Is Linus Guilty of “Corporate Puffery”?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 10 жов 2024
- lmg.gg/secretl...
Thanks to Secretlab for being the title sponsor of LMG Clips this year! Check out their ergonomic gaming chairs at the link above. Your back will thank you!
A court has dismissed a shareholder lawsuit against Tesla over CEO Elon Musk’s questionable claims about its “full self-driving” feature. Tesla lawyers argued that these statements were “corporate puffery” and not verifiable facts.
Watch the full WAN Show: • Scams Are Legal Now - ...
► GET MERCH: lttstore.com
► GET EXCLUSIVE CONTENT ON FLOATPLANE: lmg.gg/lttfloa...
► SPONSORS, AFFILIATES, AND PARTNERS: lmg.gg/partners
The problem with the legal system nowadays can be summed up with “judges need to grow some fucking balls”.
Capitalist country, by definition will side with capitalists. It’s for the greater good they say.
@@johnyepthomi892 they dont say the greater good of who
@@johnyepthomi892 They made antitrust laws and anti-false advertising laws.
@@johnyepthomi892wrong. also completely unrelated. matter of fact its more of an oligopoly where the corpos run the feds and thats why feds do what they want.
there's NOTHING capitalist about the law siding with business, the whole point of capitalism is that the business isnt controlled by government, not government controlled by businesses
@@bradhaines3142 I believe you are implying that under communism or socialism the government controls the business, but thats not true? Under communism the businesses are owned by the people who do the work its sometimes referred to as the "dictatorship of the proletariat" as opposed to the "dictatorship of the bourgeoise" that america currently is. Under socialism, if say walmart "couldnt afford" to pay their employees properly without raising prices, to keep their profit margins the same (Which bare in mind said profit margins are enormous) then the government would step in and say "you are doing this or we are taking control" thats anti-price gouging. All business isnt just unilaterally controlled by the government that would be fascism
The Mcdonald's jingle when I was a kid was "I'm loving it", but I was in fact only mildly enjoying it.
A Puffery I say! Ronald has puffed me.
Yeah, but Ronald will probably just blame it on Grimace.
If I were a lawyer, I would just submit that timeline as evidence.
Edited.
Lawyers submit evidence, judges admit evidence.
@@Szanth Thanks, wrong word choice but this is what I meant.
Linus is right, the thumbnails aren’t puffy, they are vapid at best and maliciously fraudulent at worse.
So lying about what your product can do and when is corporate puffery? What about charging thousand of dollars for access to a non-existent feature? What a terrible ruling.
This was so disappointing...
I think the judge either got a big tesla paycheck (very likely) or is a hardcore musk fanboi(less likely but still possible).
I don't see any other logical explanation of the ruling.
@@MsFearco Not a fanboi > hardcore Musk fanboi > hardcore linus fanboi.
I don't get why people hate on musk so much. Its like people don't understand how much he have done for humanity.
Now Diddy's lawyer will say it all wasn't SA and trafficking, but "just an innocent Puffery" lol
I meaan. They do call him "Puff Daddy" 🤣
More like corporate screwery (he gave us the LTT shaft)
All goes back to the classic saying of, "America has the best legal system that money can buy."
Remember back in the day when either Pepsi or coke offered a jet for a certain amount of bottle tops and when someone got the required amount of caps they wouldn't give him the jet.
search up "Leonard_v._Pepsico,_Inc."
The court, presided over by Judge Kimba Wood, rejected Leonard's claims and denied recovery on several grounds, including:
It was found that the advertisement featuring the jet did not constitute an offer under the Restatement (Second) of Contracts.
The court found that no reasonable person could have believed that the company seriously intended to convey a jet worth roughly $37.4 million for $700,000, i.e., that it was mere puffery.
The value of the alleged contract meant that it fell under the provisions of the Statute of Frauds, but the statute's requirement for a written agreement between the parties was not fulfilled, so a contract had not been formed.
1:00 The whole redbull thing is mostly a myth. they were never sued about not actually giving people wings, and their slogan always spelled wings with thee i's
The amount of over-promising and under-devlivering Musk does on a regular basis would make a politician blush.
Any examples there bud?
The ten years of full self driving lies not enough?
@@Irohbro
How's that trans california hype loop going?
How's the boat mode on the cybertumour going? Actually, you can totally leave them out in the rain right?
And that reusable rocket supposedly making space travel cheap, how's that going, is any space X vehicle anywhere near the 1/10 price promised by the trust fund baby?
And of course, those boring tunnels are just as cheap to dig and run as musk promised right?
These are just the ones off the top of my head, just about everything musk has ever promised was an over promise. Just watch thubderfoot's back archive if you want a fuol breakdown
And you don't think his support for the criminal Trump is to set himself up to become a politician ? Ofc. he is a politician, and better at it than most politicians.
@@anivicuno9473nah space X actually is dramatically cheaper. they got you on that. its a legit huge step forward in space tech. before them all space tech was basically just mass producing designs from the 70s and 80s other than the shuttle itself
McDonalds: "you deserve a break today" (close enough)
Was this in the 60s?
This is why, if done right, Europe's "spirit of law" works well in so many of these weird situations. Comes a point we can't rely solely on 300-page long documents for any obvious infraction. Abusive behavior done by corporations adapts MUCH faster than laws can keep up and consumers literally die from these malpractices. I had enough of this. The North American legal system (both Canada and US) is all about loopholes and exploitations, and it is actually breaking my mind how much effort goes into rear-ending the masses for money and they get away with it because of unnecessarily convoluted law systems BECAUSE of the reliance on exact wording, taking decades for anything to happen simply because the chaotic nature of everything CANNOT fit into exact wordings.
Red bull gives you wings did not win the lawsuit. Its proving that redbull actually had less caffeine than other drinks/normal boosted coffee won the lawsuit.
But when Careathers found Red Bull had less caffeine than a cup of coffee, he felt there were grounds for a lawsuit.
According to the Red Bull website, external, One 250ml (8.4 oz) can of Red Bull Energy Drink contains about the same amount of caffeine as a cup of coffee, which is about 80mg.
At hearing a back in August, a judge agreed with him: "Such deceptive conduct and practices mean that [Red Bull's] advertising and marketing is not just 'puffery,' but it instead deceptive and fraudulent and it therefore actionable," the lawsuit stated.
"Even though there is a lack of genuine scientific support for a claim that Red Bull branded energy drinks provide any more benefit to a consumer than a cup of coffee, the Red Bull defendants persistently and pervasively market their product as a superior source of 'energy' worthy of a premium price over a cup of coffee or other sources of caffeine," it continued.
The McDonald's slogan was "You deserve a break today." Not "Have you had your break today?", I know I'm being pedantic, but that's what the saying was lol (Unless it was different in Canada of course)
You're being too pedantic. You deserve a break today. I mean, have you had your break today? I did, and I'm lovin' it.
@@RippahRooJizah lmfao fair enough
No, I just found the ad. They say "Have you had your break today?"
You bought the snake oil, it's not my fault you believed me when I said it would turn into medicine
I'm sure someone else has already said this, but the red bull lawsuit was actually about how red bull doesn't energize you despite claiming to do so.
It's full of sugar and caffiene, how would anyone claim it doesn't energize you?😅
Like biologically that is both literal energy and the stuff that stops you feeling tired.
@@basmca1 It's probably not the best explanation that I can provide, but basically, the sugar that it uses gives you a short kick, followed by an even bigger down phase, and it's even stronger of an effect when it uses high fructose corn sirup, as it's a sugar that can be directly metabolized by your body and doesn't have to be broken down. It's in your blood even quicker than sucrose, and used up too. Caffeine also doesn't keep you up, it merely blocks the receptors in your brain that melatonin binds to, keeping you from getting more tired but it doesn't actually make you more awake. At least that's my understanding of it, take it with a grain of salt, all I'm saying is what I remember from my honors biology class in high school.
Also red bull decided to settle, which allows them to not claim any wrongdoing while having the plaintiff, Benjamin Careathers, drop their case. They stopped using the marketing, preventing someone else from going after them for the same thing.
McDonald's did something similar, albeit more sinister, in the famous Liebeck v McDonald's Restaurants coffee case. If you're interested, look both up on Google ^^
On the bright side, we can now say that it has been legally determined that whatever Elon Musk says is just puffery and can't be taken seriously while citing this court case.
I love that Luke leaked his email and they didn't even bother to blur it or anything.
Simple laws have always been intend to be for the rich and powerful not justice or truth or ethics
Laws protect everyone. The problem is the fact that the U.S. legalized bribery (lobbying).
@@tuanld91 ? No they don't
Lying isn't illegal. That's the technical loophole.
it is if that lying damages someone.
We gotta sue every fast food restaurant for their advertisements. Ain't nobody ever got any food that looks like those commercials 😂
I don't even watch the video to answer the question in the title: Yes
The answer to the title is yes. Let us be honest with ourselves.
Judging by the video and some comments "Let us be honest with outselves" can be hampered by not understanding the question.
Puffery: future imperfect tense "We will", "It will".
Grey area: and future perfect tense, but with indefinite criteria: "soon", "nearly", "eventually"
Fraud: future perfect, with definite claims, "it can", "it does".
How about, future perfect with a specific timeframe (6 months)? That has to be either black or extremely dark grey.
@@szurketaltos2693 definitely. Letting. Target slip 2x is part for the course but missing the same "next year" target every year in a row for almost a decade is clearly deception and hoping no one remembers or duping new suckers who didn't hear it the first time.
@@DevAnubis right. Though I do suspect that 5+ years is where you could reasonably argue it's a light grey, for instance with fusion always being 15 years away.
It wasn't coca cola, but one of the bottle companies that are allowed to sell coca cola. I did some more digging and found more brands, like chiquita doing the same, also in Colombia.
Like the us government circumventing privacy and constitutional laws by buying data from other countries
Yes and surely in most judicial proceedings jurisdiction is one of the things that are settled before any prosecution or defence arguments take place
Chiquita was "corporation from an 80s action B movie" level evil.
Time to do a test of what a “reasonable person” would be. A lawyer or a judge tends to be higher on the education curve then the average joe, who is average and reasonable to help determine. A jury of ones peers as you were instead of a judge alone.
The thing that gets me is in this case, things like "Taste the Rainbow" or "Red Bull Gives you Wings" to me communicates far less in function as puffery, compared to stating about functional statuses and nature of things.
I actually agree with the judge, anything that comes out of elons mouth is obvious bluster and exaggeration.
now trending "Linus thinks there's meth in red bull"
It's not puffery, or false advertising.... but Damn Daniel, I want my precision screwdriver bundle
A similar form of puffery we use in EMS is that we use the term "thank you for your service" as ironic false praise. We say it to mock each other, since first responders/military are frequently told we are "heroes" and then given nothing (not that i am saying we should, it's just a false expectation foisted onto us) so if we see another crew get given a shit assignment or the like, we'll tell them "thank you for your service" as a jab.
I feel if it wasn't a $2000 package upgrade, with promise it would be useful "soon" there would be less problem constantly hyping tech that you dont have sorted out yet.
The problem with the legal system is that 1) no one agrees what is evil (because we're all just a bunch of animals trying to figure it out together), 2) no one understands that the purpose of the law and government is to punish evil and reward good (as opposed to hyper-regulating trade, as well as giving police, lawyers, judges, and politicians a perverse incentive to fund themselves), and 3) no one understands the chain of command and rightful jurisdiction. Coca-cola's argument was correct: the "company" as a whole should not be punished. However hiring hitmen is illegal in most states, so the people who did it or were knowing accomplices should be singled out and punished, even if we have no jurisdiction over the hitmen they used.
Perhaps corporate buffoonery. Just because I like the word buffoonery
buffoonery
coporate puffery: it just works.
There is a very high pitch background noise that is annoying whenever Linus or Luke speak. It sounds like interference or noise. It fades out as they stop talking. Love the WAN Show!
Trump is the embodiment of said puffery...no reasonable person would believe most of what he says, just like his buddy Musk. Or in games, Peter Molyneux
In terms of factual claims yes, in terms of his future plans they often do actually happen.
Its the Star Citizen of the automotive community.
If Linus and Luke wanted to maximize their scare quotes they should have used their powers combined. Linus using his right hand and Luke using is left hand.
by the way.. puffery is legally permitted according to the FTC. So.. it’s the FTC that allows advertising to “fib” or “puff” .. guess that’s a good and bad thing ?
"When does LTT do puffery?
Literally every upload when they advertise their store lmao. It's fine though, we understand it's puffery
Did you understand Tesla's claims since 2016 that their cars will have self-driving in "6 months" as puffery, too? Or are you a Musk fan that defended the claims until he called them puffery?
Edit: Also, advertising your store and claiming your product has a feature it does not are two different things.
@@MyUsualComment You deserve a break today
So is this a consumer protection / false advertising lawsuit or a misleading shareholders / fraud suit? The judge’s comments make it sound like the latter, but the discussion centered on the former
I hate the words "World class" after working in a place that abused the words to death... we were a local little corpo. Not a freaking world giant.
A large amount of the legal monkey-business that occurs in the U.S. is arguably down to the fact that their legal system is not separate from clear, overt and accepted political interference and partisanship.
What you are suggesting is the reasonable man test. It exists in english law, not sure about US and Canadian though.
The issue with a "common sense" law is that big corporations would still win and likely cover up instances where a corporation was clearly negligent.
EX: McDonald's Hot Coffee - McD's made coffee scalding hot to discourage in-restaurant refills. But a "common sense" law would have said, "of course coffee is hot"
Common sense would push companies to further act in ways that focus on stock price and profits at the expense of their consumers.
It's the Alex Jones defense, "my statements were so ridiculous no reasonable person would believe them, and my channel is purely for entertainment". The difference is the gay frog crank was utterly bent over by the justice system, while megacorps get free passes.
In The Netherlands “gives you wings” is a common saying (before Redbull was a thing). I guess in countries where this is not the case, its perceived as lying (although silly).
World class Dennis
I‘m so glad we don’t have these problems over here.
Where
It's like having to put a warning on microwave popcorn/food that it's hot. People are becoming so dumbed down and impatient, and more importantly have no common sense. It should be obvious if you put something in the microwave it's going to come out hot and you shouldn't need to be told that. But in the lazy, get rich quick sue happy society, company's have to put stupid warnings like that on packaging to prevent law suits.
I agree that Tesla should be allowed to do things like this. I remember when Elon was hyping all the self driving capabilities if you buy a Tesla. So many people believed it that stocks and sales went up as a result. Yet didn't deliver like promised
The timeline Luke showed is actually proof of the puffery supporting the defense. HOWEVER, when the 3rd Gen Tesla systems were being sold as "will be compatible with FSD" but then 4th Gen is released and they turn around declaring 3rd Gen won't be compatible at all... that's actually misleading investors. This coffee mug will be compatible with the new hydration product we're working on... oops, sorry, that coffee mug is actually completely incompatible with our new hydration, just buy the new gen coffee mug instead.
I'm very torn on this. On the one hand (let's say you've never heard of Elon Musk), if you take 5 minutes out of your life to search his Twitter history, you can easily see that 90% of what he says is very superficial level bullshit, and the other 10% is his mid take on some scientific subject. If you still put your money where his mouth is, maybe your money is in a better place now.
On the other hand, how can an adult, with all mental faculties, that is seen as the public representative of a business, not be responsible for the way he advertises his business. Makes no sense, had Elon presented a medical term affirming mental disorder, sure. But it was not the case.
His twitter is WAAY different from his CLAIMS in actual showcase of a product.
It'll be as if the iPhone 16s don't get AI till 2033, and even in 33 there is no sign of AI coming to the phones
If it had to be someone at LTT, at least it's the guy who can fall into a death pool correctly. [dadlol]
Videos would be classed as a service with it being digital and not a physical product you can manipulate
how tf did that judge just allow the lawyers to say yeah don't belive our FKN CEO the damn CEO OWNER of the whole company yeah he is not the real spokesman for the company lmaooo, if the lawers are saying that then there needs to be an added expectation that Elon would not be the ceo or an active mouthpiece for the company thats so broken
Its a global organisation so why aren't other countries attempting the same thing? Where's Canada's class action? Or maybe there should be a global case against Tesla
i think the WAN show is always great cause the SHOW its Self
I fell like palworld is gonna yield to Nintendo if our courts are like this :'(
Salesmen do this period, one who doesnt rarely makes much commission.
Absolutely, Elon should have been more forthcoming and told everyone what was actually happening. But I bet the real reason why it was thrown out is because it didn’t affect investment in the company. People still made money hand over fist.
Producer: Your job is to be Linus’ sidekick. If he tells you to “jump”, you say “how high”.
-
Linus: “Do the finger quotes PEON!”
Sidekick: “Yes sir…”
Peeing in the sink? What is this, the Stephen Crowder show?
The "common sense filter" is a judge right am I wrong?
Linus upset with Elon/Tesla again? Seems like this is a weekly basis.
he is just made he lost in tesla stock.
Do you remember when they promissed us flying cars? The judge probably remembered hence he could see through Musks marketing bs.
Like every 10 years since the 50's somebody has hyped and promised flying cars. All suffered from multi-classing.
Laptop bag fitting everything you need ..
One issue is that Elon personally drives the best Teslas fine-tuned on his routes. The things he's saying were likely true about his personal vehicles.
If you have enough money ANYTHING is legal no matter the proof. CLEARLY diddy needed more money and we would be getting away with what he did aswell.
There needs to be a system when a judge makes a move like this where they are stripped of their position, found incompetent, and all past cases are examined. This is a _clear_ sign of incompetence. EVERY case this judge has proceeded over needs to be re-examined.
I worked for a startup where the CEO idolized Musk. He was a delusional person, who seemed to just listen to the voices in his head when he made promises to investors and customers.
Red Balls, cocaïne in a can baby!
we were lying but it's legally distinct, fucking brilliant
I defer to the Youngbloodz song: Damn. Don’t want no sh*t, don’t start no sh*t. Simple I thought.. but I guess the choice of making money in a culture of integrity was a good incentive for adults. But hey .. global competition is a thing .. and where do we rank in that ecosystem?
So I think you are glossing over the fact that musk never said self driving is here. The puffery was his timeline for when it would be here. Now are you saying that anytime someone gives me a timeline and then they are wrong they should be liable? I get that he did it over and over again but every CEO promises features that are still in development. I 100% agree that this sucks but I don’t necessarily think that it’s false advertising. I would love to discuss this in more detail sometime!
yes , and llt also does reverse to get $ from company
05:30 meanwhile Teslas drive themselves everyday. Sure it is harder problem than first thought and they are not perfect.
see it says, any reasonable person should assume every single thing a corporation says is obvious bluster and thus should not be believed ect?
Video says yes
Puffery.
Full self driving is a solved problem, by Waymo. Linus, next time when you visit SF, do you want to give Waymo a try?
Luke searching UA-cam on UA-cam...
All teslas are capable of autonomous driving it's a software issue and the liability just isn't worth it to tesla to release the package
4:40 Thunderfoot approves this debunking
Chaquita x Coca-Cola PMCs will be announcing linus's passing after contradicting CIA editied wikipedia history of capitalist crimes :3
(Stay MKUltraCool ❤)
Ballmer peak? Linus peak?
There is no moral or ethical fortitude in America. Many of us could tell you stories from hell about our own local politics and how that only gets worse the further up the chain you go.
Does LTT have a Degen? Peeing in the sink...
On today's episode of "Linus just hates Elon"
06:10 there is a difference between lying and being wrong.
This man talking like he ain't in money land.
its the law that you cant sell a product that doesnt do what you said it does. How delul is linus
I think clickbait would be count as deceiving viewer.
Right, I agree with the judge, that no reasonable investor would (or should) make decisions based on random twitter posts.
It's one thing if unreasonable investors make decisions based off of twitter posts ,and causes stock prices to go all over the place. This can cause damage to people's portfolios.
It's another thing to claim that it's the fault of the speaker that did that.
Like I get it, that he is a full adult, and a representative of a business. He in theory, has responsibilities.
But, a reasonable investor should be looking at statistics, financial reports, etc.
If people make financial decisions off of a bloody tweet? I honestly think that is their problem.
Twitter isn't an official platform for talking to investors, at least I don't think it is. I suppose this brings up a question of "What counts as a official platform?".
IMO, that official platforms are things like investor calls, or on financial reports. If he lied on those, that's a crime. So clearly there is a line somewhere, between social media and official communication with investors.
I'm not sure it makes sense to muzzle people who own a business, from saying whatever they want on social media.
There is a fine line, somewhere, between fraud/scams and "Corporate Puffery". And I'm not sure where it is.
The argument that “you should know better” is absolutely insane. That’s not how the world works. By this logic you can never ever trust anyone over anything.
Except some of these claims were made on showcases. And it is not just rando twitter posts, it is him communicating about specifc products. It would be as if Apple did not release their AI for the iphone 16s till 2033 (and even in 33 there is no sign of it coming)
And investors don't just look at stats. If that was the case, NO startup would ever get money. they look at if the company will be profitable. Like if i was told that ABC company's car will have Full self driving in 2 years, that is a promise, and combined with good stats(which tesla has) it indicates that the company will skyrocket.
And its not like this is based off of leaks or the word of some employee, this is the BOSS!! of the company, and it is reasonable to believe what he says has basis in facts
So reasonable investors
would segues count as pufferies ? o:
Honestly I'm waiting for Tesla to collapse... And I do think it will still be musk who's at the wheel when it happens.
Just as a point of contention, you are trying to reconcile advertising to the public with private investing. These aren't the same thing. The thing you are telling your investors is the future hopes you are working toward, the thing you are telling your customers is what you have right now.
Investments are full of pie in the sky dreams of such things. It is the normal operating procedure.
Now, we both know this is a hard problem to solve.
CEOs are in weird position in their job is to ensure the investor's investment is profitable.
Now, I think we could co up with a better metric to enforce in law, but while this is the law, I don't foresee this changing anytime soon.
It’s the same thing. Whether you put money into the stock or pay it for the product, you are doing so based on what the company shows and tell you. You don’t get to perform an audit prior to investing.
Anything is possible if you just lie about it
Have @Wonderful new year s ! / /. thanks