The definition of fraud is going to vary slightly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but generally the core elements are:
* Falsity: did the person knowingly make a false statement?
* Materiality: was the false statement something that could reasonably influence someone's decision to agree to a contract?
* Reliance: did the other party actually use the false statement to decide to agree to the contract?
Claims of future capabilities are necessarily going to be evaluated differently from claims of current capabilities, since it's going to be harder to demonstrate all of these points. But for Tesla's FSD promises, we're at 7-ish years now of "coming soon" promises, with marketing materials outright saying it's only regulatory reasons that a driver is needed. Materiality and reliance are slam-dunks at this point; the only out Tesla really has at this point is falsity. Essentially, Tesla has to argue that its engineers were all high on their own hype (which I have to admit it as at least plausible).
* Falsity: did the person knowingly make a false statement?
* Materiality: was the false statement something that could reasonably influence someone's decision to agree to a contract?
* Reliance: did the other party actually use the false statement to decide to agree to the contract?
Claims of future capabilities are necessarily going to be evaluated differently from claims of current capabilities, since it's going to be harder to demonstrate all of these points. But for Tesla's FSD promises, we're at 7-ish years now of "coming soon" promises, with marketing materials outright saying it's only regulatory reasons that a driver is needed. Materiality and reliance are slam-dunks at this point; the only out Tesla really has at this point is falsity. Essentially, Tesla has to argue that its engineers were all high on their own hype (which I have to admit it as at least plausible).