In depth, what will be the consequences if Tesla's "distribution reduction scandal" occurs in the United States?

On March 11, even though he already knew about the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology’s interview with Tesla, Mr. Liu, the Tesla owner involved in the autopilot chip “reduction gate”, still didn’t know what to do next. Since the discovery of the reduction problem, he has disclosed it to the media and complained to relevant consumer agencies, but in the end he still has not figured out what responsibility Tesla should bear for this matter.

Like Mr. Liu, Mr. Zhang from Shanghai initially believed that since the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology interviewed Tesla and determined that the manufacturer did have a problem with reducing distribution, it could be considered a violation of consumer rights. However, after searching online, he found that The interview with the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology is only a warning to the production side of the company, and cannot be deemed to have infringed the rights of consumers with the models that have been sold with reduced configurations.

“We have found a lawyer. From a legal perspective, we now need to obtain evidence, and we need to prove that the reduction has endangered the safety and functional integrity of the product. However, from a consumer perspective, these evidence collection requirements are very professional. We It can’t be done.” On March 12, another unnamed Tesla owner revealed to Automotive Prophet that he asked many automotive technology professionals for help and received a variety of answers. Some say that the HW3.0 algorithm is higher than HW2.5, and there is indeed a risk of slow autonomous driving response; some say that the cost of HW2.5 is higher than that of HW3.0, and car owners will not lose money; others say that automotive electronics technology is There is no precedent for specific liability determination, and this "lawsuit" is not easy to fight...

Like them, since Tesla officially responded on March 3 that the autopilot hardware has been reduced from HW3.0 to The reason for HW2.5 is that after supply chain problems caused by the epidemic, car owners involved in this problem no longer simply identify a hardware product problem, but worry about whether there will be security risks after the hardware is reduced, and whether there are more Problems they don’t know about.

“We want a more sincere response instead of putting the responsibility on us.” Mr. Liu pointed out that what surprised him most was Tesla boss Musk’s public response, alluding to car owners Inexplicable and much ado about nothing. He couldn't figure out why Tesla boss Musk was so unscrupulous in refusing to admit his mistakes, but instead blamed the "shit basin" on consumers who spent real money.

In the process of collecting evidence, many Tesla owners, including Mr. Liu, raised a new question: What would American consumers do if Tesla’s reduction in distribution occurred in the United States? What is the attitude of the relevant U.S. agencies, which are well-known to the world for having poked holes in Toyota's brake door and Volkswagen's exhaust valve, towards Tesla's reduction in distribution? Putting aside the product itself, what penalties will Tesla receive in the United States for this breach of integrity in business operations? They hope to reverse the Tesla allocation reduction event from a U.S. legal perspective.

1

The allocation reduction cannot stop at the interview

On March 10, the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology announced that the Equipment Department of the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology has targeted Tesla Model 3 models. Tesla (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. was interviewed about the illegal assembly of HW2.5 components on some vehicles. Tesla was ordered to make immediate rectifications in accordance with the relevant provisions of the "Administrative Measures for Road Motor Vehicle Manufacturers and Product Access".

After receiving this news, Mr. Liu, the Tesla owner involved in the reduction incident, immediately consulted relevant legal persons, but the reply he received was that the interview did not involve consumer terminals, and it could only be determined that Tesla was There were inconsistent behaviors on the production side, which could not be used as evidence of consumer infringement. This made him confused again after having some hope.

Data show that among the departments and bureaus under the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, the Equipment Department is responsible for the management of general machinery, automobiles, rail transit machinery manufacturing and other industries, proposing industry development plans, policy recommendations and organizing their implementation. Promote the development of related emerging industries and intelligent manufacturing. Tesla was interviewed by the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology based on the relevant provisions of the "Administrative Measures for Road Motor Vehicle Manufacturers and Product Access" (hereinafter referred to as the "Measures"). It is reported that the "Measures" were officially announced by the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology on November 27, 2018, which clearly stipulates the specific requirements for admitted enterprises in terms of production conditions and product consistency. In other words, the problem of Tesla hardware reduction reported by consumers was deemed by the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology to be inconsistent product manufacturing.

Regarding this determination, on March 12, Xie Penghong, chief technical expert and senior engineer of the China Quality Certification Center for Transportation and Vehicles, told Automotive Prophet that the outside world can regard Tesla’s interview as a violation of production Warnings and risk checks in the manufacturing process cannot be used as evidence that consumers believe that reduced distribution infringes upon their rights and interests. Strictly speaking, the Consumer Association and the General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine are responsible for whether there are quality problems and infringements.

So is the Tesla distribution reduction incident considered a production inconsistency or an act of deceiving consumers?

After sorting out, it was found that consumers reported that Tesla Model 3 had a "reduce distribution" phenomenon. This was because Tesla promised to provide HW3.0 chips before picking up the car, but in fact it was found to be HW2 when delivered. .5 chip, this situation also appeared on the imported version of Model?3. The difference between the HW3.0 (autonomous driving hardware 3.0) and HW2.5 (autonomous driving hardware 2.5) chips involved in the entire incident is the core of determining this incident.

Data shows that HW3.0 is independently developed by Tesla, while HW2.5 is provided by Nvidia.

According to Tesla’s official statement, the HW3.0 chip contains up to 6 billion transistors and can process 2,300 frames of images per second. The processing speed of the HW2.5 chip is the American standard 110 frames of images. From the perspective of data processing speed alone, the processing speed of the HW3.0 chip is 23 times that of the HW2.5 chip.

The FSD system chip installed in Tesla

As early as April 2019, Tesla CEO Elon Musk publicly announced , Model 3 produced after April 12, 2019 has been equipped with self-driving HW 3.0 hardware, and Tesla will provide FSD (Full Self-Driving, Chinese for "Full Self-Driving") for older models. Provide hardware upgrade services. However, according to the actual situation reported by consumers, if the imported model does not have FSD installed, the car owner needs to spend 56,000 yuan to purchase FSD before he can upgrade to HW3.0 for free. As for imported cars without FSD, Tesla has not yet provided a solution.

On March 5, Musk issued a response to Tesla’s “reduction”, describing consumers as “baffled”

The person in charge of the electronic architecture of an automobile company predicted to the car According to experts, the processing speed of automobile chips represents the reaction efficiency of the car during driving, especially in the field of assisted autonomous driving technology, where processing efficiency determines the safety of drivers and passengers. In other words, the data processing speed of HW2.5 is lower than that of HW3.0, which means that consumers reduce the safety effect of the product during use.

During the interview, several car owners, including Mr. Liu, said that they all bought the product because of Tesla’s self-driving promotion. However, Tesla has lowered the chip hardware without authorization and has already argued with them. The original intention of purchasing a vehicle is in sharp contrast. However, in the view of many legal professionals, more evidence is needed to determine the Tesla distribution reduction incident, especially whether the product reduction truly constitutes serious consequences. If consumers do not have sufficient evidence in this regard, it will be difficult to determine liability.

Automobile Prophet’s statistics on Tesla’s 34 accident types found that the proportion involving autonomous driving technology reached 44.12%

Automobile Prophet’s review found that from October 2013 to 2020 Among the 34 publicly reported accidents involving Tesla in January 2019, 15 were caused by the use of Tesla's autopilot system, accounting for 44.12% of the total accidents. However, because many did not find enough evidence related to the vehicle, or Tesla conducted self-investigations and reconciliation with family members, there was not much responsibility that was actually attributed to the company in the end.

In addition, many car owners reported that most of the models suspected of being reduced were produced after May 2019, that is, after Musk publicly promised to assemble HW3.0 for free. Therefore, some consumers believe that even if there are no serious consequences, Tesla's behavior has constituted suspected false advertising and cannot simply be regarded as a production inconsistency issue.

2

How does the United States deal with the issue of business integrity?

While looking for legal basis in China, many Tesla owners, including Mr. Liu, also tried to contact relevant legal professionals in the United States. They wanted to know about Tesla’s “reduction of parts” in China. , how will it be handled in the United States?

On March 14, automotive prophets also communicated with many people in the U.S. automotive industry. They believed that although Tesla’s reduction in distribution has not yet been resolved, the issue of integrity management raised by consumers is It is the field with the strictest management and the most severe penalties by the relevant departments in the United States.

According to U.S. automobile production management regulations, automobile manufacturers are responsible for the products they enter the market. That is, the United States implements a self-certification management model for automobile product market access. The U.S. government only implements strict follow-up supervision and spot inspections on automobile products entering the market, and implements a strict product recall system for vehicles that do not comply with U.S. automobile technical regulations or have safety and environmental defects. In other words, the United States will not supervise the production end like China's Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, but will focus on supervising the terminal sales market.

In the interview, it was learned that the United States and China are basically consistent in determining product specific liability, and different agencies are responsible for different issues. Automobile safety management is mainly responsible for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and automobile environmental protection is mainly responsible for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Of course, in terms of market access management for automobile products, in addition to the federal government, state governments in the United States also have corresponding management responsibilities.

As for Tesla’s “reduced distribution door”, although no American car owners have yet spoken out. However, the United States imposes severe penalties for false propaganda. Among them, the Volkswagen "emissions scandal" compensation case of up to 4.3 billion US dollars is the most recent case.

The then CEO of Volkswagen (Martin Winterkorn) was forced to resign due to the emissions scandal

In 2017, the Volkswagen Group reached an agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice The settlement agreement resulted in the payment of a fine of up to US$4.3 billion, of which US$2.8 billion was used to pay criminal penalties related to emissions fraud on 590,000 vehicles sold in the United States, and another US$1.5 billion was used to pay the US Environmental Protection Agency for its imports and sales in the United States. Penalties for defective vehicles.

McCabe, deputy director of the US Environmental Protection Agency, said at the time that the American people expect companies to operate with integrity. Volkswagen not only violated the Clean Air Act, but also betrayed the trust of consumers. He hoped that no matter how big or small the company is, any violation of the law will be punished. Severe punishment. It is understood that the huge fine imposed by the United States on Volkswagen in 2015 for the "emissions scandal" directly affected Volkswagen's financial performance in the following years.

In addition to cars, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has also imposed many severe penalties on financial companies for false advertising. A typical case is that in August 2016, the SEC fined 13 investment companies for allegedly spreading false information. One company admitted wrongdoing and agreed to pay a $35 million fine, and later filed for bankruptcy. Another case is that in October 2018, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) obtained an emergency court order to stop Blockvest’s ICO plan. The U.S. District Court for Southern California ordered to stop the ongoing ICO of the company and its founder Reginald Buddy Ringgold. pre-sale behavior and froze the defendant’s assets. According to the SEC complaint, Blockvest and Ringgold falsely represented that their crypto funds were “licensed and regulated” while misrepresenting Blockvest’s ties to accounting firms. According to information from a court hearing that month, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission will request an injunction to return the ill-gotten gains, plus interest and penalties, and prohibit Ringgold from participating in the issuance of any securities in the future. It can be said that any suspected false information will be punished to varying degrees, up to and including bankruptcy, as long as it falls within the scope of the U.S. regulatory authorities’ responsibilities.

On the afternoon of March 14, Qiu Baochang, head of the legal team of the China Consumers Association, said in an interview with Automobile Prophet that since the laws of China and the United States belong to different systems, China belongs to the civil law system and is statutory law; The United States belongs to the common law system and is case law. In the face of powerful defendants, the United States usually conducts lawsuits in the form of collective actions, which is the class action system.

The so-called class action system refers to a class representative filing a lawsuit in court on behalf of all members. Other class members other than the class representative do not participate in the litigation process. The class action judgment binds all class members. The advantage of class action lawsuits is that they can curb illegal behavior by large companies, act as a deterrent, and thus standardize market operations. Because the average individual has a weak ability to intervene in the defendant's illegal behavior, the class action system has the effect of curbing social illegal behavior. Take class actions in the United States as an example. In July 2016, an investor class action lawsuit in the United States called "Enron" for compensation recovery set a record for the highest compensation amount of US$7.2 billion.

3

Strengthen the supervision of consumer infringement by companies with asset advantages

In view of the provisions of consumer rights protection under US law, Qiu Baochang introduced that in US class actions, The amount of compensation is often astronomical, which is related to punitive damages in the United States. Different from compensatory damages, the purpose of punitive damages is to curb and punish the defendant's wrongful behavior and has a retaliatory effect. This is not only compensation for the plaintiff, but also punishment for intentional infringers to deter other potential wrongdoers. This type of punitive damages is mainly used in the United States.

Qiu Baochang revealed that the reason why the United States adopts the punitive damages system is mainly to compare it with simple personal compensation for losses. American law believes that for companies with strong financial resources, they do not care at all about compensation losses for personal violations, and even some companies with a profit-seeking nature will include illegal compensation in their cost budgets in advance. If only compensatory damages are adopted, this will not affect the profits of illegal enterprises at all. Therefore, the use of punitive damages directly deprives companies of profits, serves as a warning to other companies, and encourages companies with property advantages to comply with the law.

Relevant legal persons pointed out that as China’s economic development grows, China should also strengthen legal supervision and penalties in this regard to create a legal deterrent to companies with strong asset advantages. He believes that after Chinese car owners reported Tesla's reduction in distribution, Tesla President Musk publicly stated that "Chinese car owners are baffled", which has constituted suspicion of "contempt" for the rights and interests of Chinese consumers. Laws related to protecting consumer rights and interests should also increase punitive penalties, so that companies and businessmen have to pay attention to the reputation of the Chinese market and ensure that China maintains a fair, just and good business environment in the process of accelerating globalization.

As for Tesla’s “distribution reduction” phenomenon in China and the illegal determination of false propaganda, Qiu Baochang told Automotive Prophet that this needs to be determined from the specific perspective of legal cases. He explained that Tesla’s “reduce allocation” and false propaganda are only necessary conditions for the existence of fraud, but not necessary and sufficient conditions. In other words, just because Tesla has "reduced allocation" and false propaganda, it will not necessarily be considered a fraud. This requires a series of legal procedures to prove and identify before it can be finally determined. If there is indeed fraud, according to Article 55 of the "Consumer Rights Protection Law of the People's Republic of China": "If an operator engages in fraud in providing goods or services, he shall increase the compensation for the damage suffered by the consumer according to the requirements of the consumer." For losses, the amount of compensation shall be increased to three times the price of the goods purchased by the consumer or the cost of receiving services.

”

In addition, experts in the field of relevant quality supervision pointed out in an interview with Automobile Prophet that Tesla’s “reduce distribution” problem for consumers is a contract breach and product quality issue after the circulation of goods, and is strictly prohibited. In a sense, the Consumer Association and the General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine should be responsible for the matter. The Ministry of Industry and Information Technology came forward to interview, which is equivalent to helping Tesla "solve the problem". If the consumer problem is not properly resolved, he believes that the General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine will follow up. Waiting for relevant departments to intervene, they may not even rule out ordering a recall.

Before the deadline on March 15, car owners involved in the reduction of distribution issues, including Mr. Liu and Mr. Zhang, are collecting more consumer information and seeking legal channels. They hope that the company will provide reasonable compensation and solutions

Attachment: 34 Tesla accident cases

1

January 20, 2020. When a Tesla was passing by an alley on Yongle Street in New Taipei City, it collided with a silver car, causing a 12-year-old girl to be affected and died tragically on the spot. The speed limit at the accident site was 50 kilometers, and the Tesla's speed was about 80 kilometers. . The silver car failed to yield to Tesla and caused death. On December 29, 2019, a Tesla Model S was driving in Gardena, California. In the process, he ran a red light and hit a Honda Civic, killing two passengers on the Civic; the two passengers on the Tesla were injured, but their lives were not in danger.

3

On December 29, 2019, a Tesla Model 3 crashed into a fire truck parked in the left lane of the Indiana Highway, killing a woman in the Tesla car. Her husband was injured

4

In December 2019, a Tesla Model 3 sedan crashed into a parked car on a major highway near Norwalk, Connecticut. A police car with its double flashers on the roadside. Fortunately, no one was injured in the accident. The Tesla owner said that he turned on the Autopilot function at the time because he was looking at his pet dog in the back seat and did not look in front. Failed to get out of the way in time

5

On April 21, 2019, a black Tesla sedan suddenly emitted white smoke in an underground garage in a community in Xuhui District, Shanghai. In less than 5 seconds, it quickly caught fire.

6

On March 26, 2019, a Tesla Model? S was involved in a combustion accident. The car was not charging when it caught fire.

7

In February 2019, a 2016 Tesla Model S crashed in Florida, USA. The car caught fire next to a tree. After being towed to the parking lot by the police, the car spontaneously ignited at least three times.

8

On February 9, 2019, a Model 3 was parked in Shenzhen Tesla. A collision occurred during a test drive. A large piece of the front face was dented in the center, the headlights were damaged, and the entire front face was severely deformed.

9

On January 6, 2019, on Paradise Rd in Las Vegas, the United States, a Tesla Model in autonomous driving mode S knocked down a robot on the side of the road while driving, causing it to be scrapped.

10

On the afternoon of December 18, 2018, the Santa Clara County Fire Department in California stated that a silver Tesla Model? A fire broke out in a car repair shop, but luckily no one was injured.

11

In June 2018, a Model S was driving in Los Angeles, USA. The vehicle began to smoke and then spontaneously ignited. Fortunately, no casualties were caused.

12

On May 11, 2018, a Tesla Model S sedan collided with a truck on the highway in South Jordan, Utah, USA. Police said the Tesla driver claimed he was using Autopilot and looking at his smartphone.

13

On May 10, 2018, a 48-year-old German drove a Tesla car on the highway in Ticino, southern Switzerland. First, the car hit the median, causing the vehicle to overturn and catch fire. The driver did not survive.

14

On May 8, 2018, in Florida, a Tesla Model S produced in 2014 caught fire after a collision. Two 18-year-olds in the front row were killed. A 18-year-old male was killed on the spot. Another 18-year-old male in the back seat was thrown out of the car and sent to the hospital for treatment. Currently, the accident has caused 2 deaths and 1 injury, all of which were high school students.

15

On March 23, 2018, 38-year-old Apple software engineer Walter Huang drove a Tesla Model X near Mountain View, California. A serious car accident occurred on the highway and he died due to ineffective rescue efforts. According to performance data downloaded from the crashed vehicle, Huang Weilun was using the traffic-aware cruise control system and the automatic steering lane keeping assist system, which are part of Tesla's Autopilot system and have ADAS functions.

16

On March 15, 2018, a Tesla Model S crashed into a bicycle, a scooter and a car in the Netherlands, resulting in casualties. The situation is unclear. The police claimed that "technical issues" caused the accident, and local media quickly linked the "technical" issue to the Autopilot system. The local police responded, "I'm afraid the situation is worse" and said it might have been intentional. However, media reports later stated that this was not the case and that the police were investigating "technical issues."

17

In January 2018, in the United States, a Tesla Model S collided with a fire truck parked on the roadside, causing a traffic accident. The scene was shocking. Fortunately, , there was no one in the fire truck at the time of the incident, and the Tesla driver was not injured in the accident. According to the Tesla driver, the Model S automatically turned on the AutoPilot assisted driving mode at a speed of 65 miles per hour. After investigation, it was found that the driver had left the steering wheel for 13 minutes before the Model S hit the fire truck.

18

In April 2017, a car owner in New York State, USA, drove a Model S after hitting a boulder on the side of the road and then started to spontaneously combust. No one was injured.

19

On September 28, 2016, a Tesla car and a tour bus were involved in a car accident in Germany. No one was killed. Tesla believes that the accident was inevitable and had nothing to do with Autopilot. The German Minister of Transport asked Tesla to stop using the word "Autopilot". To this end, Tesla hired a third-party survey company to conduct a survey on car owners. As a result, 98% of the surveyed car owners understood that they should continue to maintain Autopilot after activating it. Control of the car.

20

On August 15, 2016, in the small town of Biarritz in the Basque region of France, a Tesla Model?S test drive During the test drive. There were three passengers in the car at the time. After the vehicle caught fire, all three got out of the car in time and no one was injured.

21

On August 7, 2016, in Texas, a Tesla Model S veered off the road and hit a roadside guardrail while in Autopilot mode. The owner of the car Mark Molthan said, “Autopilot gives you the illusion of safety.

22

On August 2, 2016, a Chinese car owner drove his Model S on the North Fifth Ring Road in Beijing. Autopilot was turned on, and there was a black Santana parked on the inside at that time, but the Model S did not fully recognize the Santana and crashed directly into the right side of the black Santana.

23

2016. On July 9, a Tesla Model?

24

On July 1, 2016, a car owner rolled over while driving a Model? Guardrail, the vehicle also turned on the autonomous driving mode at the time.

25

At the end of May 2016, in Switzerland, a Model S driving in Autopilot mode failed to be detected in time. A collision occurred with a stationary truck ahead. The stationary truck that hit this time was not large in color, but blue and black, and had complex patterns, which meant that Tesla seemed to be able to hit vehicles of any color and shape. Obstacles.

26

On May 7, 2016, the owner of a Model S electric car collided with a turning white van semi-trailer. Resulting in the death of a 40-year-old American man

27

On January 20, 2016, a white Tesla was first on the left side of the Beijing-Hong Kong-Macao Expressway in Handan, Hebei. It was reported that the driver of the Tesla passed away due to his injuries after being sent to the hospital.

28

On January 1, 2016, a Model S caught fire while charging at a Supercharging station in Norway. The vehicle was completely burned, but no casualties were caused. Some analysts said that the extreme cold weather in Norway may have been the cause of the accident.

29

In 2015, at a charging station in Norway. A charging Tesla Model S suddenly spontaneously ignited, and the vehicle and on-site charging facilities were basically burned.

30

On July 4, 2014, a Model S burst into flames. ?S caught fire in Los Angeles. A thief stole the Model ?S from a dealer and hit a lamppost on the side of the road while escaping at high speed. The entire car split in half and burned.

31

In early February 2014, in a private garage in Toronto, Canada, a Model S that had been bought just four months ago spontaneously ignited and caught fire. The car was not charging at the time of the accident.

32

On November 15, 2013, a Model S charger overheated and caught fire in a residential garage in Orange County, California, USA.

33

On November 7, 2013, a Model S caught fire after hitting road debris on a highway in Tennessee, USA, a spokesman for the Tennessee Highway Patrol said , the chassis of the Model S hit a tow bar, causing a fire.

34

On October 18, 2013, a Model S caught fire after a high-speed collision in Mexico. The car was traveling at high speed and hit a concrete wall and then a large tree, but the driver got out of the car and asked Tesla if it could deliver the next Model S car quickly. .

This article comes from the author of Autohome Chejiahao and does not represent the views and positions of Autohome.