INTERVIEW ON THE PRICE OF BUSINESS SHOW, MEDIA PARTNER OF THIS SITE.

Recently Kevin Price, Host of the nationally syndicated Price of Business Show, interviewed Alexander Paykin.

The Alexander Paykin Commentaries

In the world of consumer protection and corporate ethics, there is a simple yet profound truth: companies must keep their promises. When they fail to do so, especially when those promises are tied to critical aspects of a product’s functionality, consumers are left vulnerable—and often legally empowered. Rivian, the electric vehicle (EV) startup that once captured the imagination of early adopters with promises of Level 3 autonomy, is now finding itself at the heart of legal scrutiny for failing to deliver on that very vision.

Rivian’s initial pitch in 2020 was ambitious, bold, and captivating: “Level 3 autonomy will be available on every Rivian vehicle.” It was a statement that suggested Rivian’s EVs would, in a short time, provide the dream of hands-off, eyes-off driving. The idea was simple—Rivian would take care of the driving, and the driver could sit back and enjoy the ride. For many, it was not just a marketing line but a core element of the vehicle’s appeal.

However, as time passed, those promises began to unravel. Early buyers of the R1T and R1S models discovered that the vehicles they received did not, in fact, include the necessary hardware to support Level 3 autonomy. Even worse, Rivian made no significant efforts to retroactively upgrade the hardware or offer a clear path to fulfilling their initial promises. Unlike Tesla, which retrofitted older models with new sensors during hardware shortages, Rivian has remained silent on this issue, frustrating early adopters and creating a brewing storm of dissatisfaction.

This scenario illustrates an important concept in consumer law: when a company makes specific promises, particularly in advertising or during pre-sale promotions, and fails to follow through, it opens itself up to legal risks. Rivian’s failure to deliver on its Level 3 autonomy claim, a feature that formed the centerpiece of its initial pitch, may lead to significant legal consequences.

The Legal Landscape: Breach of Contract and Fraud in the Inducement

When companies fail to fulfill their promises, they may be held accountable for breach of contract, fraud in the inducement, or a combination of both. Breach of contract is a straightforward claim in cases where a consumer has entered into an agreement—such as purchasing a vehicle—based on certain representations, only to find those representations unfulfilled. In Rivian’s case, the company marketed its vehicles with the promise of Level 3 autonomy, a feature that would have influenced purchasing decisions. If Rivian’s vehicles were sold with the clear intent to include this capability, the failure to deliver on that promise may constitute a breach of contract.

In addition to breach of contract claims, there is also the potential for fraud in the inducement. Fraudulent inducement occurs when a company intentionally misrepresents or exaggerates claims to entice consumers into making a purchase. Rivian’s marketing of Level 3 autonomy as a guaranteed feature could be viewed as a form of fraudulent inducement if it was presented in a manner that misled consumers into believing it was an immediate and unambiguous feature of the vehicles they were buying. The legal ramifications of such claims can be severe, leading to not only monetary damages but also reputational harm and further legal complications.

Consumer Protection Statutes: GBL 349, GBL 350, and State Equivalents

In addition to standard legal claims like breach of contract and fraud, companies like Rivian are also bound by consumer protection laws designed to safeguard consumers from deceptive business practices. In states like New York, the General Business Law (GBL) sections 349 and 350 provide consumers with a powerful toolkit to challenge misleading advertising and deceptive business practices.

GBL 349 prohibits deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any business, trade, or commerce. If Rivian’s representations regarding Level 3 autonomy were found to be misleading or deceptive, affected consumers could potentially file claims under this statute. GBL 350 similarly targets false advertising, making it illegal for businesses to engage in misleading advertisements that could harm consumers.

Many other states have similar laws in place, which provide consumers the ability to challenge companies over unfulfilled promises, especially when those promises relate to the core attributes of a product. These consumer protection laws empower consumers to seek compensation for their losses, file class actions, and hold companies accountable for their marketing tactics. With the growing number of dissatisfied Rivian customers, the company could face substantial legal risks if its failure to deliver on its autonomy promise is seen as a violation of these statutes.

The Road Ahead: Legal Troubles and the Potential for Massive Lawsuits

As Rivian faces increasing backlash from early buyers who feel misled, the company is now at risk of significant legal challenges. Customers who purchased their vehicles based on the promise of Level 3 autonomy now have the opportunity to file class-action lawsuits, asserting claims of breach of contract, fraud in the inducement, and violations of consumer protection laws. Given the wide-reaching nature of the company’s promises, these lawsuits could escalate quickly and potentially involve thousands of affected consumers.

Moreover, the lack of a proactive response from Rivian, especially when compared to Tesla’s efforts to retrofit older vehicles with upgraded hardware, could intensify the legal fallout. While Rivian may argue that global supply chain issues and pandemic-related delays were out of their control, their failure to offer any retrofitting or remediation options for affected customers could be seen as a failure to act in good faith—a key factor in many legal disputes.

A Call for Accountability and the Importance of Trust

The case of Rivian serves as a reminder of the delicate relationship between businesses and consumers, and the crucial role that promises—whether verbal or written—play in maintaining that trust. While technological setbacks are inevitable in any industry, transparency and accountability are critical when managing consumer expectations. Rivian has an opportunity to salvage its reputation by addressing its failures head-on, acknowledging the shortfall in its promises, and offering solutions for affected customers.

Failing to do so, however, could result in long-term legal consequences. Rivian must recognize that the trust it built with its early adopters is just as valuable as the technology behind its vehicles. As consumer protection laws continue to evolve and empower buyers, companies like Rivian must be vigilant in honoring their promises—before they find themselves facing massive legal battles that could tarnish their brand for years to come.

 

 

About Author