On Oct. 16, the Ninth Circuit vacated three class certifications in Tesla’s Full Self-Driving (FSD) hardware case and returned it to a California court, finding website placement did not establish shared buyer exposure.
In its unpublished memorandum, the panel found that online placement could not establish uniform exposure among buyers because purchasing FSD did not require visiting Tesla’s Autopilot page. The lower court had partly based its certification order on Tesla’s direct-sales system and its view that customers would probably consult the company website.
The vacated certifications covered two groups seeking damages and one seeking injunctive relief. The appeals court also said differences in buyers’ exposure affected whether statute-of-limitations defenses could be considered across the groups.
Plaintiff Thomas J. LoSavio alleges Tesla misrepresented what the hardware in vehicles sold with FSD packages could do, violating California consumer-protection laws and common law. The panel did not decide whether Tesla’s claims were false or examine LoSavio’s proposed damages model; its finding on exposure resolved the class-certification question. The ruling leaves the lawsuit pending in district court. The panel marked its memorandum unpublished, with its precedential effect limited to exceptions in Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
