Consumer complaint received 2025-12-21 00:00:00
Product: Vehicle loan or lease — Lease
Issue: Getting a loan or lease — Confusing or misleading advertising or marketing
Company: Tesla, Inc.
State: CA

Complaint narrative:
Subject : Complaint Regarding Deceptive Marketing and Material Misrepresentation of Tesla Full Self-Driving ( FSD ) Capability Lease Transaction and Subscription-Based Product Dear CFPB Consumer Complaint Intake Team, I am submitting this complaint regarding deceptive marketing, material misrepresentation, and unfair practices related to Tesla, Inc.s marketing and sale of its Full Self-Driving ( FSD ) capability. This complaint is submitted in the context of a vehicle lease financed through XXXX XXXX XXXX, where the vehicle was purchased directly from Tesla, and where Full Self-Driving was not purchased or financed as a capitalized cost, but instead accessed through a separate, recurring subscription. 

Although Full Self-Driving was offered as a subscription rather than a financed purchase, the marketing representations surrounding the product materially influenced my decision to lease the vehicle itself. Teslas use of the term Full Self-Driving, along with associated promotional materials, created the impression that the vehicle possessed, or would imminently possess, autonomous driving capability beyond a standard driver-assistance system. 

In practice, the Full Self-Driving product does not provide full self-driving functionality. The system requires continuous driver supervision, is characterized by Tesla as a beta or driver-assist feature, and does not meet commonly understood definitions of autonomous driving. These limitations are materially inconsistent with the reasonable consumer expectations created by Teslas branding and marketing. 

Importantly, the California Department of Motor Vehicles recently issued an administrative ruling finding that Tesla violated California law by using misleading terminology such as Autopilot and Full Self-Driving Capability in its advertising and promotional materials. The DMV concluded that these terms implied vehicle capabilities that did not exist and ordered Tesla to correct its marketing practices, with potential penalties including suspension of its dealer license for non-compliance. This ruling confirms that Teslas representations were misleading and material to consumer decision-making.

As a result of these practices, I and other similarly situated consumers have suffered financial harm, including leasing decisions based on overstated representations of vehicle capability and ongoing subscription payments for a product that does not perform as reasonably represented. While the FSD subscription itself was not financed, the misrepresentation affected the overall transaction, including vehicle selection, lease terms, and ongoing consumer costs. 

Accordingly, I am requesting a reasonable accommodation and equitable relief, which may include one or more of the following : - Refund or credit for Full Self-Driving subscription fees paid ; - Restitution or adjustment reflecting the diminished value of the vehicle lease attributable to misleading marketing ; - Corrective disclosures or other remedial measures deemed appropriate by the CFPB. 

I respectfully request that the CFPB review Teslas marketing practices related to Full Self-Driving, evaluate whether these practices constitute unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices, and coordinate as appropriate with other regulatory agencies to ensure consumer protection. 

Thank you for your time and consideration. 

Sincerely, XXXX XXXX

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation