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.
Reading the script in the complaint (http://www.teslamotors.com/sites/default/files/tesla_-_claim...) it looks like Top Gear staged pushing the car into the hanger as part of a fictional story about running out of charge after 55 miles of driving. That fictional story is based on their calculation that on the track it would have run out after 50 miles.
Top Gear's show seems to be saying this: if you actually tried to drove this car for 55 miles at high speed on our track, it would run out of power and you would need to push it into the hanger to recharge. Because you would have intentionally driven it until it ran out of charge. They do NOT make the claim that it suddenly and surprisingly ran out of charge. But I can see how it might appear that way to the viewer.
I don't know if this counts as libel. The actual lie here is that Top Gear didn't go through the exercise of actually running the battery down.
Not sure what to make of the claim that the brakes didn't die. That seems more like a he-said-she-said deal at this point.
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.
> 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.
You need to be careful about the wording here. I believe that there is a difference under UK libel law between making false claims and making false claims with an intention to tarnish the company. The second attributes malice which removes certain possible defences.
I don't think there is any suggest here that the TG were intending to tarnish the product. I think they were making a (validish) point about electric cars and maybe getting a cheap laugh - legally that may be a different thing.
The big thing there is if. Doesn't seem to be much unbiased information out there. But basically the BBC seems to be saying they're sticking by their claims.
There is an especially strong claim in the article:
Tesla could not complain about what was shown because it was there... Tesla, when contacted by reporters, gave its account of what happened and it was exactly the same as [Top Gear's]. It explained that the brakes had stopped working because of a blown fuse and didn’t question at all [Top Gear's] claim that the car would have run out of electricity after 55 miles.
So either Clarkson's grossly misrepresenting Tesla's behaviour so far, which would be very odd, or Tesla's suddenly done an about turn and thinks it can get the BBC to say something else.
> Top Gear doesn't get a pass here for being a comedy show.
Actually, if it were a comedy show it would get a pass. Satire is a valid defence in law - it's why comedians aren't being sued all the time.
The issue they have is that Top Gear takes a basis in fact (particularly in the reviews) and certainly isn't out and out comedy so the defence probably doesn't apply.
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.
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.
Isn't it just England, not the UK? And the amount of lawyers you can field still makes a difference, even in the UK. So I guess the ol' boys at the BBC won't be shaking in their Savile Row suits.
Just a few weeks ago a reform of the libel law went one step further, although I don't know if that would apply here. As far as I remember it was mostly to prevent suing people who weren't UK residents, which certainly won't help the BBC.
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.
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.
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.
- 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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
[+] [-] redthrowaway|15 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] GavinB|15 years ago|reply
Top Gear's show seems to be saying this: if you actually tried to drove this car for 55 miles at high speed on our track, it would run out of power and you would need to push it into the hanger to recharge. Because you would have intentionally driven it until it ran out of charge. They do NOT make the claim that it suddenly and surprisingly ran out of charge. But I can see how it might appear that way to the viewer.
I don't know if this counts as libel. The actual lie here is that Top Gear didn't go through the exercise of actually running the battery down.
Not sure what to make of the claim that the brakes didn't die. That seems more like a he-said-she-said deal at this point.
[+] [-] bdfh42|15 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] Tyrannosaurs|15 years ago|reply
You need to be careful about the wording here. I believe that there is a difference under UK libel law between making false claims and making false claims with an intention to tarnish the company. The second attributes malice which removes certain possible defences.
I don't think there is any suggest here that the TG were intending to tarnish the product. I think they were making a (validish) point about electric cars and maybe getting a cheap laugh - legally that may be a different thing.
[+] [-] mattmanser|15 years ago|reply
The segment's online, this doesn't seem to be a review for comedic value: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DfHyGD7_pM
Clarkson (the presenter) seems to have clarified what actually happened on the day here (2 pages, starts near bottom of 1st):
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/driving/jeremy_clarkson/art...
There is an especially strong claim in the article:
Tesla could not complain about what was shown because it was there... Tesla, when contacted by reporters, gave its account of what happened and it was exactly the same as [Top Gear's]. It explained that the brakes had stopped working because of a blown fuse and didn’t question at all [Top Gear's] claim that the car would have run out of electricity after 55 miles.
So either Clarkson's grossly misrepresenting Tesla's behaviour so far, which would be very odd, or Tesla's suddenly done an about turn and thinks it can get the BBC to say something else.
But the BBC's not playing ball with Tesla at all: http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/12907367
[+] [-] unknown|15 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] Tyrannosaurs|15 years ago|reply
Actually, if it were a comedy show it would get a pass. Satire is a valid defence in law - it's why comedians aren't being sued all the time.
The issue they have is that Top Gear takes a basis in fact (particularly in the reviews) and certainly isn't out and out comedy so the defence probably doesn't apply.
[+] [-] dman|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zumbojo|15 years ago|reply
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|15 years ago|reply
There are probably more. This one has lots of comments.
[+] [-] sambeau|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bugsy|15 years ago|reply
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|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jokermatt999|15 years ago|reply
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Singh#Chiropractic_lawsui...
[+] [-] vessenes|15 years ago|reply
On the other hand, who would you guess has the largest libel lawyer team and budget in Britain? Other than the Sun, I mean.
[+] [-] mhd|15 years ago|reply
Just a few weeks ago a reform of the libel law went one step further, although I don't know if that would apply here. As far as I remember it was mostly to prevent suing people who weren't UK residents, which certainly won't help the BBC.
[+] [-] kristofferR|15 years ago|reply
"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|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bugsy|15 years ago|reply
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|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nickpinkston|15 years ago|reply
You probably aren't good at this car buying thing.
[+] [-] dman|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jrockway|15 years ago|reply
Why must Tesla murder schoolchildren?
[+] [-] bugsy|15 years ago|reply
Perhaps you are thinking of some other top gear show which is a comedy revue or variety hour with singing and dancing?
[+] [-] VladRussian|15 years ago|reply
(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...
[+] [-] oldstrangers|15 years ago|reply
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|15 years ago|reply
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|15 years ago|reply
Lets see how far this lawsuit gets. Interested in the development of it.
[+] [-] forgottenpaswrd|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mrschwabe|15 years ago|reply
Innovation requires courage. Especially in their industry.
[+] [-] jacques_chester|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] spencerfry|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|15 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] heyitsnick|15 years ago|reply
- They are suing, it doesn't mean they have succeeded. You can't start blaming libel law in the UK quite yet.