TLDR : Marc Dobin, a Tesla customer, received a full refund for the Full Self Driving feature after arbitration, highlighting unfulfilled promises by Tesla. This decision may set a legal precedent.
While the French Directorate-General for Competition, Consumer Affairs, and Fraud Control (DGCCRF) ordered Tesla France on June 24 to "cease its misleading commercial practices" regarding the presentation of its Full Self Driving (FSD) options, one of Tesla's American customers, Marc Dobin, managed to obtain a full refund of the FSD cost and arbitration fees (nearly $8,000).
In June 2021, Marc Dobin, an experienced arbitration lawyer, ordered his third Tesla, a Model Y, and subscribed to the Full Self-Driving (FSD) option for $10,000. Elon Musk then claimed that cars equipped with the system would increase in value, but it wasn't this promise that motivated the purchase; it was the promise of facilitating travel for his wife with reduced mobility.
When it was delivered three months later, the autonomous driving feature was not active. The beta version of the system remained inaccessible, blocked by a "safety score" algorithm not disclosed at the time of purchase and based on opaque criteria.
Marc Dobin wrote in a blog recounting the dispute:
"To add insult to injury, the trade-in value of our Model Y dropped because Tesla deactivates FSD eligibility when a car is sold or traded to a non-Tesla dealer. Tesla's practice not only deprived us of the functionality we paid for but also reduced the resale value of our car."
Arbitration Highlights Unfulfilled Promises
Tesla's standard contract imposes a mandatory arbitration clause through the American Arbitration Association (AAA), a common practice among large tech companies, but one that tends to discourage claims, especially from uninformed customers.
Nearly a year after the complaint was filed, the evidence presentation hearing was held via Zoom. Tesla had dispatched two lawyers, including one in-house, to defend its position. However, the witness presented by the company was poorly prepared to support it. A field technician, he admitted he had not checked the delivered equipment, was unaware of the FSD system details, and had not studied the essential contractual elements, such as the integration clause. He was thus unable to provide technical expertise on the vehicle or a legal perspective on the commitments made.
The arbitrator concluded a clear breach of contract, noting that:
- the announced features were neither functional nor available;
- the safety score was not disclosed;
- the documents produced by Tesla (non-contractual web pages, extracted from archives) could not be opposed to the client.