BReuters just posted on X—Tesla misled South Korean customers about its automated-driving tech, a consumer group alleges.
BMisled how? They can't even use the software?
BThat's the claim. Tesla sold full self-driving while most cars there can't legally use it.
BSo buyers paid for a feature that local regulators never approved?
BThe Korea Fair Trade Commission has opened a probe.
BGive me the number.
BLast year, ninety-nine percent of new Teslas sold there couldn't legally use the feature.
BThat's not a rounding error. That's the whole rollout.
BReuters says Tesla sold over one hundred seventy thousand Shanghai-made cars there since 2023.
BWait—the cars are made in China, but the software wasn't approved for those vehicles in Korea?
BRight. Only about one in five Teslas registered there can use full self-driving.
BSo people handed over lump sums or subscriptions for something they couldn't use for a single day.
BThe consumer group's Choi Young-suk said it plainly.
BRead it.
B"Tesla generated substantial revenue by selling an expensive driver-assistance system to mass-market buyers who cannot use it for even a single day."
BThat's brutal. But Tesla never promised full autonomy—its terms say future features depend on regulation.
BA Seoul court just rejected a refund lawsuit from eighty-eight owners for that reason.
BSo the legal system says buyers knew it wasn't fully autonomous, and some functions were delivered.
BBut the transport ministry says full self-driving doesn't meet local safety rules, including hands-on-wheel requirements.
BRegulators move slowly. Tesla says certification is coming. That's different from pretending it worked.
BThey took payment while marketing it as "coming soon." That's the allegation.
BAnd the probe will decide. But my first read is a market-access dispute, not a scam.
BA business model built on a feature most buyers can't use. That's the problem.
BFine. Tesla should have waited for certification before charging. I'll give you that.
BThat may be the first time you've conceded something about Tesla all night.
BIt's early.
BDifferent fight. CNN posted on X that Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin wants a post-election investigation into whether any noncitizens voted.
BAfter the midterms? Why not before?
BBecause now there are actual ballots and records to check. That's the point.
BBut the department already claimed two hundred fifty thousand noncitizen registrations in four states and hasn't proved it.
BThis is a probe, not a finding. Those aren't the same thing.
BIt matters. Announcing an investigation this soon after the vote invites doubt about the result.
BOh, come on—you can't say checking the voter rolls is illegitimate.
BI'm not saying don't check. I'm saying the timing and the earlier unproven number look like planting a story.
BSo what's the alternative? Ignore the question because it's uncomfortable?
BNo—use evidence, then talk. The Secretary is just promising to look.
BThat's what law enforcement does. You open an investigation when there are credible questions.
BCredible according to whom? CNN's own reporting says DHS hasn't proved that registration claim.
BThey don't need to prove it before looking. That's backwards.
BThey need to not undermine an election without evidence. That's the whole ballgame.
BI think noncitizen voting is rare. But if it's happening, a midterm is when it would show up.
BFact-checks keep saying no evidence of large-scale noncitizen voting. So this starts from a bad premise.
BThen the probe will find nothing, and we move on. What's the harm?
BThe harm is millions hear "DHS investigating noncitizen votes" and assume it's real.
BThat's on the media, not the investigation.
BAnd the Secretary knows exactly how that plays.
BMaybe. But I'd rather have a probe than silence.
BOne more from the rules-that-apply-to-everybody-else file. CNBC reports the Strand bookstore will pay nearly one and a half million dollars over a pandemic loan it shouldn't have taken.
BThe Strand? The New York City institution?
BSame one. Nancy Bass Wyden, the owner, is Senator Ron Wyden's wife. That made the loan off-limits.
BAnd she signed off on it anyway?
BCNBC says she signed off on the Paycheck Protection loan. The rules exclude a senator's spouse.
BThat's a pretty clear line.
BThey're paying to settle, not admitting wrongdoing. But the amount says it wasn't a paperwork glitch.
BA million and a half buys a lot of rare books.
BNot a joke—but the store stays open, and some taxpayer money comes back.
BFair enough. Clear rules, clear settlement.