Huang v. Tesla

What happened

The family of Walter Huang, an Apple engineer killed in 2018 when his Tesla Model X struck a highway barrier with Autopilot engaged, sued Tesla (No. 19CV346663). The plaintiffs relied in part on public statements by Elon Musk about Autopilot, including remarks at a 2016 technology conference, and served requests for admission asking Tesla to confirm them.

Tesla declined. In its responses it stated that it kept no repository of Mr. Musk's interviews and could not authenticate a recording it did not make, while adding that it did not expect the file had been altered. In opposing a deposition, its lawyers wrote that Mr. Musk, "like many public figures, is the subject of many 'deepfake' videos and audio recordings," as quoted by The Register.

What the court did

In a tentative ruling issued April 27, 2023, Judge Evette D. Pennypacker described Tesla's position as "deeply troubling to the Court." The ruling stated: "Their position is that because Mr. Musk is famous and might be more of a target for deep fakes, his public statements are immune." It added that such a position would let public figures "hide behind the potential for their recorded statements being a deep fake to avoid taking ownership" of what they said.

The court ordered a deposition of Mr. Musk limited to 3 hours and confined to the requests for admission, that is, to confirming whether he attended specific interviews and made specific identified statements.

Where it stands

Tesla settled with the Huang family in April 2024, as jury selection was about to begin, and asked to keep the amount confidential. The ruling was issued as a tentative ruling under California Rule of Court 3.1308. This record did not confirm whether it was adopted without change or whether the deposition took place before settlement.

The obligation it engaged

This matter runs in the opposite direction from a fabricated exhibit. Tesla did not claim the recordings had been altered. The possibility of fabrication was offered as a reason not to take a position on them. The Standard's Independent authority clause cuts both ways here. It forbids accepting material on a system's authority, and it equally requires a professional to confirm or refute a recording against sources that exist, such as the event organizer's record, other attendees or the witness himself.

The court's remedy fits that approach. It sent the question to the one person who could answer it from memory and knowledge, under oath, rather than leaving authenticity to speculation about what software could do.

Sources

• Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara · April 27, 2023
  Tentative Ruling, Huang v. Tesla, Inc.
• The Register · April 27, 2023
  Musk tried deepfake defense to avoid Autopilot testimony
• NPR · May 8, 2023
  People are arguing in court that real images are deepfakes
• NBC News · April 8, 2024
  Tesla settles lawsuit over Autopilot crash that killed Apple engineer

What could not be confirmed

Whether the tentative ruling was adopted as the final order without change, and whether Mr. Musk was deposed before the settlement, were not confirmed. The ruling was read from a copy hosted by Ars Technica.