— A Tesla forward collision warning system lawsuit will continue after the judge allowed certain claims to proceed.
Illinois plaintiff Joshua Santiago filed the class action lawsuit alleging the forward collision warning system in his 2020 Tesla Model 3 gives false warnings and suddenly brakes on its own when no forward collision risk exists.
According to the class action, Tesla vehicles are equipped with forward collision monitoring systems that use sensors to warn drivers about objects in the roadways. But the plaintiff alleges his vehicle and all Tesla vehicles are equipped with defective forward collision warning systems.
According to Santiago, Tesla owners “encounter an unexpected, loud and obtrusive forward collision warning that suddenly activates when there is no actual danger or collision risk, or in fact, any other car or object is present.”
The plaintiff alleges this warning “is often accompanied by the vehicle automatically stopping or slowing down to prevent an accident with the nonexistent obstacle the vehicle[] thinks is in front of it,” what the lawsuit calls, “phantom braking.”
The class action says the plaintiff's Tesla was almost hit from behind twice when the forward collision warning system suddenly activated for no apparent reason. And the plaintiff also contends Tesla is fully aware of the defective systems.
Then there is the alleged insurance problem.
Santiago is enrolled in Tesla’s insurance program which “determines the policyholder’s premium based on certain driving metrics, including the frequency of safety alerts.” The plaintiff asserts his monthly insurance premiums have increased because Tesla classifies the false collision warnings as unsafe driving events.
In addition, the same problem allegedly occurs to all Tesla customers who have the insurance programs.
Motion to Dismiss the Tesla Forward Collision Warning Lawsuit
At one point a second named plaintiff joined the class action, but that plaintiff voluntarily dismissed all his claims.
This left only a claim for breach of implied warranty of merchantability and Santiago's Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (ICFA) claim.
Tesla argues the plaintiff lacks standing to bring claims under consumer protection laws in states besides Illinois. Specifically, Tesla says the plaintiff has “no connection to those states and [has] suffered no injury under those states’ laws.”
But Santiago says the question is premature and should be delayed until the class certification stage.
Judge Georgia N. Alexakis admits courts take differing approaches to a plaintiff’s capacity to represent a nationwide class of customers. But for now, the judge declined to dismiss the plaintiff's nationwide claims.
Tesla also argues the implied warranty of merchantability claim should be dismissed because Illinois law requires the plaintiff provide pre-lawsuit notice about the alleged defect. However, Tesla told the judge the plaintiff failed to do that, and the judge agreed.
Tesla also contends Santiago has not sufficiently alleged any specific misrepresentation the company made in advertising its vehicles to support a claim based on deceptive conduct. Again, the judge agreed.
The judge also dismissed the plaintiff's claim regarding his insurance premiums, but the plaintiff has been granted the opportunity to refile his claim.
According to Judge Alexakis, the class action lawsuit includes no allegations about how much his insurance premiums increased.
"Nor does Santiago shed any light on when those increases occurred relative to the 'phantom braking' incidents he experienced. On this barebones complaint, the Court is reluctant to conclude that Santiago has experienced a 'significant' enough injury to plausibly state an unfair act."
The Tesla forward collision warning class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Eastern Division): Joshua Santiago v. Tesla, Inc.
The plaintiff is represented by McGuire Law, P.C.
