I was misled. Let's let the tribunal decide what is fair.
In the years when electric vehicles still felt like a wager on the future, some buyers placed their trust not just in a car but in a promise — that autonomy was imminent, that early believers would be rewarded. Now, in New Zealand and beyond, that trust is being weighed against the law. Tesla owners who paid thousands for Full Self-Driving software that has yet to arrive for their vehicles are bringing their grievances to tribunals, asking a quiet but consequential question: when a company sells the future, what obligation does it carry to deliver it?
- Buyers like Benjamin Liu paid nearly $5,000 for autonomous driving software based on Elon Musk's repeated assurances that it was just around the corner — assurances that have now stretched across half a decade without fulfillment.
- The hardware gap has turned into a chasm: newer Tesla vehicles can already navigate roads hands-free, while older models sit frozen in time, their owners watching the promised future drive past them.
- Tesla's offered refund of $4,800 rings hollow when the feature has shifted to a $159-per-month subscription model, meaning the refund buys less than three years of access — and still requires purchasing an entirely new car.
- Liu, a commercial law academic, is bringing a Disputes Tribunal claim in July, arguing Tesla violated both the Consumer Guarantees Act and the Fair Trading Act through years of misleading representations.
- Consumer NZ confirms that overseas companies selling in New Zealand must comply with local law, and Tesla's physical presence in the country means legal remedies are within reach — making this case a potential bellwether for other jurisdictions.
Benjamin Liu became a Tesla believer in the early days, when the New Zealand owner community was small enough to share boat trips with Musk's team. By 2020, that loyalty translated into a $4,800 investment in Full Self-Driving software — purchased on the strength of Musk's promise that the feature was imminent and that early buyers would pay less than those who waited.
Six years later, Liu's 2017 Tesla, running on the older Hardware 3 platform, still cannot do what he paid for. He has seen the capability with his own eyes: a borrowed loaner during a service visit, a friend who uses the feature daily on her commute. The technology exists — it simply isn't available to him. Musk once promised micro-factories would upgrade older vehicles worldwide. That promise has not materialized, and no timeline has been offered.
When Liu approached Tesla, the company offered to refund his $4,800. But the terms have shifted beneath him. Full Self-Driving is no longer sold outright — it is now a $159-per-month subscription. His refund would cover fewer than 30 months of access, and even then, he would need to buy a new Hardware 4 vehicle to use it at all.
Liu, a senior lecturer in commercial law at the University of Auckland, has filed a claim with the Disputes Tribunal, with a hearing set for July. He is not alleging fraud — he is alleging something he considers equally serious: misleading representation. He believes Tesla's conduct falls foul of both the Consumer Guarantees Act and the Fair Trading Act. Technology commentator Paul Spain, who spent $85,000 on his Tesla in 2019 partly on the strength of the autonomous driving promise, has echoed the sentiment, calling on Tesla to make things right with the customers who helped build the company.
Consumer NZ notes that enforcement against overseas companies can be difficult, but Tesla's physical presence in New Zealand opens the door to real remedies. What Liu and Spain are pursuing may be the first wave of a broader reckoning — a test of whether sweeping promises about future technology can be made without consequence when the future, indefinitely, fails to arrive.
Benjamin Liu bought his Tesla in 2017, back when the company's New Zealand owner base was small enough that Elon Musk's team would invite everyone to social events—boat trips, drinks, the kind of gatherings that built genuine community around the brand. Liu became a believer. He promoted the cars to everyone he knew. By 2020, when Tesla began selling Full Self-Driving capability, he was ready to invest. He paid $4,800 for the software, convinced by Musk's assurance that the feature would arrive soon and that early buyers would pay less than those who came later.
Now, six years on, Liu's car still cannot do what he paid for. His 2017 Tesla runs on Hardware 3, the older generation of onboard computing. The newer Hardware 4 systems that Tesla has installed in recent vehicles can actually run a supervised version of full self-driving—the kind that lets a car navigate to a destination with the driver's hands off the wheel, though constant monitoring is required. Liu got a taste of it when he borrowed a Tesla loaner during a service appointment. His friend owns a Hardware 4 car and uses the feature daily, sipping coffee or applying makeup during her commute. The capability exists. It just isn't available to him.
Musk promised that Tesla would build "micro-factories" around the world to upgrade older vehicles like Liu's. That promise has not materialized, and Liu has no idea if or when it will happen, or whether it will cost him anything. When he tried to negotiate with Tesla, the company offered a refund of his $4,800. But the math does not work. Tesla removed the option to buy full self-driving outright. Now it is subscription-only: $159 per month. His refund would cover only 30 months of service—less than three years—instead of the lifetime access he thought he was purchasing. And even if he accepted the refund, he would still need to buy a new car with Hardware 4 to use the feature at all.
Liu decided to file a claim with New Zealand's Disputes Tribunal. A hearing is scheduled for July. He is not claiming fraud or outright lying. What he is claiming is something more precise and, in his view, more damaging: misleading representation. Liu is a senior lecturer in commercial law at the University of Auckland. He has worked at international law firms. He believes he has a strong case under two pieces of New Zealand law. The Consumer Guarantees Act requires that products and services be delivered within a reasonable time. The Fair Trading Act prohibits traders from making misleading claims. "Clearly, Elon Musk on behalf of Tesla has made numerous misrepresentations," Liu said.
He is not alone. Paul Spain, a technology commentator, bought his Tesla in 2019 for $85,000. He has said plainly that he would not have made that purchase without the full self-driving promise. "It certainly dents your confidence in the company," Spain said, acknowledging Tesla's genuine achievements in spurring global adoption of electric vehicles while criticizing the company for overselling autonomous capabilities over years. He called on Tesla to make things right with the customers who invested in the promise and kept the company afloat.
A search of the Motor Vehicles Disputes Tribunal's records shows that over the past five years, six cases have named Tesla New Zealand as the respondent. None of them involved full self-driving disputes. This may be the first wave. Consumer NZ's chief executive, Jon Duffy, noted that overseas companies selling in New Zealand must comply with local law, though enforcement can be difficult if a company lacks physical presence. Tesla does have a physical presence in New Zealand, which means remedies are available: negotiated refunds, tribunal claims, or complaints to the Commerce Commission. Tesla declined to comment on the situation.
What Liu and Spain are pursuing is not a class action but a test of whether the promises made to early adopters—promises that shaped their purchasing decisions and their faith in the company—can be held up against the law. The outcome in New Zealand could signal whether other jurisdictions will follow, and whether companies can make sweeping claims about future capabilities without consequence when those capabilities fail to materialize on any reasonable timeline.
Citas Notables
I'm not saying this is fraudulent. I'm simply saying what you said is misleading. I was misled.— Benjamin Liu, Tesla owner and commercial law lecturer
They need to make the situation right with those that have made an investment in their technology and kept them in business.— Paul Spain, technology commentator and Tesla owner
La Conversación del Hearth Otra perspectiva de la historia
Why did Liu stay with Tesla if he felt misled? Why not just take the refund and move on?
Because the refund doesn't actually solve the problem. He paid for a lifetime feature. Now he's being offered 30 months of subscription access—and only if he buys a completely new car. It's not compensation; it's a different product at a worse rate.
But Tesla did offer him money back. Doesn't that count for something?
It counts as an acknowledgment that something went wrong. But it doesn't restore what he lost—the value he thought he was purchasing, the timeline he was promised. He's a commercial law lecturer. He understands the difference between a refund and actual remedy.
What makes his case stronger than just buyer's remorse?
The timing and the specificity of Musk's claims. Liu paid in 2020 based on explicit promises that the feature would arrive soon and that early buyers would pay less. Six years later, it hasn't arrived for his hardware generation. That's not a product that evolved differently than expected—it's a promise that was never kept.
Does Liu still believe in Tesla as a company?
Yes, genuinely. He still thinks they're doing important work on electric vehicles. But he thinks they've been misleading about autonomous driving for years, and he thinks that matters legally and morally. You can admire a company and still hold it accountable.
What happens if he wins?
It could open the door for other owners to pursue similar claims. It signals that making sweeping promises about future capabilities has legal consequences. And it forces Tesla to reckon with the gap between what Musk said and what actually happened.
And if he loses?
Then owners like him have very little recourse. They paid for something that was promised but never delivered, and the law won't help them recover it.