(FILES) In this file photo taken on July 19, 2017, Elon Musk, CEO of SpaceX and Tesla, speaks during the International Space Station Research and Development Conference at the Omni Shoreham Hotel in Washington, DC. Tesla shares stumbled on July 16, 2018 as chief executive Elon Musk faced criticism over a public spat with a British diver who worked on the Thai soccer team rescue. Shares of the electric car maker were down 3.5 percent in late-morning trading at $307.82 on news that Musk could face a libel suit over the episode.Musk attacked British diver Vern Unsworth, who had dismissed the Tesla chiefs efforts to help the rescue mission for the 12 boys as a PR stunt in a widely seen interview on CNN.Brendan Smialowski/AFP/Getty Images Elon Musk beat back a defamation claim from a British cave expert who sued the billionaire CEO over a tweet in which Musk labeled Vernon Unsworth a pedo guy.A federal jury in Los Angeles December 6 took about an hour to return a verdict that said Musks insult fell short of defamation.We were pretty much unanimous from the word go, said Carl Shusterman, a 70-year-old immigration lawyer who served on a jury for the first time.Shusterman said the verdict was straight-forward because it wasnt clear if the tweet was actually about Unsworth, since Musk didnt name him. The judge told the jurors that was one of the elements required to establish defamation, Shusterman said.My faith in humanity has been restored, Musk said after the verdict.Its another win for Musk, 48, whos managed to get out of legal trouble relatively unscathed. Musk agreed to step down from his role of chairman of Tesla for three years in 2018 to settle a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission lawsuit over a tweet the regulator said misled investors. But hes run Tesla and SpaceX as usual.Unsworth had sought US$190 million in damages for the harm he claimed to have suffered from the tweet, and to punish Musk. Musk said he fired off the tweet in anger after Unsworth insulted him and his team in a television interview.I respect the jurys decision, Unsworth said after the verdict. Ill take it on the chin and move on.His lawyers were less gracious, repeatedly referring to Musk as a billionaire bully.It was the first time that Musk has been called as a witness at a trial, despite numerous legal spats, including one with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission over a tweet the regulator said misled investors.Musk told the jury the tweet aimed at Unsworth shouldnt have been taken literally and was sent because the caver insulted his effort to help rescue members of a Thai soccer team from a flooded cave in 2018.The rescue effort had riveted the attention of the worlds media. Musk and engineers at his companies prepared a mini submarine, built with rocket parts, to help. The kids, aged 11 to 16, were saved without the use of the sub.The high-profile effort from the celebrity CEO drew derision from Unsworth, who knew the caves well and helped in the rescue effort. He told CNN that Musk could stick his submarine where it hurts and that it had no chance of working.Musk responded on Twitter, calling Unsworth a pedo guy and adding: Never saw this British expat guy who lives in Thailand (sus) at any point when we were in the caves. Sus meaning suspect, or suspicious.Later, he asked why Unsworth hadnt sued him. Musk also hired a private investigator to dig into Unsworths personal life and leak information to British tabloids.Unsworth, a financial consultant who divides his time between England and Thailand, described to the jury the effect the tweet had on him.When you combine sus and pedo guy, I took it as I was being branded a pedophile, Unsworth said on Wednesday. I feel vulnerable and sometimes, when Im in the U.K., I feel isolated.Musk, who had apologized to Unsworth on Twitter, did so again in court. But Unsworth told the jury he had nothing to apologize for to Musk.Musk told the jury he found Unsworths comments in the CNN interview wrong and insulting especially to his team which he said worked hard to help in the rescue effort and so he fired back.Neither man impressed Shusterman, the juror. He said there was no need for Unsworth to put down Musks mini submarine, and Musks response was equally immature.I felt it was like two junior high school students fighting, Shusterman
Origin: Elon Musk beats back defamation lawsuit over insulting tweet
lawsuit
Lawsuit against Kia alleges Canadian owners being misled about maintenance
2020 Kia TellurideNick Tragianis / Driving A group of Canadian Kia owners are filing a class-action lawsuit against the automaker, claiming theyre being misled about how often their vehicles need to be serviced.According to the owners manual in most Kia vehicles, routine service should be performed every 12,000 km. Thats what Thrse Martel read in the booklet when she purchased her new Rio in 2012, hoping for a vehicle thatd require less maintenance due to her long commute.However, when she brought her car in for its first service, reports the CBC, she was told the 12,000-kilometre interval indicated in the owners manual didnt apply to vehicles sold in Quebec.Kia says most of Canada falls under what is considered a severe usage schedule for maintenance, which means vehicles must in fact be serviced every 6,000 km, twice as often as the manual states, if owners want to maintain their warranty coverage.Martel is seeking $985 in damages, the amount she claims she lost due to the extra service shes had to book. If the lawsuit is successful, it could apply to other owners as well.In a statement to the CBC, parent company Hyundai Canada remarked all of Canada is considered a severe usage area due to the harsh weather.Across the automotive industry, harsh weather/temperature is one of the most important considerations for vehicle maintenance, the automaker wrote. Canadas weather is largely considered to be severe due to our harsh winters and vehicle maintenance should reflect
Origin: Lawsuit against Kia alleges Canadian owners being misled about maintenance
Lawsuit claims older Tesla’s battery capacities are being artificially lowered
You wouldnt know by looking at it, but this Tesla Model S P80D can drive itself A lawsuit recently filed by the owner of a Tesla Model S alleges the California EV manufacturer is artificially limiting the capacity of older Tesla models so it would avoid having to replace defective batteries, Reuters reports.Under the guise of safety and increasing the longevity of the batteries of the Class Vehicles, Tesla fraudulently manipulated its software with the intent to avoid its duties and legal obligations to customers to fix, repair, or replace the batteries of the Class Vehicles, all of which Tesla knew were defective, yet failed to inform its customers of the defects, the lawsuit alleges.It goes on to say that potentially thousands of owners of older Tesla models have had their battery driving ranges lowered by as many as 64 kilometres following a recent over-the-air software update. Plaintiff David Rasmussens 2014 Model S 85 says his battery capacity fell by about 8 kWh, but that he was told by Tesla the degradation was normal. Other owners have said their cars no longer charge to 100 per cent.The automakers defense notes the software update was made after a Model S caught fire in Hong Kong; the incident prompted Tesla to revise its charging and thermal management settings to help further protect the battery and improve battery longevity. The lawsuit counters that Tesla chose to go behind the backs of its customers and use software updates and throttling of the battery to avoid liability in the wake of these vehicle fires involving the overcharging of lithium batteries.Owners have also alleged the reduction in battery capacity has lowered the value of their
Origin: Lawsuit claims older Tesla’s battery capacities are being artificially lowered
Lawsuit claims GM trucks don’t run properly on American diesel
2015 Chevrolet Silverado HD General Motors line of diesel-powered heavy duty trucks are billed as workhorses, able to haul tens of thousands of pounds with impunity. Endless wells of hairy-chested torque from a 6.6-litre Duramax gets things rolling in a hurry.However, a class action lawsuit filed this week in Detroit seeks to put the brakes on certain models of GMs heavy-hauler, reports the Detroit News.Plaintiffs allege problems with the powertrains high-pressure fuel pumps, units manufactured by Bosch and installed in Duramax-equipped trucks from the 2011 to 2016 model years. According to the suit, the pump introduced metal shavings into the fuel injection system, leading to catastrophic and expensive damage.GM and Bosch declined to offer the Detroit News comment.At the root of this issue, say the complainants, is the composition of American diesel fuel. They claim it to be thinner than European diesel, a trait that allows for less lubrication and eventual degradation of the Bosch pumps. Plaintiffs in the suit say once this happens, debris finds its way into the engine.Lets examine this claim. As we all learned in Gearhead 101, modern diesel fuel is ignited under compression without a spark. A key indicator of diesel fuel quality is its cetane number, a measure of the fuels ignition speed that is, how long it takes to go bang! under compression. A higher cetane number indicates the fuel ignites more readily when sprayed into hot compressed air, such as the environs of an engine cylinder.Generally, diesel in Europe has a cetane rating of approximately 51, while the stuff on this side of the pond is generally rated around 45, except for a few areas in which a minimum of 48 is mandated (not to mention California, whose diesel fuel has a cetane rating of 53).For about the last ten years, all the American highway diesel fuel has been classified as Ultra-Low Sulphur Diesel (ULSD), a blend which lowered the measured sulphur content to less than 15ppm. This, the suit claims, is the root of the problem. The fuel pump used in the trucks in question, a Bosch CP4, was introduced in 2011. Plaintiffs claim it was designed for the European market and didnt play well when swilling American ULSD. This may be so, but it would behoove the smart lawyer to also note that the Duramax engines in question are not fitted with a lift pump. This is a bit of tech that takes some of the workload off the main pump the Bosch CP4, in this case.Without a lift pump, a low-pressure unit which pulls the fuel first, the CP4 is under constant suction and tasked with two jobs, drawing fuel and pressurizing it. This situation may introduce air bubbles into the mix since the pump is located waaaay up in the engine bay, a long distance from the fuel tank. The presence of air means the absence of liquid, and could help explain the production of metal shavings, which are claimed to be causing the expensive damage mentioned in this lawsuit.Regardless of the reason for the fuel pumps alleged degradation diesel quality or being overworked well be keeping an eye on this case as it works its way through the
Origin: Lawsuit claims GM trucks don’t run properly on American diesel
Fiat Chrysler faces lawsuit over Jeep steering wobble
2018 Jeep Wrangler RubiconJeep Fiat Chrysler’s lawyers have been having a good year, financially speaking. The latest overtime they’re taking on comes thanks to a New Jersey resident who’s behind a new class-action lawsuit recently filed against the international automaker. The suit claims Fiat Chrysler Automobiles defectively designed and/or manufactured front axle and damping system,” which, when triggered, can cause the steering of Jeep Wranglers made from 2015 to 2018 to shake while travelling over certain speeds or terrain, and that it didn’t warn drivers about the flaw. The Wrangler’s solid front axle allegedly can’t handle the road the same way the suspension can, occasionally causing the front axle and steering to fall out of line and begin oscillating at highway speeds, reports the Detroit Free Press. The automaker acknowledges the issue exists, but claims it’s due to faulty aftermarket equipment, damaged steering components and/or improper tire pressure, not bad building. No fatalities or injuries have been reported, but the suit takes aim at the fact FCA has neglected to declare the issue a safety hazard, and doesn’t warn potential buyers of the problem. “Rather than address it – or disclose its possibility and/or warn drivers at the point of sale – FCA simply claims in a news article that the Death Wobble’ is not a safety issue’ and that it can happen with any vehicle that has a solid front axle (rather than an independent front suspension), such as the Wrangler,’” reads the lawsuit. The class-action litigation is seeking to force FCA to offer a buy-back program to affected drivers, along with punitive damages.
Origin: Fiat Chrysler faces lawsuit over Jeep steering wobble
Fiat Chrysler’s U.S. sales chief files ‘whistleblower’ lawsuit over sales reports
Detroit, Michigan Ð Jan. 14, 2019 Ð Reid Bigland, Head of Ram Brand, celebrates after 2019 Ram 1500 was named North American Truck of the Year (NATOY) at the North American International Auto Show today. Selected by a jury of automotive journalists, the NATOY award joins a long list of awards won by the Ram brand this year. For more information contact Dave Elshoff at 248-797-2300 or Nick Cappa at 248-202-8039. Reid Bigland, the U.S. sales chief of Fiat Chrysler Automobiles (FCA), has filed a “whistleblower” lawsuit against the automaker, claiming he’s been made a scapegoat over a federal probe into inflated sales reporting practices. According to the suit, Bigland said he has cooperated with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and has testified about the sales reports, which he said predated his appointment to the position of sales chief in 2011. Bigland claimed that last March, as punishment for his testimony, FCA slashed his pay by about 90 per cent. The automaker would use his withheld salary to pay any penalties levied by the SEC. Bigland wrote a letter to federal investigators and to FCA last year outlining the reporting practices, which he said “he inherited.” He said he had not manipulated the methodology used to calculate sales. The lawsuit said the automaker’s actions will cost Bigland more than US$1.8 million in his bonus and stock payout. According to the suit, Bigland sold his shares in FCA last year, which the automaker did not like. The suit is asking for unspecified damages. FCA said in a statement that, like all of its corporate officers, Bigland’s bonus is subject to the company’s discretion. According to Automotive News, FCA voluntarily changed the way it reported its U.S. monthly sales, starting in July 2016. It then restated its results for the previous five years using the new method—which turned a previously-reported 75-month-long string of sales increases into about half that. Bigland said he wasn’t part of the new sales reporting process, and was only told that the automaker was considering using different methods. Born in Kamloops, British Columbia, Bigland became CEO of Chrysler Canada in 2006. Along with his position as head of U.S. sales, Bigland also heads up the Ram truck brand, and previously led Dodge, Alfa Romeo, and Maserati. According to the Detroit News, the SEC began its investigations after two dealers in Illinois filed a civil racketeering lawsuit against FCA in 2016, saying the company offered its dealers money to report unsold vehicles as sold. A judge dismissed the racketeering claims and FCA settled the civil
Origin: Fiat Chrysler’s U.S. sales chief files ‘whistleblower’ lawsuit over sales reports
Corvette faces lawsuit over allegedly faulty wheels
The 650-hp, 2016 Chevrolet Corvette Z06Handout A class-action lawsuit against General Motors claims some Chevrolet Corvettes have wheels prone to bending and cracking at “extremely low mileage,” and that the company knew about it and has been blaming drivers. According to automotive watchdog site Car Complaints, the class-action suit is on behalf of anyone who purchased or leased a 2015-or-newer Corvette Z06 model, or a 2017-or-newer Grand Sport model within the U.S. It claims GM was aware of the issues with the alloy rims that causes them to bend and crack, and has been “systematically denying coverage” under the usually all-inclusive 36,000-mile bumper-to-bumper warranties. The lawsuit cites GM as blaming “potholes or other driver error” for bent or cracked wheels, instead of admitting inherent fault. The issue came to light when a customer took delivery of a leased 2018 Corvette from a California dealership last summer and discovered the wheels were bent. Actually, it was a Cali wheel-finishing company, CalChrome, that was tasked with coating the wheels that noticed the damage. When the issue was brought up with the dealer, however, the customer was told the warranty wouldn’t cover the busted alloys, and that the issue was likely caused by the way the car had been driven. Following some persistent complaining, GM agreed to pay US$1,200, a fraction of the US$7,500 the customer ended up personally paying to replace the wheels (looks like they may have been ripped off there, too). GM is being accused of knowing about the issue and covering it up prior to the 2018 sale that sparked the lawsuit. Multiple other complaints regarding the specific ‘Vette models’ wheels had been registered with the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Car and Driver also covered the issue as it pertained to a 2017 Corvette Grand Sport it was testing last fall.
Origin: Corvette faces lawsuit over allegedly faulty wheels
All about car 