were exaggerated or otherwise could not be met
25
under normal driving conditions;
26
27
g.
Whether Tesla’s conduct to divert complaints from Class Members who
voiced concerns over their Tesla model vehicle’s range violated the terms
27
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
PDF Page 30
Case 2:23-cv-02742-AC Document 1 Filed 11/22/23 Page 29 of 44
1
of Tesla’s warranties;
2
h.
3
Whether Plaintiff and Class Members were harmed by the fraud and
deceptive practices alleged herein;
4
i.
Whether Tesla was unjustly enriched by its deceptive practices; and
5
j.
Whether Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to equitable or injunctive
6
7
relief.
137.
Typicality: Plaintiff’s claims are typical or those of the other Class Members
8
because, inter alia, all Class Members were injured through the common misconduct described
9
above and were subject in the same manner to Tesla’s unfair, deceptive, and unlawful conduct.
10
Plaintiff is advancing the same claims and legal theories on behalf of himself and all members
11
of the Class.
12
138.
Adequacy of Representation: Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and
13
protect the interests of the Class in that he has no disabling conflicts of interest that would be
14
antagonistic to those of the other Class Members. Plaintiff seeks no relief that is antagonistic or
15
adverse to the other Class Members, and the infringement of the rights and the damages Plaintiff
16
has suffered are typical of other Class Members. Plaintiff has retained counsel experienced in
17
complex consumer class action litigation, and Plaintiff intends to prosecute this action
18
vigorously.
19
139.
Superiority: Class litigation is an appropriate method for the fair and efficient
20
adjudication of the claims involved. Class action treatment is superior to all other available
21
methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy alleged herein; it will permit a
22
large number of Class Members to prosecute their common claims in a single forum
23
simultaneously, efficiently, and without the unnecessary duplication of evidence, effort, and
24
expense that hundreds of individual actions would require. Class action treatment will permit the
25
adjudication of relatively modest claims by certain Class Members, who could not individually
26
afford to litigate a complex claim against large corporate defendants. Further, even for those
27
Class Members who could afford to litigate such a claim, it would still be economically
28
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
PDF Page 31
Case 2:23-cv-02742-AC Document 1 Filed 11/22/23 Page 30 of 44
1
impractical.
2
140.
The nature of this action and the nature of laws available to Plaintiff and the Class
3
make the use of the class action device a particularly efficient and appropriate procedure to afford
4
relief to Plaintiff and the Class for the wrongs alleged because Tesla would necessarily gain an
5
unconscionable advantage since it would be able to exploit and overwhelm the limited resources
6
of each individual Class Member with superior financial and legal resources; the costs of
7
individual suits could unreasonably consume the amounts that would be recovered; proof of a
8
common course of conduct to which Plaintiff was exposed is representative of that experienced
9
by the Class and will establish the right of each Class Member to recover on the cause of action
10
alleged; and individual actions would create a risk of inconsistent results and would be
11
unnecessary and duplicative of this litigation.
12
141.
The class action is superior to all other available methods for the fair and efficient
13
adjudication of this controversy. Because of the number and nature of common questions of fact
14
and law, multiple separate lawsuits would not serve the interest of judicial economy.
15
142.
Notice of a certified class action and of any result or resolution of the litigation
16
can be provided to Class Members by first-class mail, email, or publication, or such other
17
methods of notice as deemed appropriate by the Court.
18
143.
Plaintiff does not anticipate any difficulty in the management of this litigation.
19
CAUSES OF ACTION
20
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY
(By Plaintiff on Behalf of All Classes)
21
22
23
24
25
26
144.
Plaintiff incorporates by reference all allegations of the preceding paragraphs as
though fully set forth herein.
145.
Tesla provided Plaintiff and Class Members with Tesla’s New Vehicle Limited
Warranty.
146.
Included in the New Vehicle Limited Warranty, Tesla provided Plaintiff and
27
29
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
PDF Page 32
Case 2:23-cv-02742-AC Document 1 Filed 11/22/23 Page 31 of 44
1
Class Members with Tesla’s Basic Vehicle Limited Warranty, which expressly “covers the repair
2
or replacement necessary to correct defects in the materials or workmanship of any parts
3
manufactured or supplied by Tesla under normal use for a period of 4 years or 50,000 miles
4
(80,000 km), whichever comes first.”
5
147.
Tesla further provided Plaintiff and Class Members with Tesla’s Battery and
6
Drive Unit Limited Warranty, which expressly “covers the repair or replacement of any
7
malfunctioning or defective Battery or Drive Unit.” If a warranty repair is required, “Tesla will
8
repair the [Battery or Drive] unit, or replace it.” “[W]hen replacing a Battery, Tesla will ensure
9
that the energy capacity of the replacement Battery is at least equal to that of the original Battery
10
before the failure occurred.” For Tesla Model S and Model X vehicles, the Battery and Drive
11
Unit Limited Warranty offers coverage for “8 years or 150,000 miles (240,000 km), whichever
12
comes first, with minimum 70% retention of Battery capacity over the warranty period.” For
13
Tesla Model 3 Rear-Wheel Drive vehicles, the Battery and Drive Unit Limited Warranty offers
14
coverage for “8 years or 100,000 miles (160,000 km), whichever comes first, with minimum
15
70% retention of Battery capacity over the warranty period.” For Tesla Model 3 Long Range,
16
Model 3 Performance, Model Y All-Wheel Drive, Model Y Long Range, and Model Y
17
Performance vehicles, the Battery and Drive Unit Limited Warranty offers coverage for “8 years
18
or 120,000 miles (192,000 km), whichever comes first, with minimum 70% retention of Battery
19
capacity over the warranty period.”
20
148.
Tesla also offers a Used Vehicle Limited Warranty on all used vehicles purchased
21
through Tesla, which offers coverage for “the remainder of 4 years or 50,000 miles left on the
22
Basic Vehicle Limited Warranty,” and after its expiration, “provides additional coverage of 1
23
year or 10,000 miles.”
24
25
26
27
149.
The above express warranties became part of the basis of the bargain between
Plaintiff and Class Members and Tesla.
150.
Plaintiff presented concerns with their vehicles’ range to Tesla for repairs. Tesla,
however, refused to remedy or even address these concerns, instead choosing to divert the claim
30
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
PDF Page 33
Case 2:23-cv-02742-AC Document 1 Filed 11/22/23 Page 32 of 44
1
and dismiss it.
2
151.
As explained above, Tesla established a Diversion Team that was specifically
3
tasked with canceling such service appointments. This ensured that customers’ Tesla vehicles
4
could not be reviewed to determine whether their range complaints arose, in fact, from a
5
malfunctioning battery. This effectively ensured that Tesla would not be required to potentially
6
offer more warranty repair or replacement coverages. It also effectively rendered the warranties
7
null.
8
9
10
11
152.
Plaintiff and Class Members notified Tesla of the breaches within a reasonable
time and/or were not required to do so because affording Tesla a reasonable opportunity to cure
its breach of written warranty would have been futile.
153.
Plaintiff and Class Members have complied with all obligations under the
12
warranty, or otherwise have been excused from performance of said obligations as a result of
13
Tesla’s conduct described herein.
14
154.
Plaintiff and Class Members are entitled to legal and equitable relief against
15
Tesla, including damages, consequential damages, specific performance, attorney fees, costs of
16
suit, and other relief as appropriate.
17
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY
(By Plaintiff on Behalf of All Classes)
18
19
20
21
155.
Plaintiff incorporates by reference all allegations of the preceding paragraphs as
though fully set forth herein.
156.
Tesla provided Plaintiff and Class Members with an implied warranty that the
22
Tesla vehicles and any parts thereof are merchantable and fit for the ordinary purposes for which
23
they were sold. However, the Tesla vehicles are not fit for their ordinary purpose as electric
24
vehicles because the vehicles fail to deliver adequate range when operated under normal driving
25
conditions.
26
157.
Tesla impliedly warranted that the vehicles were of merchantable quality and fit
27
31
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
PDF Page 34
Case 2:23-cv-02742-AC Document 1 Filed 11/22/23 Page 33 of 44
1
2
to provide adequate driving range for normal driving conditions.
158.
Contrary to the applicable implied warranties, the vehicles at the time of sale and
3
thereafter were not fit for their ordinary and intended purpose of providing Plaintiff and Class
4
Members with reliable vehicles.
5
6
159.
Tesla’s actions, as complained of herein, breached the implied warranty that the
Tesla vehicles were of merchantable quality and fit for such use.
7
8
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
VIOLATIONS OF THE MAGNUSON-MOSS WARRANTY ACT
15 U.S.C. § 2301, et seq.
(By Plaintiff on Behalf of All Classes)
9
10
11
12
13
160.
Plaintiff incorporates by reference all allegations of the preceding paragraphs as
though fully set forth herein.
161.
The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (“MMWA”), 15 U.S.C. § 2301, et seq.,
14
imposes civil liability on any “warrantor” for failing to comply with any obligation under written
15
and implied warranties. 15 U.S.C. § 2310(d)(1).
16
17
162.
This Court has jurisdiction over this matter under CAFA and can therefore assert
alternative jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s MMWA claims.
18
163.
The Tesla vehicles are “consumer products” as defined by 15 U.S.C. § 2301(1).
19
164.
Plaintiff and Class Members are “consumers” as defined by 15 U.S.C. § 2301(3).
20
165.
Tesla is a “warrantor” and “supplier” as defined by 15 U.S.C. § 2301(4) and (5).
21
166.
As detailed above, Tesla breached its warranty obligations by failing to provide
22
a product that conformed to the promises and affirmations Tesla made about the Tesla vehicles,
23
by failing to truthfully advertise and warrant the range of its vehicles, and by establishing a
24
scheme to divert and systematically cancel customers’ customer complaints, concerns, and
25
service appointments relating to the range of their vehicles, which in turn created a system that
26
prevented the warranties from functioning as intended (and, thus, rendered the warranties null
27
and caused them to fail of their essential purpose).
32
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
PDF Page 35
Case 2:23-cv-02742-AC Document 1 Filed 11/22/23 Page 34 of 44
1
2
3
4
5
167.
Tesla’s breach of warranty deprived Plaintiff and Class Members of the benefit
of their bargain.
168.
The amount in controversy meets or exceeds the sum or value of $50,000
(exclusive of interest and costs) computed on the basis of all claims to be determined in this suit.
169.
Tesla has been afforded reasonable opportunity to cure its breaches of warranty.
6
Plaintiff previously provided reasonable notice to Tesla of their concerns and complaints
7
regarding the range of their vehicles, creating service appointments to address the issues, which
8
Tesla ultimately canceled. Despite this notice, to Plaintiff’s knowledge, Tesla has taken no steps
9
to correct its business practices or cure its breaches.
10
170.
In addition, resorting to any sort of informal dispute settlement procedure or
11
affording Tesla another opportunity to cure its breach of warranty is unnecessary and futile. Any
12
remedies available through any informal dispute settlement procedure would be inadequate
13
under the circumstances, as Tesla has repeatedly mispresented the true quality and nature of its
14
vehicles, has established a scheme to divert and systematically dispose of reasonable concerns
15
and warranty complaints regarding the range of its vehicles, and has indicated no desire to
16
participate in such a process at this time. Any requirement under the MMWA or otherwise that
17
Plaintiff submit to any informal dispute settlement procedure or otherwise afford Tesla a
18
reasonable opportunity to cure its breaches of warranty is excused and/or has been satisfied.
19
171.
As a direct and proximate result of Tesla’s warranty breaches, Plaintiff and Class
20
Members sustained damages and other losses to be determined at trial. Tesla’s conduct damaged
21
Plaintiff and Class Members, who are entitled to recover damages, specific performance, costs,
22
attorneys’ fees, and other appropriate relief.
23
25
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
VIOLATIONS OF THE SONG-BEVERLY CONSUMER WARRANTY ACT
Cal. Civ. Code § 1790, et seq.
(By Plaintiff on Behalf of the California Class)
26
172.
24
27
Plaintiff incorporates by reference all allegations of the preceding paragraphs as
though fully set forth herein.
33
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
PDF Page 36
Case 2:23-cv-02742-AC Document 1 Filed 11/22/23 Page 35 of 44
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
173.
Plaintiff and Class Members are “buyers” as that term is defined in the California
Civil Code § 1791(b).
174.
The Tesla vehicles are “consumer goods” as that term is defined in the California
Civil Code § 1791(a).
175.
At all relevant times, Tesla was the “manufacturer, distributor, warrantor and/or
seller” of the Tesla vehicles within the meaning of the California Civil Code § 1791.
176.
Tesla provided Plaintiff and Class Members with express warranties that “covers
8
the repair or replacement necessary to correct defects in the materials or workmanship of any
9
parts manufactured or supplied by Tesla under normal use” and “covers the repair or replacement
10
11
of any malfunctioning or defective Battery or Drive Unit.”
177.
Plaintiff presented concerns with his vehicle’s range to Tesla for repairs. Tesla,
12
however, refused to remedy or even address these concerns, instead choosing to divert the claim
13
and dismiss it.
14
178.
As explained above, Tesla established a Diversion Team that was specifically
15
tasked with canceling such service appointments. This ensured that customers’ Tesla vehicles
16
could not be reviewed to determine whether their range complaints arose, in fact, from a
17
malfunctioning battery. This effectively ensured that Tesla would not be required to potentially
18
offer more warranty repair or replacement coverages.
19
20
179.
Tesla’s conduct as complained herein breached applicable warranties and
violated the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.
21
FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
FRAUD
(By Plaintiff on Behalf of All Classes)
22
23
24
25
26
202.
Plaintiff incorporates by reference all allegations of the preceding paragraphs as
though fully set forth herein.
203.
Tesla made material misrepresentations and omissions of fact in its advertising
and marketing of the Tesla vehicles by exaggerating the range capabilities of its electric vehicles.
27
34
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
PDF Page 37
Case 2:23-cv-02742-AC Document 1 Filed 11/22/23 Page 36 of 44
1
204.
Tesla’s conduct was and continues to be fraudulent because it has the effect of
2
deceiving consumers into believing that the vehicles have a much greater vehicle range than
3
what could be achieved under normal driving conditions.
4
205.
Plaintiff considered the Tesla vehicle’s driving range to be an important factor
5
when purchasing his Tesla vehicles. The vehicle’s advertised range is material to the average,
6
reasonable consumer.
7
206.
Plaintiff and Class Members were actually misled and deceived and were induced
8
by Tesla to purchase the vehicles. Had Tesla truthfully advertised the vehicle’s range, Plaintiff
9
and Class Members would have either not purchased the vehicles, or else would have paid
10
11
12
substantially less for them.
207.
in an amount to be determined at trial.
13
SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION
(By Plaintiff on Behalf of All Classes)
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
As a result of Tesla’s conduct, Plaintiff and Class Members have been damaged
208.
Plaintiff incorporates by reference all allegations of the preceding paragraphs as
though fully set forth herein.
209.
Tesla had a duty to provide honest and accurate information to consumers so that
its customers could make informed decisions on the substantial purchase of a vehicle.
210.
Tesla misrepresented material facts regarding the Tesla vehicles’ range to
Plaintiff and Class Members, as described herein.
211.
Plaintiff and Class Members considered the Tesla vehicles’ driving range to be
22
an important factor when purchasing their Tesla vehicles. The vehicle’s advertised range is
23
material to the average, reasonable consumer.
24
212.
Tesla knew or reasonably should have known, that the average, reasonable
25
consumer would be misled by Tesla’s misleading and deceptive advertisements and statements,
26
which falsely exaggerate the true nature of its vehicles’ range.
27
35
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
PDF Page 38
Case 2:23-cv-02742-AC Document 1 Filed 11/22/23 Page 37 of 44
1
213.
Plaintiff and Class Members justifiably relied on Tesla’s misrepresentations and
2
omissions and were actually misled and deceived and were induced by Tesla to purchase the
3
vehicles. Had Tesla truthfully advertised the vehicle’s range, Plaintiff and Class Members would
4
have either not purchased the vehicles, or else would have paid substantially less for them.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
214.
As a result of Tesla’s conduct, Plaintiff and Class Members have been damaged
in an amount to be determined at trial.
SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
VIOLATIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA CONSUMER LEGAL REMEDIES ACT
Cal. Civ. Code § 1750, et seq.
(By Plaintiff on Behalf of the California Class)
215.
Plaintiff incorporate by reference all allegations of the preceding paragraphs as
though fully set forth herein.
216.
Tesla is a “person” as that term is defined in California Civil Code § 1761(c).
217.
Plaintiff and California Class Members are “consumers” as that term is defined
in California Civil Code § 1761(d).
218.
Tesla engaged in unfair and deceptive acts in violation of the California Legal
Remedies Act (“CLRA”) by the practices described above, and by knowingly and intentionally
misleading (through statements and omissions) Plaintiff and California Class Members in a
material way in the process of purchasing the Tesla vehicles by advertising estimated vehicle
ranges that were exaggerated or otherwise could not be met under normal driving conditions,
without explaining or warning consumers of that fact. These acts and practices violate, at a
minimum, the following sections of the CLRA:
California Civil Code § 1770(a)(2) Misrepresenting the source,
sponsorship, approval or certification of goods or services;
23
24
25
26
California Civil Code § 1770(a)(5) Representing that goods or
services have sponsorships, characteristics, uses, benefits or
quantities which they do not have, or that a person has a sponsorship,
approval, status, affiliation or connection which he or she does not
have;
27
36
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
PDF Page 39
Case 2:23-cv-02742-AC Document 1 Filed 11/22/23 Page 38 of 44
California Civil Code § 1770(a)(7) Representing that goods or
services are of a particular standard, quality, or grade, or that goods
are of a particular style or model, if they are of another; and
1
2
California Civil Code § 1770(a)(9) Advertising goods and services
with the intent not to sell them as advertised.
3
4
219.
5
Tesla’s unfair or deceptive acts or practices occurred repeatedly in Tesla’s trade
6
or business and were capable of deceiving, and did deceive, a substantial portion of the
7
purchasing public.
8
220.
9
Throughout the relevant period, Tesla knew or reasonably should have known
that the Tesla vehicles failed to deliver the advertised estimated vehicle range under normal
10
driving conditions.
11
221.
12
Tesla was under a duty to Plaintiff and California Class Members to disclose the
true nature of the estimated vehicle range of the Tesla vehicles because:
a.
13
Tesla was in a superior position to know the true state of facts about the
vehicle range of the Tesla vehicles;
14
b.
15
Plaintiff and the California Class Members could not reasonably have
16
been expected to learn or discover that the vehicle range was exaggerated
17
and could not be met under normal driving conditions and thus were not
18
in accordance with Tesla’s advertisements and representations;
c.
19
Tesla knew that Plaintiff and the California Class Members could not
20
reasonably have been expected to learn or discover the true state of facts
21
about the vehicle range; and
d.
22
Tesla actively concealed and failed to disclose the fact that its advertised
23
estimated vehicle ranges were exaggerated or otherwise could not be met
24
under normal driving conditions from Plaintiff and the California Class.
222.
25
In exaggerating the true state of facts for the vehicle range at the time of sale,
26
Tesla has knowingly and intentionally misrepresented material facts and breached its duty not to
27
do so.
37
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
PDF Page 40
Case 2:23-cv-02742-AC Document 1 Filed 11/22/23 Page 39 of 44
1
223.
Plaintiff and California Class Members considered the Tesla vehicles’ driving
2
range to be an important factor when purchasing their Tesla vehicles. The vehicle’s advertised
3
range is material to the average, reasonable consumer.
4
224.
The misrepresented facts concerning the vehicle range are also material because
5
they concern central functions of the electric vehicles (e.g., the distance the vehicle can travel
6
before needing to be recharged).
7
225.
Finally, the facts concerning the vehicle range that Tesla exaggerated in its
8
advertisements to customers are also material because they contradict affirmative representations
9
about Tesla vehicle range.
10
226.
Had Tesla disclosed the true vehicle range in its advertising, on its website’s
11
listing of Tesla vehicles, or through its dealerships, Plaintiff and the California Class Members
12
would have learned of the true vehicle range and would have acted differently. Had Plaintiff and
13
California Class Members known about the true state of facts of the vehicle range capabilities of
14
Tesla vehicles, they either would not have purchased the vehicles or else would have paid
15
substantially less for them. Accordingly, Plaintiff and California Class Members overpaid for
16
their Tesla vehicles and did not receive the benefit of their bargain.
17
227.
Plaintiff plausibly would have learned of the true state of facts of the vehicle range
18
if Tesla had accurately represented it through its advertising or to the sales representatives at
19
Tesla dealerships. Plaintiff and the other California Class Members’ injuries were proximately
20
caused by Tesla’s fraudulent and deceptive business practices.
21
228.
Pursuant to California Civil Code § 1782(a), Plaintiff provided Tesla with notice
22
of its violations under the CLRA on November 15, 2023. If, within 30 days, Defendant fails to
23
provide appropriate relief for its violations of the CLRA, Plaintiff will amend this Complaint to
24
seek monetary, compensatory, and punitive damages, in addition to the equitable relief that he
25
seeks now on behalf of himself and the CLRA Sub-Class.
26
27
229.
Plaintiff has attached his Declaration of Venue as Exhibit A to this Complaint,
establishing that this Action has been properly commenced in this District, because a significant
38
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
PDF Page 41
Case 2:23-cv-02742-AC Document 1 Filed 11/22/23 Page 40 of 44
1
portion of the relevant facts occurred in Sacramento County. See Exhibit A.
2
230.
Pursuant to California Civil Code § 1780, Plaintiff seeks an order enjoining Tesla
3
from the unlawful practices described above and a declaration that Tesla’s conduct violated the
4
CLRA.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
231.
Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and California Class Members, seeks equitable
relief and attorneys’ fees and costs.
EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
VIOLATIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA UNFAIR COMPETITION LAW
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq.
(By Plaintiff on Behalf of the California Class)
232.
Plaintiff incorporates by reference all allegations of the preceding paragraphs as
though fully set forth herein.
233.
The California Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) prohibits acts of “unfair
competition,” including any “unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice” and “unfair,
deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200.
234.
Tesla has engaged in unfair competition and unfair, unlawful, or fraudulent
business practices by the conduct and statements described above, and by knowingly and
intentionally misleading (through statements and omissions) Plaintiff and California Class
Members about the true nature of the vehicle range (and the costs and diminished value of the
Tesla vehicles as a result of Tesla’s conduct). Tesla knew or reasonably should have known
about the true nature of the vehicle range throughout the relevant period. Tesla should have
disclosed accurate and truthful information concerning the vehicle range in its advertising and
through its dealerships. Tesla was in a superior position to know the true facts related to the
vehicle range, and Plaintiff and California Class Members could not reasonably be expected to
learn or discover the true facts related to the vehicle range.
235.
These acts and practices have deceived Plaintiff and are likely to deceive the
public. In misrepresenting the vehicle range, Tesla breached its duties to disclose these facts,
violated the UCL, and caused injuries to Plaintiff and California Class Members.
39
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
PDF Page 42
Case 2:23-cv-02742-AC Document 1 Filed 11/22/23 Page 41 of 44
1
236.
Plaintiff and California Class Members considered the Tesla vehicles’ driving
2
range to be an important factor when purchasing their Tesla vehicles. The vehicle’s advertised
3
range is material to the average, reasonable consumer.
4
237.
The misrepresented facts concerning the vehicle range are also material because
5
they concern central functions of the electric vehicles (e.g., the distance the vehicle can travel
6
before needing to be recharged).
7
238.
Had Tesla disclosed the true vehicle range in its advertising, on its website’s
8
listing of Tesla vehicles for sale or the website’s custom order tool, or through its dealerships,
9
Plaintiff and California Class Members would have learned of the true vehicle range and would
10
have acted differently. Had Plaintiff and California Class Members known about the true state
11
of facts of the vehicle range capabilities of Tesla vehicles, they either would not have purchased
12
the vehicles or else would have paid substantially less for them. Accordingly, Plaintiff and
13
California Class Members overpaid for their Tesla vehicles and did not receive the benefit of
14
their bargain.
15
239.
The injuries suffered by Plaintiff and California Class Members greatly outweigh
16
by any potential countervailing benefit, if any, to consumers or to competition. And such injuries
17
are not of a kind that Plaintiff and California Class Members should have, or could have,
18
reasonably avoided.
19
240.
20
21
Tesla’s acts and practices are unlawful because they violate California Civil Code
§§ 1668, 1709, 1710, and 1750, et seq., and California Commercial Code § 2313.
241.
Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and California Class Members, seeks to enjoin
22
further unlawful, unfair and/or fraudulent acts or practices by Tesla, to obtain restitutionary
23
disgorgement of all monies and revenues generated as a result of such practices, and all other
24
relief allowed under California Business & Professions Code § 17200 and under California law.
25
26
27
NINTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
VIOLATIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA FALSE ADVERTISING LAW
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500, et seq.
(By Plaintiff on Behalf of the California Class)
40
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
PDF Page 43
Case 2:23-cv-02742-AC Document 1 Filed 11/22/23 Page 42 of 44
1
2
3
242.
Plaintiff incorporates by reference all allegations of the preceding paragraphs as
though fully set forth herein.
243.
The California False Advertising Law (“FAL”) states: ““It is unlawful for any . .
4
. corporation . . . with intent directly or indirectly to dispose of real or personal property . . . to
5
induce the public to enter into any obligation relating thereto, to make or disseminate or cause
6
to be made or disseminated . . . from this state before the public in any state, in any newspaper
7
or other publication, or any advertising device, . . . or in any other manner or means whatever,
8
including over the Internet, any statement . . . which is untrue or misleading, and which is known,
9
or which by the exercise of reasonable care should be known, to be untrue or misleading.” Cal.
10
11
Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500.
244.
Tesla caused to be made or disseminated throughout California and the United
12
States, through advertising, marketing and other publications, statements that were untrue or
13
misleading, and which were known, or which by the exercise of reasonable care should have
14
been known to Tesla, to be untrue and misleading (through statements and omissions) to
15
consumers, including Plaintiff and California Class Members.
16
245.
Tesla has violated the FAL because the misrepresentations and omissions
17
regarding the vehicle range in its vehicles as set forth in this Complaint were material and likely
18
to deceive a reasonable consumer.
19
246.
Plaintiff and California Class Members considered the Tesla vehicles’ driving
20
range to be an important factor when purchasing their Tesla vehicles. The vehicle’s advertised
21
range is material to the average, reasonable consumer.
22
247.
The misrepresented facts concerning the vehicle range are also material because
23
they concern central functions of the electric vehicles (e.g., the distance the vehicle can travel
24
before needing to be recharged).
25
248.
Plaintiff and California Class Members have suffered an injury in fact, including
26
the losses of money or property, as a result of Tesla’s unfair, unlawful, and/or deceptive
27
practices.
41
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
PDF Page 44
Case 2:23-cv-02742-AC Document 1 Filed 11/22/23 Page 43 of 44
1
249.
Had Tesla disclosed the true vehicle range in its advertising, on its website’s
2
listing of Tesla vehicles for sale or the website’s custom order tool, or through its dealerships,
3
Plaintiff and the California Class Members would have learned of the true vehicle range and
4
would have acted differently. Had Plaintiff and California Class Members known about the true
5
state of facts of the vehicle range capabilities of Tesla vehicles, they either would not have
6
purchased the vehicles or else would have paid substantially less for them. Accordingly, Plaintiff
7
and California Class Members overpaid for their Tesla vehicles and did not receive the benefit
8
of their bargain.
9
10
11
250.
All of the wrongful conduct alleged herein occurred in the conduct of Tesla’s
business.
251.
Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and California Class Members, seeks to enjoin
12
further unlawful, unfair and/or fraudulent acts or practices by Tesla, to obtain restitutionary
13
disgorgement of all monies and revenues generated as a result of such practices, and all other
14
relief allowed under California Business & Professions Code § 17200 and under California law.
15
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
16
17
18
19
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and members of the proposed Classes,
respectfully requests that the Court:
a.
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, and issue an order certifying one or
20
more classes as defined above;
21
22
b.
c.
Award all actual, general, special, incidental, statutory, punitive, and
consequential damages and restitution to which Plaintiff and the Class Members
25
are entitled;
26
27
Appoint Plaintiff as the representative of the Classes and his counsel as Class
counsel;
23
24
Determine that the claims alleged herein may be maintained as a class action
d.
Award pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on such monetary relief;
42
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
PDF Page 45
Case 2:23-cv-02742-AC Document 1 Filed 11/22/23 Page 44 of 44
1
e.
Grant appropriate injunctive and/or declaratory relief, including, without
2
limitation, an order that enjoins Tesla from falsely advertising the estimated
3
ranges of its model vehicles;
4
f.
Award reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs; and
5
g.
Grant such further relief that this Court deems appropriate.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable.
DATED: November 22, 2023
/s/ Tarek H. Zohdy
Tarek H. Zohdy (SBN 247775)
Tarek.Zohdy@capstonelawyers.com
Cody R. Padgett (SBN 275553)
Cody.Padgett@capstonelawyers.com
Laura H. Goolsby (SBN 321721)
Laura.Goolsby@capstonelawyers.com
CAPSTONE LAW APC
1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000
Los Angeles, California 90067
Telephone: (310) 556-4811
Facsimile:
(310) 943-0396
Attorneys for Plaintiff
and the Proposed Class
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
43
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Back to 
