Seoul court rejects Tesla owners' lawsuit seeking refunds for Full Self-Driving software

A court in Seoul, South Korea, on Thursday rejected a lawsuit brought by dozens of Tesla owners, according to Reuters and the South China Morning Post (SCMP).

The plaintiffs sought full refunds of the money they paid for Tesla's 'Full Self-Driving' (FSD) driver-assistance software. The court ruled that Tesla had not breached its contractual obligations, both outlets reported.

Details of the ruling

According to SCMP, the case was heard by the Seoul Central District Court and involved 88 plaintiffs.

SCMP also reported the court's reasoning:

• The FSD option did not promise fully autonomous driving without human intervention.
• Tesla had already provided some of the functions included in the FSD package.
• Tesla's obligation to deliver additional features depended on technological advances and regulatory approvals.
• Buyers had been aware that some functions could take considerable time to become available.

These details appear only in SCMP's report. Vocemundi could not cross-check them against a second source. SCMP's opening paragraph closely matches the Reuters summary, which suggests the two reports may share some agency copy.

What each side says

The Tesla owners who brought the case sought full refunds of the money they paid for the FSD software. The reports reviewed by Vocemundi do not detail the plaintiffs' specific legal arguments.

The reports do not include any response from Tesla to the ruling.

What the reports do not include

The reports do not include any response from the plaintiffs or their lawyers. They do not say whether an appeal is planned.

The reports do not state the total amount of refunds sought or the price each owner paid for FSD. They do not specify which FSD functions the court found had already been provided, or which remain undelivered.

The reports do not quote the ruling directly or cite a court document or official court statement. They do not describe the regulatory status of FSD features in South Korea. They also do not say when the lawsuit was filed or when the plaintiffs bought the software.

Analysis

The ruling, as SCMP describes it, turns on what Tesla promised buyers rather than on how the software performs. If that reasoning holds, it may shape how courts in South Korea assess contracts for software features that are sold before they are fully available. Several questions remain open. The plaintiffs could appeal, but the reports do not say whether they will. The regulatory approvals the court reportedly cited could also affect when, or whether, further features reach South Korean drivers. Because key details come from a single outlet, the full basis of the decision is not yet clear from the reports.

Produced by the Vocemundi newsroom with AI assistance.