A law firm litigated before the Traunstein Regional Court on behalf of a client who had purchased a defective Tesla Model 3. A court-appointed expert assessed the vehicle's "autopilot" as a safety risk. This decision attracted considerable attention, including coverage by the Handelsblatt newspaper. In the meantime, Tesla Germany GmbH attempted to prevent the publication of details of this case by issuing a warning to the law firm. However, the court has now issued a decision – and it has far-reaching consequences:
In a ruling dated January 10, 2025, the Traunstein Regional Court partially upheld the claim. The court confirmed that the autopilot of the affected vehicle was defective. Tesla was ordered to fix the phantom braking of the Tesla Model 3. Despite Tesla's arguments, the court ruled unequivocally: "The vehicle is defective with regard to the unprovoked braking." The autopilot was neither "suitable for normal use" nor did it meet the standards "for products of the same type."
According to the court, an autopilot is "unsuitable for normal use if, for no traffic-related reason, it causes significant deceleration of the vehicle that constitutes more than a mere inconvenience." A deceleration that could lead to critical traffic situations is sufficient to consider a defect. Severe braking is not required.
Specifically, this means that even a noticeable deceleration in speed that goes beyond simply "lifting off the accelerator" is considered a defect. According to the Traunstein Regional Court, this can lead to dangerous situations. It also doesn't matter whether the driver can intervene. The usability of the autopilot is significantly impaired, which is unusual in this price range when driver intervention is required without any discernible external influences.
The court thus confirms the law firm's opinion: Tesla's Autopilot with the installed Hardware 3.0 can lead to significant dangerous situations and does not meet the standards of vehicles in this price range.
Tesla was ordered to repair the vehicle, i.e., to remedy the defect. However, an appeal has been filed, so the case will go to the second instance. The law firm will also appeal, as it believes that such a safety-relevant defect not only gives rise to a right to repair, but also a right to delivery of a defect-free vehicle or a right of withdrawal. Handelsblatt reported on the ruling and the investigation by the Federal Motor Transport Authority into this matter.
