MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Plaintiff Michael Nachman alleges in this action that defendants’ statements about the automated driving capabilities of Tesla cars constituted deceptive or misleading practices in violation of New York General Business Law Sections 349 and 350 and unjustly enriched defendants. Defendants move to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). As explained below, plaintiff’s claims under the New York General Business Law are time-barred, and plaintiff has failed to state a claim for unjust enrichment. The complaint is accordingly dismissed. BACKGROUND The following facts are taken from plaintiff’s complaint and assumed true for the purposes of the order. Defendants Tesla, Inc.; Tesla Lease Trust; and Tesla Finance LLC manufacture, market, sell, and/or lease vehicles under the brand name Tesla. Compl. 2 (Dkt. #1). In 2014, defendants began equipping some of their vehicles with hardware intended to enable certain automated driving capabilities. Id. 32. At that time, the necessary software to enable those features did not yet exist. Ibid. Over the next several years, defendants continued to develop self-driving technology for their products. See id.
32-46. In October 2016, defendants announced that the “Full Self Driving Capability” (“FSDC”) package was available for customers. Id. 46. At a press conference that same day, Elon Musk, the Chief Executive Officer of Tesla, Inc., claimed that Teslas would be able to drive from Los Angeles to New York. Id. 49. Musk later repeated that claim in a tweet. Id. 51. Defendants also published on their official blog a video purporting to show a Tesla driving without any human intervention. Id. 48. A message accompanying the video stated that “[t]he car [was] driving itself.” Ibid. In December 2016, plaintiff visited a Tesla dealership and met with a sales representative who helped him customize a car for purchase, using Tesla’s website. Id. 90. The website advised that “[a]ll Tesla vehicles…have the hardware needed for full self-driving capability,” id. 93, and included the video appearing to show a Tesla driving without any human intervention, id. 91. The website also advertised the FSDC package as “enabling full self-driving in almost all circumstances,” while noting that “[i]t is not possible to know exactly when each element of the functionality described above will be available.” Id. 95. After viewing the website, plaintiff purchased the FSDC package, paying an additional $8,000 above the standard cost for a Tesla. Id. 100. But “[c]ontrary to Tesla’s representations,” plaintiff’s Tesla was not capable of full selfdriving. Id. 101. Over the next few years, Musk made public statements representing that Tesla cars would be capable of full self-driving within two years or less. See Compl.
