California calls it "false advertising," but Tesla claims "free speech"

[jlw]

Originally published at: California calls it "false advertising," but Tesla claims "free speech"

…

[danimagoo]

@jlw

they impermissibly restrict Tesla’s truthful and nonmisleading speech about its vehicles and their features

Umm…no. California is literally saying that Tesla’s statements are untruthful and misleading.

[docosc]

But calling it “truthful and nonmisleading” is also free speech! Come on sheeple! (/s)

[spetrovits]

I’m sure it’s a coincidence that Musk and others like him rail loudest about their free speech when someone calls them on blatant lies and misinformation.

[nixiebunny]

If you don’t like government meddling in your company, don’t invite it by mistreating your customers.

[apenzott]

This is no different than when the FDA approves a product. One of the stipulations is that you cannot make medical claims without facts or studies to back them up. This is why you would see gems like; “4 out of 5 doctors who smoke prefer Camel branded cigarettes” as if it is a medical endorsement.

[fauxreigner]

@jlw

It should come as no surprise that Musk’s defense against the complaint is that “the First Amendment lets me say whatever I want.” Clearly, the government can regulate speech on behalf of public safety. Lies about a car’s autonomous driving system very likely meet whatever standard the courts require.

Unfortunately, a lot of Federalist Society judges have signaled that they’re amenable to the argument that the 1st Amendment effectively precludes many forms of regulation.

[GagHalfrunt]

@jlw

One of the state laws that Tesla complains about is Cal. Veh. Code § 24011.5, which says that companies “shall not name any partial driving automation feature, or describe any partial driving automation feature in marketing materials, using language that implies or would otherwise lead a reasonable person to believe, that the feature allows the vehicle to function as an autonomous vehicle.”

I wonder if they were thinking of any particular manufacturer. /s

[Grey_Devil]

[Brainspore]

Tesla: “Ah, but you see we didn’t name the feature using such language, we just said that it could drive itself. According to any reasonable interpretation of the law we’d only be in violation if we called it ‘Bobby the self-driving Autobot’ or something like that.”

[generic_name]

@fauxreigner

Unfortunately, a lot of Federalist Society judges have signaled that they’re amenable to the argument that the 1st Amendment effectively precludes many forms of regulation.

False advertising is not and should not be an inalienable right.

“It’s my right to sell snake oil that I mixed up in my garage, maybe it cures baldness, your results may vary. Let the market decide. . . uhhh. . . decide how many people should die from gross negligence and dishonesty!”

[fauxreigner]

I completely agree. I also think that “I nominally have a business making websites, and some day I might build wedding websites, and if I do I’d put in quotes about how important love and marriage are, and if a gay couple ordered a website I’d have to put in those quotes even though I don’t think gay marriage is valid, so making me serve gay customers is compelling my speech, so I haven’t started selling wedding websites just in case” is an unhinged, ridiculous argument that shouldn’t have even been heard because there was no injured party, but 303 Creative LLC v Elenis still managed to eviscerate anti-discrimination laws. I think that court decisions shouldn’t be based on easily refuted lies, but Kennedy v Bremerton took a shit all over the establishment clause. The Roberts court (and FS judges more generally) have made it clear that they’ll distort the law in ridiculous ways in the name of allowing christians and businesses to do whatever they want, so it won’t be a surprise if that happens here too.

[ashe]

Devin at LegalEagle now has the topic for his next next video.

We’ll see if this plays out the same as this one.

Elon Musk's Thermonuclear Defamation Suit Is a Dud