I suppose that would violate the advertiser's "free speech".
It's very ironic that everyone is so afraid of Orwellian's "Ministry of Truth", and that we end in a world ruled by "Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistical parrots, Inc."
The "Ministry of Truth" in this case is a bad analogy though, since in the story, its purpose was to redefine what is the truth according to state up to the point of forcing people ignore the proof that they see in front of their eyes through torture.
I'm now picturing a customer support that can send henchmen to convince you that, "no, we never advertised 500m of autonomy, and your range did not drop unexpectedly while you were driving, and anyway the car was fully self-driving itself into that tree - we have logs and data and signed ToC to prove ourselves, now please sit down on this chair so we can strap you and use this big red hammer to protect your free speech."
And it' supposed to sound ridiculous and Terry Gilliam-esque, but it's now eerily realistic...
Yeah, there's a video going around where a dealership is working with Tesla to repair a car battery, but Tesla says the car has structural damage and is therefore classified as salvage, so the repair will cost $12,000+.
The guy says "Salvage is different from having structural damage, I have proof here that it's not salvage". Tesla informs the man that "according to Tesla, it's salvage, and they can't provide any more details about anything, if you want more you have to go through Tesla Legal"
So when it comes to Tesla, it's salvage if they says so, despite any other records, and if you don't like it, you can sue.
Parent wasn’t using it as an analogy though, they were saying it is ironic we were afraid of the state doing that when subtler corporate means are what we ended up with.
I don’t know if it is ironic, though — maybe more of an Orwellian inoculation that pushed the problem elsewhere.
Australia has very strong truth-in-advertising laws.
Tesla advertised there that they were now the most popular selling car, outselling Camry... and were smacked down when Licensing records showed no such thing. Made to pull ads, pay a fine.
But these laws need to be revamped. A better fine would be Tesla needed to correct their claims publicly, in the same media space with the same time/investment to correct their claim.
Else fines will just be part of the cost of the false ads.
That time is now, thankfully the consumer protection organizations and car testing organizations stepped up and will / should now test in a standardized fashion an electric car's driving range and slap them on the wrist if it's much different from their advertised amount.
"a slap on the wrist" by a consumer association is not the same as a legal condemnation. (I'm assuming the "consumer association" is not a regulator, but just a bunch of people coming together.)
It's useful for the consumer, and is supposedly part or the normal "immune system" of a free market.
However, the "legal" part has to be handled by regulators, following laws enacted by lawfully elected representatives.
This part is being slashed by lawfully elected executives (in part) and by unelected "advisors". One of whom is actively doing things that should get him prosecuted.
Also, I hope the consumer protection association is not depending on any kind of public funding - otherwise, I hope their website doesn't use banned words like "diverse".
