you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 18 points 1 year ago (7 children)

This is purely nominative fair use.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    If it was just plain old trademark/copyright law, you'd be right.

    It sounds like Tesla are basically saying that you signed an NDA/non-disparagement clause when you bought the vehicle, and therefore it's a contract dispute.

    Doh.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    While not a "review" in the traditional sense, I hope it would fall under the CRFA anyway.

    https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/resources/consumer-review-fairness-act-what-businesses-need-know

    The Consumer Review Fairness Act makes it illegal for companies to include standardized provisions that threaten or penalize people for posting honest reviews.

    They can't necessarily use a "contract" as a defense.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (1 child)

    i don't see that anywhere in the notice and such a clause would be unconscionable, IANAL.

    All the notice claims is "violations of [ToS], including misuse of Tesla's trademarks and brand identifiers in media content that falsely implies endorsement, sponsorship, or affiliation with Tesla."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    ToS is effectively a contract.

    This interpretation of the ToS could be deemed unconscionable, but that seems like the kind of argument that takes a judge and 5-6 figures in legal fees to settle.

    An arbitrator is just going to read it, say 'yup, you broke the rule', and side with the company.

  • source
  • parent