A South Korean court has thrown out a lawsuit by Tesla owners who wanted their money back for Full Self-Driving (FSD). On 29 October 2026 the 30th Civil Division of the Seoul Central District Court, presided over by Judge Kim Seok-beom, dismissed every claim the owners had brought against Tesla Korea, SBS reported. It is a first-instance ruling.

There were 89 plaintiffs according to SBS and the Korean legal daily Lawtimes, which lists the case as one lead plaintiff "and 88 others". Reuters put the number at 88. The owners bought their cars with the FSD option between 2019 and 2022 and sued in December 2024, asking to cancel the purchase and get the price back.

What the owners argued

According to Lawtimes, the owners said FSD meant full autonomy, with no driver needed in any conditions, and that Tesla still had not delivered it nine years after the option went on sale. They cited the option's new name, FSD (Supervised), and its sale as a monthly subscription as signs that Tesla had in effect given up on full autonomy. They also argued that their cars' Hardware 3 (HW3) computer could never achieve it. On that basis they said Tesla was in default, and that features blocked by regulation made it liable as the seller for a defect.

What the court decided

The court rejected each argument:

  • No due date. Buying the option was a contract with no fixed delivery date: Tesla would provide the features once regulatory approval and technical progress allowed.
  • Not Level 5. The FSD the owners bought means partial automation that needs driver intervention, such as traffic-light recognition and automatic steering in town. It sits on top of basic Autopilot (lane keeping and distance keeping) and Enhanced Autopilot (Navigate on Autopilot, Autopark and Summon).
  • Some of it has been delivered. The owners received Autopilot and Enhanced Autopilot. The recent FSD v14 Lite release added traffic-light and sign recognition and city driving to their HW3 cars.
  • HW3 buyers bought the HW3 version. The option is the one that runs on HW3. Not receiving the version HW4 cars get does not mean Tesla failed to perform.
  • No fault for the wait. Buyers knew the extra features had no release date and could take a long time. Even if they were late, the delay came from complying with Korean and foreign regulation, so Tesla was not at fault. Because the owners keep their right to features still to come, the defect claim failed too.

Reuters reported that Tesla did not immediately comment.

Why European HW3 owners should take note

The ruling goes to the core of the European collective claim over HW3, which had 7,907 verified participants from 39 countries in August and is being prepared under Dutch law. That claim rests on HW3 cars having been sold as capable of full self-driving, and on Tesla having sought European approval for HW4 cars only. The Seoul court took the opposite view: HW3 buyers are owed the version that runs on HW3, and a cut-down build such as FSD v14 Lite counts towards it.

It is the second recent setback for FSD buyers in court. On 16 October a US federal appeals court stripped class status from California's FSD buyers, although that decision turned on procedure, not on the merits.

A Korean first-instance judgment does not bind a Dutch court, and the Korean owners can still appeal. It is, however, a reasoned ruling on the same question European claimants are asking, and it went Tesla's way on every point.