Why Tesla Owners Waiting for Their "Dream Car" Are Taking Legal Action [Tesla’s Dominance... Hyundai Strikes Back]

"Full Self-Driving Still Not Delivered After 9 Years,"
Owners Demand Contract Termination
World's First Formal Ruling Expected on Tesla FSD Refunds
Tesla: "We Never Promised a Launch Date... Regulatory Delays Are to Blame"

"People buy a Tesla because of the Full Self-Driving (FSD) feature."

In 2020, at a Tesla dealership in Bundang, Seongnam, Gyeonggi Province, Yoonkoo Hwang, Representative Attorney at Law at Dongin Law Firm, was finalizing the purchase agreement for a Model X. He still vividly remembers the salesperson confidently saying this to him. The promise of a world where the car would drive and park itself just by entering a destination—the kind of futuristic vehicle once only seen in childhood science fiction movies. Eager at the thought of experiencing this for himself, Hwang did not hesitate to add the FSD option, which alone cost almost 10 million won, to the price of his vehicle. Altogether, the total cost exceeded 150 million won.

However, six years later, the FSD that Hwang purchased is still essentially useless within Korea. Except for highway driving assist, the fully autonomous driving feature he was told about at the time has still not been implemented. Even the basic feature of remotely moving the car forward or backward in a tight parking space—standard on many domestic vehicles as a basic option costing only a few hundred thousand won—does not function properly on his Tesla.

Yoonkoo Hwang, Representative Attorney at Law, Dongin Law Firm.

On June 29, at Dongin Law Firm in Seocho-gu, Seoul, Hwang told The Asia Business Daily, "In the end, years have gone by without me being able to use this 10 million won option even once."

After waiting years for FSD activation, Hwang, unable to put up with the delay anymore, sent a formal letter to the dealership and Tesla Korea requesting a roadmap for FSD introduction. But the response he received was nothing more than an irresponsible echo. The reply, stamped only with the official company seal and not issued in the name of the CEO, merely cited the general excuse of "government regulation and approval issues." Even when he inquired at the service center, no staff member could provide a responsible explanation.

This lack of sincerity from a global conglomerate has ultimately led to a class action lawsuit. When Hwang proposed litigation participation on a Tesla owners’ online forum, numerous fellow customers immediately responded. Currently, a total of 99 Tesla owners, including Hwang, are participating in this lawsuit. This is how Korea's first-ever "Tesla FSD Purchase Price Refund Lawsuit" originated. Hwang, who is directly representing the group as an attorney for Dongin Law Firm, made it clear that the core issue here is not “delays in technology development” but “a clear breach of contract.”

Hwang emphasized, "Tesla has posted a disclaimer in very small print on its website, noting that the timing of FSD provision may vary depending on local regulations. However, just because it will be provided eventually does not mean consumers are obliged to wait indefinitely. Legally, this constitutes a 'contract with an indeterminate term.'"

He continued, "Although a specific implementation date was not set, it's a contract that Tesla is eventually obligated to fulfill. According to Supreme Court precedent, such contracts must be fulfilled within a 'reasonable period.' The standard vehicle warranty period is 4 years, but Tesla has been selling FSD in Korea for nearly 9 years. If you are unable to use the option until your car is scrapped or sold as a used vehicle, this is clearly a case of nonperformance or at best defective performance."

Since November last year, the ongoing trial has centered on whether Tesla had announced a timeline for introducing FSD and whether regulatory delays from the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport (MOLIT) absolve the company of responsibility. Tesla Korea claims, "There is no binding commitment in the purchase contract to deliver Level 5 fully autonomous driving by a set date," and, "We have notified customers on our website that it may take more time in some regions for FSD deployment." The company is thus attributing the delay to government regulations.

In the hearing held this May, Tesla also referred to its website advertisements from 2019, claiming, "The FSD option included features like Autopilot, lane change, automatic parking, summon, and so on, and a significant portion of these functions have already been delivered." Tesla further argued, "If plaintiffs are insisting on terminating the entire contract, it's unclear whether this means even the features that have already been implemented should be treated as non-existent."

The car owners have countered, saying, "We are not asking to return the vehicle itself or hardware, but only to cancel the FSD program option contract. We paid more than 9 million won for the option, not just for simple Autopilot but in expectation of full self-driving capability."

Tesla Korea's homepage displays a notice related to the FSD feature in the lower right corner stating, "In some jurisdictions, regulatory approval may take longer." Tesla Korea homepage

Regarding the recently discussed "FSD Lite version" targeting older vehicles (hardware 3.0), Hwang dismissed it as a marketing ploy that distracts from the core issue. He stated, "What consumers purchased was a fully autonomous driving option, not partial. The Lite version falls short by removing all essential features, which is like paying for a watermelon and being handed a pumpkin—you can't call that fulfilling the contract." In the final hearing scheduled for July 16, Tesla is expected to repeat its arguments that the introduction of the FSD Lite version constitutes "partial fulfillment of obligations" and that government regulations exempt the company from responsibility.

Currently, dozens of lawsuits are underway worldwide concerning Tesla’s alleged exaggerated advertising of FSD as well as related fatalities and injuries. However, in the United States, contract provisions barring lawsuits and requiring arbitration have meant that only refund decisions at arbitration centers have been issued, without court judgments. In the United Kingdom, the issue has only reached the small claims court level. Therefore, the ongoing case at the Seoul Central District Court is likely to be "the world's first formal panel judgment" regarding FSD refunds. A verdict could come as early as this fall.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.