Talk:List of lawsuits involving Tesla, Inc.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of lawsuits involving Tesla, Inc. article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This page is not a forum for general discussion about List of lawsuits involving Tesla, Inc.. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about List of lawsuits involving Tesla, Inc. at the Reference desk.

Can someone update this article, please. For example, the SEC fraud thing was settled long ago. https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2018-226 Graywriter (talk) 02:38, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As the article states, "Between October 17, 2018 and November 9, 2018, five derivative lawsuits were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery against Mr. Musk and the members of Tesla's board of directors as then constituted in relation to statements made and actions connected to the potential going private transaction. These cases have been stayed pending resolution of the stockholder class action." Furthermore, ReferenceMan has been quite diligent in keeping the content up to date, if you look at the history. QRep2020 (talk) 02:53, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

29 January. Orphaned references in Lawsuits and Controversies of Tesla, Inc.

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Lawsuits and Controversies of Tesla, Inc.'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Soap Opera":

From Tesla Roadster (2008): Musk, Elon (2009-06-22). "Tesla Leadership". Tesla Motors. Archived from the original on July 25, 2009. Retrieved 2009-08-01. Tesla Motors, Inc. consisted of Eberhard, Tarpenning and Wright, plus an unfunded business plan and they were looking for an initial round of funding to create a more advanced prototype than the AC Propulsion Tzero. While there was a basic corporation in place, Tesla hadn't even registered or obtained the trademark to its name and had no formal offices or assets. To save legal fees, we just copied the SpaceX articles of incorporation and bylaws for Tesla and I invested $6.35M (98%) of the initial closing of $6.5M in Series A funding. Eberhard invested $75k (approximately 1%).
From Tesla, Inc.: "Soap Opera". Tesla Motors. June 22, 2009. Archived from the original on July 25, 2009. Retrieved August 1, 2009. "Tesla Motors, Inc." consisted of Eberhard, Tarpenning and Wright, plus an unfunded business plan, and they were looking for an initial round of funding to create a more advanced prototype than the AC Propulsion Tzero. While there was a basic corporation in place, Tesla hadn't even registered or obtained the trademark to its name and had no formal offices or assets. To save legal fees, we just copied the SpaceX articles of incorporation and bylaws for Tesla and I invested $6.35M (98%) of the initial closing of $6.5M in Series A funding. Eberhard invested $75k (approximately 1%).

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:42, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend we rename this page to be "List of Lawsuits of Tesla, Inc."

I recommend we rename this page to be "List of Lawsuits of Tesla, Inc." and put the controversies on the page Criticism of Tesla, Inc.. This would be similar to Lawsuits involving Facebook, Apple Inc. litigation, Google litigation, and would allow us to ensure that this page has minimal duplication versus Criticism of Tesla, Inc.. ReferenceMan (talk) 03:03, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Would not some controversies fall through the cracks so to speak as they might not include a lawsuit and might not engender overt criticism? Notice of a foreign government agency investigating Tesla for something nebulous reason does not seem to fit anywhere if we follow the proposal. QRep2020 (talk) 03:59, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I support the renaming—my vote would be List of lawsuits involving Tesla, Inc.. Any major controversies should be included in Criticism of Tesla, Inc. and/or the main Tesla, Inc. article, so I'm not too worried about any content "falling through the cracks". However, I want to reiterate my opposition to removing any content from Criticism of Tesla, Inc. just because it may be duplicated on the Lawsuits article. The way I see it, the Lawsuits article should focus on the procedural details of the lawsuits, whereas the Criticism article should summarize the broader criticism (if any) surrounding a given lawsuit, guided by what is deemed notable in reliable sources. Stonkaments (talk) 22:14, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I can see all of that working - as long as less litigious controversies do not get overlooked in the end. QRep2020 (talk) 21:25, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So, I believe we have consensus, at least for the people who have edited the page in the last 2 months (the 3 of us). The consensus is that we will rename this page to be "List of lawsuits involving Tesla, Inc.", while making sure the other controversies get listed in the Criticism of Tesla, Inc. or the main Tesla, Inc. page, and allowing a summary of lawsuits to be mentioned in the context of broader criticism on Criticism of Tesla, Inc.. Do we need to wait in case there's anyone else that wants to weigh in? ReferenceMan (talk) 23:37, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done Move made. QRep2020 (talk) 18:42, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I added a "Done" template to the line above. ReferenceMan (talk) 01:06, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of child labour lawsuit

A child labour lawsuit has been filed against Tesla and other companies.[1] X-Editor (talk) 18:40, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good call. Has anyone come across any updates about the suit since? QRep2020 (talk) 19:22, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@QRep2020: I don’t think there’s been an update since it was first filed. I was just asking someone to add the info. I would usually do so myself, but being forced to edit on mobile is a pain. X-Editor (talk) 01:15, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cases in arbitration and cases with unknown status

The "On-going" section has cases which have been either sent to arbitration or have an unclear status. For example:

Agreement misrepresented as loan (ordered to arbitration in April 2021)
Reselling "lemon" cars (ordered to arbitration in December 2018, status of Norwegian cases is unclear)
Bios Group lawsuit (no news known to me after December 2020)

Can we reach a consensus on how these should be handled? I'm concerned that we might not be able to determine what the status of many of these smaller cases is and don't know if arbitration results are available to the public. Given the large amount of lawsuits Tesla is party to, I feel it would be valuable to try to keep the "On-going" section focused on active major litigation. Steady as she goes (talk) 15:15, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What about of an Arbitration section? QRep2020 (talk) 20:13, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I'll create an Arbitration section between "No known resolution" and "Resolution has been proposed" right away. This leaves the cases with unknown status. Will make a suggestion about that and let's discuss. Steady as she goes (talk) 10:16, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to cases to new Arbitration section. This leaves two older unclear cases in the "On-going" section: "Bios Group lawsuit" and "'Whompy wheels' class action lawsuit". These haven't been updated since late 2020. Could the following be an appropriate policy to prevent "On-going" from becoming stale?

1. If a case has not been updated (e.g. no news or new filings) within the past 12 months, move the case from "On-going" to "No known resolution".

2. At any time, if new updates are found, the case can be moved back from "No known resolution" to "On-going". Any indication that the case is still on-going is a sufficient update to bring the case back to "On-going".

3. Cases that have been stayed are always kept in "On-going", regardless of when the last update was: stayed cases are active litigation but can remain "on hold" for a long time as the blocking cases are resolved.

Happy to also discuss other approaches to tackling these.

Steady as she goes (talk) 10:43, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Keep 'er steady as she goes. :-) QRep2020 (talk) 18:21, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Filing a sexual assault charges vs suing

let be clear that this corporation isn't being threatened with jail time. 2604:3D09:D78:1000:A015:1C29:1736:A641 (talk) 02:18, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]