Tesla allegedly misled South Korean customers about automated-driving tech

The central dispute concerned whether Tesla charged South Korean customers for FSD when the cars they received could not legally use it. One commenter said South Korea’s rules allow the feature on some US-built Teslas because a US-South Korea trade agreement recognizes US vehicle-safety standards, while China-built cars do not qualify for that exception. Another argued that Korean law bars FSD regardless of where a car was made. In response, the first commenter cited a Tesla executive’s reported testimony that FSD could be used on about 20% of registered Teslas and quoted the treaty’s standards provision. The skeptic questioned whether the treaty could alter Korean law without parliamentary action; the other commenter replied that South Korea’s constitution gives ratified treaties the force of domestic law. The disagreement thus turned on both the scope of the exemption and how treaties operate within Korean law.

Views on Tesla’s driving technology also diverged. One commenter called supervised FSD impressive and nearly mature, valuing the option to let the car drive when they did not want to. Another used the allegation to make a broader criticism that Tesla misleads customers about automated driving. These positions separate enthusiasm for the product’s practical promise from skepticism about Tesla’s claims and marketing. The legal dispute focused more narrowly on whether customers buying China-made cars were sold a feature they could not use, even if some US-made cars qualified under the trade arrangement.