A South Korean court dismissed a lawsuit brought by dozens of Tesla Inc owners seeking refunds from the automaker for failing to deliver driver-assistance technology on time.
The 89 plaintiffs had demanded reimbursement of as much as 9mil won (US$5,800 or RM23,545) each for not getting full access to Tesla’s Full Self-Driving package. Seoul’s central district court on Oct 29 rejected the claims, saying the company had delivered some capabilities through updates of its now-retired Autopilot driver-assistance software.
"The defendant was obligated to deliver autonomous driving features that are technically feasible within domestic and international regulatory and legal limits, and the plaintiffs were indeed provided with some features included in the FSD package,” Judge Kim Seok-beom said.
The ruling is a boon for Tesla as it seeks more approvals for FSD outside North America, where the software and how it’s been marketed has sparked regulatory pushback. The company recently adjusted how it describes some of the driver-assistance technology as it works to win clearance in markets including Europe.
Tesla began selling the FSD option in South Korea in 2017, but some local buyers were unable to access key capabilities including urban navigation and automatic parking because of regulatory and software deployment constraints.
Speaking at a parliamentary audit this month, Bryan Seo, a top Tesla executive in South Korea, said about 45,000 of the roughly 230,000 Teslas operating in the country are capable of running FSD features.
US-built vehicles can operate FSD in South Korea under a bilateral trade agreement, while China-made models – which account for the majority of Teslas in the country – require explicit government authorisation before the technology can be activated, he said.
The owners’ group sued in 2024, arguing Tesla had breached its contractual obligations under South Korean civil law by failing to provide the promised features within a reasonable period.
The court ruled that Tesla was obligated to deliver FSD functions within legal boundaries, and buyers understood rollout timelines were indefinite, meaning the delays did not amount to a breach of contract.
Hwang Yoon Koo, a lawyer for the Tesla owners, called the verdict "flawed” and a "misjudgment of facts,” saying that FSD cannot function on the plaintiffs’ cars without replacing cameras and other hardware components. Holding consumers responsible for the seller’s failure to secure regulatory approvals runs contrary to standard contract law, he added.
Tesla did not respond to requests for comment. – Bloomberg
