A U.S. judge dismissed an antitrust lawsuit accusing Elon Musk's electric car company Tesla of forcing customers to pay high prices and suffer long waits for repairs by monopolizing the markets for vehicle maintenance and replacement parts.
Tesla beats lawsuit claiming it monopolizes repairs, parts::A U.S. judge dismissed an antitrust lawsuit accusing Elon Musk’s electric car company Tesla of forcing customers to pay high prices and suffer long waits for repairs by monopolizing the markets for vehicle maintenance and replacement parts.
"U.S. District Judge Trina Thompson in San Francisco said customers in the proposed class action failed to show either that the alleged problems were “not generally known” when they bought their vehicles, or that they could not predict the costs to keep their vehicles running.
“To be sure, plaintiffs allege that defendant misled them about…how much maintenance its EVs are designed to need and how long that maintenance ought to take,” Thompson wrote. “But nowhere do plaintiffs allege that consumers are in fact unaware of the supposedly supracompetitive prices and exorbitant wait times.”
So, basically, most people know Tesla service is shit, so they should have known what they were getting into when they bought their car?
failed to show either that the alleged problems were “not generally known”
That’s reversing the burden of proof, you can’t prove a negative.
Also this:
She also said customers could not prove that Tesla coerced them into using its services and parts simply because they had bought their vehicles in the first place.
That’s a clear case of blaming the victim.
It’s like that case where Elon Musk gets off, calling a rescuer a pedophile because he is butthurt. This reeks of corruption in the courts.
I really don’t get how judges are allowed to have a political affiliation in the US. Everyone has a right to their own political beliefs but politicians shouldn’t be appointing judges at all imo, that just leads to bias or making favourable decisions due to “politics”
The terms were unfair, in part because you were not informed. You cannot prove you were not informed.
The opposition can easily show to what degree they inform customers.
I suppose even courts use some sort of reason?
It’s not about being informed; it’s about general knowledge.
If it were about being informed, the plaintiff could attest “I was not informed” which would be reasonable in a court as they’re talking about what they have direct experience of. But they defence is saying “you may not have been specifically informed, but you should have known anyway because it was in the news.”
The plaintiffs did not say “there was no general awareness of these problems” - had they done so, maybe that would have been sufficient, or more likely they would have needed to enter evidence like statements from a sufficiently broad body of customers. But they didn’t do that, so they didn’t contest the argument which the judge decided was at least enough if was true.
The real question here is whether “general awareness of issues” is enough to defend cases like these.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !technology@lemmy.world
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
English
“You will own nothing and you will be happy about it.” - 1100 C.E. The Feudal System
The funniest this is this quote is for the anti-socialism propaganda but instead it applies 100% in this capitalism hellscape…
removed by mod
Another one bites the dust
So, basically, most people know Tesla service is shit, so they should have known what they were getting into when they bought their car?
That’s reversing the burden of proof, you can’t prove a negative.
Also this:
That’s a clear case of blaming the victim.
It’s like that case where Elon Musk gets off, calling a rescuer a pedophile because he is butthurt. This reeks of corruption in the courts.
I really don’t get how judges are allowed to have a political affiliation in the US. Everyone has a right to their own political beliefs but politicians shouldn’t be appointing judges at all imo, that just leads to bias or making favourable decisions due to “politics”
The burden of proof is on the accuser. This is a court, not an academic debate.
The terms were unfair, in part because you were not informed. You cannot prove you were not informed.
The opposition can easily show to what degree they inform customers.
I suppose even courts use some sort of reason?
It’s not about being informed; it’s about general knowledge.
If it were about being informed, the plaintiff could attest “I was not informed” which would be reasonable in a court as they’re talking about what they have direct experience of. But they defence is saying “you may not have been specifically informed, but you should have known anyway because it was in the news.”
The plaintiffs did not say “there was no general awareness of these problems” - had they done so, maybe that would have been sufficient, or more likely they would have needed to enter evidence like statements from a sufficiently broad body of customers. But they didn’t do that, so they didn’t contest the argument which the judge decided was at least enough if was true.
The real question here is whether “general awareness of issues” is enough to defend cases like these.
removed by mod