

Tesla sues Top Gear for libel re Roadster review - grannyg00se
http://www.teslamotors.com/teslavstopgear

======
redthrowaway
Top Gear doesn't get a pass here for being a comedy show. There's a difference
between satire and making false claims about a product with the intention of
tarnishing it and the company that produces it. That's precisely what libel
laws exist to protect against.

Viewers of Top Gear understand that the challenges and races are staged, but
there isn't a similar understanding that the car reviews are staged, and that
the presenters will claim cars have defects that they don't have for the
purposes of entertainment. If the claims made by Tesla are true, then Top Gear
doesn't have a leg to stand on.

~~~
bdfh42
If you watch the show and listen to what is said you will see that there was
no libel. Tesla are wrong and probably just hungry for some publicity - they
have not been getting much of that recently - the "saviour" of the US car
manufacturers have found you have to ship a quality product in volume and
thats hard.

The program clearly says that it was their "calculation" that on the Top Gear
test track the car would only manage 55 miles. The other "issue" is that J.C.
said on the show that the brakes had failed on one of the test cars - I
suspect that was not something they made up but was a real (perhaps transitory
given how the braking system works) problem.

~~~
redthrowaway
It's been a while since I've seen the episode in question, but who's in the
right depends entirely on whether the claims were falsified. If the brakes did
fail and the motor did overheat, then it doesn't make much sense for Tesla to
sue. Either way, I suspect we'll find out.

~~~
eli
UK's libel laws are infamously plaintiff friendly. Tesla may well prevail in
court even the review was truthful.

Not sure it'll help their public image any, though.

~~~
electromagnetic
It won't stop the episode airing, the retraction will likely be released on
the BBC website, there'll be a press release but even BBC news won't cover it
and there'll probably be a mention in an upcoming top gear, which will likely
have Clarkson just take the piss out of Tesla for being little bitches that
can't take a review.

I don't even know why Tesla would want their vehicle reviewed by Clarkson.
He's brutal on Diesel vehicles, even when they compare on-par with gasoline.
From what I remember, Clarkson was incredibly pro-tesla as I half expected him
to say "It's electric," look at another camera and carry on the show like
they'd just asked him to test out a golf cart.

> The company says that if the episode had been broadcast in 2008, and not
> rebroadcast repeatedly it would not have sued.

Are these people complete utter retards, what fucking planet do they live on
that they don't understand that TV episodes _rebroadcast repeatedly_. Reruns
of friends episodes 17 years after their initial run doesn't give someone a
clue that TV has reruns?

I wouldn't buy a roadster simply for the utter idiocy of this comment from the
company. I'd question whether they have a simple employee capable of fastening
a damn nut to a bolt because their management can't comprehend that TV shows
have reruns. It's not like there's entire TV stations based around reruns...
oh wait, but there is!

~~~
redthrowaway
Where libel law is concerned, repetition of the supposed libel is a big deal,
as it cements in the viewers' minds the supposed drawbacks of the product.
One-time damage from a flippant statement is one thing, but repeating that
statement ad nauseum around the world is another.

~~~
electromagnetic
It's the libeled parties responsibility to promptly file a motion, not wait
years and dozens of repeats just to boost the settlement size to the biggest
you think you can get.

They willingly allowed their image to be damaged by not filing a motion
immediately.

------
zumbojo
I am a fan of both Top Gear (seen every episode, save for the most recent
series) and Tesla (would kill for a Roadster or Model S).

The Tesla Roadster review seemed to be fairly typical of Top Gear; with Jeremy
Clarkson pointing out his likes and dislikes in fairly equal proportion.
Clarkson in fact seemed very impressed with the Roadster’s performance and I
believe the official lap time placed it somewhere around a comparable Porsche
911. The breakdowns seemed believable, especially for a supercar; as Richard
Hammond pointed out in a later episode within that series (wherein a Pagani
Zonda breaks down within the first few test laps on the Top Gear track) that
it’s the nature of supercars to "explode immediately" on use. Tesla didn’t
seem to receive a harsher treatment than any other car manufacturer.

The Tesla Roadster is an amazing product, but it -like every machine made
before it- has a few bugs to be worked out. Nothing out of the ordinary.

------
RiderOfGiraffes
Same story: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2386692>

There are probably more. This one has _lots_ of comments.

~~~
sambeau
News is not a bug report. History repeats itself.

------
bugsy
The show definitely gives a reasonable normal viewer the impression that the
car is a dud with a range far less than what is claimed and prone to numerous
and frequent breakdowns, and that the failures were so catastrophic they car
had to be pushed into the garage.

So now the BBC is saying that it was done for effect or some such and is
claiming it didn't break down after 55 miles or such. So they are admitting
they deliberately made a misleading review which obviously damaged the
reputation of the car because of the misleading claims.

Whether that is libel, don't know. But it is disappointing. I had not realized
Top Gear did this and will no longer take the show seriously. I will also be
reviewing my formerly positive opinion of the BBC's credibility given their
CYA response.

------
gamble
Did they file in the UK? British libel laws are so bad that the BBC is doomed,
if they did.

~~~
jokermatt999
Take a look at the Simon Singh vs British Chiropractic case for a good idea of
how bad it is.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Singh#Chiropractic_lawsui...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Singh#Chiropractic_lawsuit_and_backlash)

~~~
dhimes
It looks like the right team won here. I wouldn't bet on that in the US.

~~~
derleth
In the US, the suit would have been thrown out without needing a full trial.

------
kristofferR
It's one thing to make fun of the Tesla car in a humorous way, it's another
thing to write a script (and follow through with it) claiming it broke down,
overheated and ran out of fuel before they had even driven the car.

"But in the real world, it doesn't seem to work" was already decided before
the cars were even delivered. It's cool to make fun of flaws, it's not cool
for something perceived as a review show to decide something is flawed and
write the script about how flawed it is before they have even tested it.

------
jrspruitt
I just watched the video, and can't figure out where the malice is. Its a
relatively new build of car, and a car based on a Lotus, the chances of there
being reliability issues are pretty good, this type of car isn't built for
being the go to commuter car, its built to zoom around in. As far as the
vastly less miles per charge claim, they were running it on a race track, take
any car you want, under any form of power you want, and drive it hard like
that, its not going to get best case efficiency. This sure seems like a lot of
noise, about nothing surprising. I think I agree it might be for publicity or
inspired by some other rationale than just libel.

------
bugsy
In the show, after making the 55 mile range claim and pushing the car into the
garage, he plugs it in for a recharge and says that recharges take 16 hours.
He then says because of this it would take "more than three days" to get from
where he is, Dunsfold Aerodrome in Surrey, to northern Scotland. The furthest
point he could go to is the John O' Groats campground in Wick. Google Maps
reveals that is 704 miles or 12 hrs and 45 minutes of travel.

So let's compare whether he is claiming the 55 mile range or the 211 mile
range is the one he accepts for non-track driving.

211 miles on the various roads would take at least 4 hrs, then 16 hours to
recharge.

Start: 0 hrs

Drive to 211 mile pt: +4 hrs

Recharge: +16 hrs = 20 hrs elapsed

Drive to 422 mile pt: +4 hrs = 24 hrs elapsed

Recharge: +16 hrs = 40 hrs elapsed

Drive to 633 mile pt: +4 hrs = 44 hrs elapsed

Recharge: +16 hrs = 60 hrs elapsed

Drive to 704 mile pt: +1.5 hrs = 61 hrs elapsed

So that is about 2.5 days, less than the more than 3 days he claims.

At 55 mile range though it would be substantially longer than 3 days though.
That would be about 17 hours per 55 mile leg, 12 legs at 17 hrs, 204 hours or
8.5 days.

So Clarkson, through his claim of more than 3 days to travel to the north of
Scotland, is suggesting the range is more than 55 but less than 211 miles.

------
initself
I wish I could do the same to all my reviewers for my iPhone app.

------
nickpinkston
\- You use Top Gear reviews as a major factor to buy a +$100K electric sports
car. \- You haven't seen their show enough to know what Clarkson's views of
green-tech are. \- You haven't looked at corroborating evidence on forums a
real drivers, etc.

You probably aren't good at this car buying thing.

------
jrockway
That's the end of caring about Tesla for me. Resorting to a lawsuit over a
comedy program means your company's ethics are out of touch with reality, and
it's time for you to die. It's the adult equivalent of bringing your guns to
school and killing everyone because some kids made fun of you at lunch. Yeah,
they shouldn't have done that, but your solution was worse than the problem.

Why must Tesla murder schoolchildren?

~~~
bugsy
Do you have a source that it is a comedy show? Their web site seems to be
rather misleading regarding this as it appears to be a car review show not a
comedy show - <http://www.topgear.com/uk/>

Perhaps you are thinking of some other top gear show which is a comedy revue
or variety hour with singing and dancing?

------
dman
Wonder if future reviewers of tesla products will insist on a legal waiver
before touching their products. Also somewhere somethings being lost in
translation. Top Gear has been about Three guys getting together for a laugh
and doing irresponsible things. If Tesla Co didn't know this when they handed
Top Gear the car then they missed out on the due diligence. In car circles
this lawsuit is akin to suing Santa Claus.

------
VladRussian
following this logic it is time for Russia to launch a nuclear war against
Great Britain.

(note: Lada Kalina is the newest and most advanced Russian car and the
producer of the car is heavily supported and promoted by government:)

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGs_5gDXFn8&feature=relat...](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGs_5gDXFn8&feature=related)

------
oldstrangers
I'm rather excited to see how hard it is for Jeremy Clarkson to refrain from
making light of this situation. I love the man, should be entertaining.

Also, the BBC has an enormous amount of money and power (not to mention it
operates under a Royal Charter), I don't imagine this lawsuit being very easy.

------
marcamillion
What a perfect way to give something legs.

I had never seen this Top Gear episode, but I am definitely going to watch it
now!

This is a tough spot to be in. Sue BBC and try and get a correction (and give
it publicity) or ignore it and risk reputation damage silently with fewer
people.

------
dbuizert
How awesome. No option to comment on their website. They could have turned it
into an awesome opportunity to talk with the customers.

Lets see how far this lawsuit gets. Interested in the development of it.

~~~
forgottenpaswrd
There is. You need to look further.

------
mrschwabe
Good on Tesla for having the balls to stand up for what's right (and for their
company).

Innovation requires courage. Especially in their industry.

------
jacques_chester
This will not end well for Tesla. Clarkson is a masterful grudge-holder and
nothing they produce will ever receive a fair review ever again.

------
spencerfry
April Fools?

------
electromagnetic
> The company says that if the episode had been broadcast in 2008, and not
> rebroadcast repeatedly it would not have sued.

FYI Tesla, TV has these things called reruns, they've been around forever.
Reruns of Three's Company has outlasted John Ritter (sadly).

Honestly, if this idiocy is an example of the collective intelligence of
Tesla's management, then that comment alone will make me not buy anything
Tesla. At least every other American car manufacturer doesn't bitch and moan
at a comparably great review from Clarkson (it's an electric vehicle, it's a
miracle he even did a segment on it. He rags on diesel even when it's
comparable to a gas, and he was actually enthused about the roadster).
Honestly, it just shows me that North America will never make another great
car, because North America can't get intelligent car manufacturers.

