Rivian is facing a class-action lawsuit over claims that it misrepresented the autonomous driving capabilities of the first-generation R1T and R1S.
The complaint was filed Wednesday in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. It centers on Gen 1 models and alleges that Rivian told buyers these vehicles would eventually be capable of hands-free, eyes-off driving.
That kind of capability falls under what the Society of Automotive Engineers calls Level 3 autonomy. At Level 3 the vehicle can handle steering, acceleration, and braking on its own under certain conditions, like highway driving or low speeds, without the driver’s hands on the wheel or eyes on the road. It is not full autonomy. The driver is still expected to stay alert and take back control when the system asks.
The suit claims that over roughly five years, through a nationwide marketing push, Rivian promised that its hands-free driver assistance system, called Driver+, would come standard on every vehicle it builds. One of the moments cited is RJ Scaringe’s appearance at TechCrunch Disrupt 2022, where the suit says he made representations about the company’s autonomy ambitions.
The complaint does not soften its language. It argues that no software update, no matter how advanced, will ever make the Gen 1 vehicles perform the way they were advertised. It goes further and claims Rivian knew the Gen 1 fleet would never reach Level 3 or true hands-free driving and kept promoting those capabilities anyway to get people to buy.
Jose’s Take
I know how this reads. The Rivian guy jumping in to defend Rivian. That is not what this is.
The part that actually matters to me is the money. Rivian never charged a single owner for Driver+. They made promises, some of those promises turned out to be wrong, the capability never arrived the way it was described, and still, not one dollar beyond the price of the vehicle went toward any of it. No autonomy package to buy. No subscription bolted onto a feature that never shipped.
That does not make the frustration go away. If you bought a Gen 1 truck partly because you believed hands-free driving was on the way, and now it is not, being upset is fair. The marketing leaned hard on the future. Whether that crossed a legal line is what a court is going to decide, and I am not going to pretend I know how that shakes out.
For me the takeaway is simpler and a lot older than this case. Do not buy a car for what it might do someday. Buy it for what it does the day you take delivery.
Which is exactly why this matters more now than it did five years ago, not less. R2 is starting to arrive I driveways, and Autonomy+ is sitting right in the middle of how Rivian is selling the next few years. A lot of people are about to put money down on a vision again. I just want them going in knowing the difference between what is on the window sticker and what is still a roadmap promise.
This is so so true! Great article 🙂
As someone who moved over to a Gen1 R1 from an F150 Lightning (which did offer limited hands free), the promise of future hands off driving was a big draw. Whether or not it was a separate package or line item on the window sticker doesn’t really matter. It’s something that was advertised and promised. I love my R1 and will be adding an R2 to the family, but it’s very annoying the R1 is stuck with such a poor autonomy package when so much more was promised. I’d be fine with eyes on, hands off. As it stands, I barely even use Driver+ because it’s so bad.
Maybe they should just offer a Comma AI for those who were hoping for autonomous driving.
No OEM would ever offer an unaffiliated and endorse an aftermarket product like that. Not ever. Most likely outcome is a settlement where lawyers bank millions and class members get pennies.
I love Rivian but this is true and was bound to happen. I don’t want to say it was all marketing hype just so someone buys the truck, but, if you did say and it was coming and pull the rug especially on the early adopters then it’s a damn welcomed lawsuit. Same with the electric tonneau cover. I felt they slightly rushed the R1 to market and making it up with the R2. But definitely left some bad taste in some people’s mouth which is why the stock has stagnated. Replace the computers and all camera suite and I guarantee you it will end this lawsuit.
I’d take a free comma ai just to ding Rivian at this point.
They didn’t offer v2g but advertised the vehicle as capable of it, they didn’t do level 3 self driving but said the vehicle was capable of it, they didn’t improve RiDE or give users the option of better right to repair..
Rivian has made a lot of promises on a 90k+ truck, and didn’t fulfill a lot of them.
I never expected Level 3, but I am very disappointed Rivian just gave up on Gen 1 without making any further improvements as they had always intended. I’m reminded every time the truck starts surging toward a car in front that Mobileye has lost, yet the driver display clearly shows the car there (which runs off Rivian’s autonomy system that they otherwise disabled)
Jose –
Line item charges?! That promise was bundled in the cost build up of 90k. If I promise you a new washer and dryer or a solar setup on a house you are buying for 300k and then flake on it ; I can’t hide behind the fact I didn’t line item that component. Were brakes or a windshield line items???
Please check your bias.
I’m pretty sure I did a good job of keeping my bias out of the news while still giving my take at the bottom.
He’s always been and will be biased.
I always like to include my opinion otherwise I’m just regurgitating the same stuff everyone else is.
Guys you’re being to harsh on Jose. He did a great job reporting on the news in an unbiased way and provided his take in a way that made clear what his view was. By all means, express your disagreement, but don’t attack HIM because he shared his view.
Both sides have rational arguments here. Rivian didn’t do what it said it would with Gen 1s. But, Jose’s point (that a prudent course is to buy a vehicle based on what it can do now not what it might be able to do in the future) is also perfectly valid!
Jose does a lot for the Rivian community and we should appreciate that. If you don’t like his reporting, you don’t have to come here and read it…
What’s next, are Gen1 drivers going to sue because they didn’t get tank turn? The class action lawsuit is generally started by lawyers looking for money. This isn’t about the owners, but if asked,”would you like a free lunch?” The answer is likely to be, “sure, I’ll sign up for the class action suit if I get some free money out of it.”
Let’s not forget that Rivian still isn’t profitable—suits like these only delay that hopeful expectation. I wonder how many owners are involved in the suit also own shares of the stock?
This article is good. However as an avid Rivian fan and owner. When I put my deposit down and purchased my vehicle, they had all of the technology all over the website advertising this, then when we got our vehicle, it magically disappeared from their website. Extremely frustrating and false advertising, I am sorry but it’s true.
I’m enjoying my Tesla everyday it is safe secure and relieves me of stress in traffic on the highway anywhere a car can drive it can handle, when Rivian finally gets as good as a Tesla it may be a decade I’ll buy one.
I think many people who are driving other vehicles would buy a Tesla if they just could experience wholesale driving but they’re too jaded or politically minded drive with the best technology out there.
There are millions of people that work for Tesla that are good people even though we Elon musk is a nut he doesn’t care if you buy his cars but the people that work for him do millions of them.
Tesla does have some of if not the best tech as of now, but it comes down to form factor. They need a real SUV. I love our gen 1 R1S, but I do wish they would offer a deeper discount on Gen 2 for gen 1 owmers based on this lawsuit. I’ll stick with Rivian, with AI code assisted creation they will catch up faster then you think.
For those discussing Comma.ai, outside of the mobileye windshield camera, the Rivian sensors seem up to the task and being lapped by a chipset that is 4 years older than the launch edition. But why should they work on updating features when REI Elon has said that AI and voice commands are the future of Rivian… Oh and robots
Thoughts from some random guy with a phone…..
Simple, just be honest. I’d ride it out and let GOD be the JUDGE. This is how it is in every courtroom across the county. So many times deals are made behind closed doors, without the judge involved, and also agreed upon before it even reaches the judge. I’ve learned that it is probably best to never take the first offer, you get f***ed for what you pay for in lawyer fees. Whatever happens, I hope that whoever is running the show makes sure they look the judge in the eyes, face to face. That way God knows Rivian’s side of the story and they have been properly heard. Often times, other people step in and play the role of Judge thinking they have that right, don’t get taken advantage of.
Nobody is perfect and everyone makes mistakes. Pray and ask for forgiveness and move on. The Judge will make it clear what he wants in return for the mistakes made. I bet this self driving feature was not shipped because quality was placed over profit, which I respect. This is key going forward in the states as our nation upgrades it’s infrastructure and manufacturing. We can no longer build shit with junk. We must build THE BEST quality products to ensure longevity.
Hopefully that helps.
In my opinion, the Gen 2 people like me, are going to in the same boat as the Gen 1 people are in now, when the Gen 3 R2 comes out next year. I think it is great they are making a stand.
You make a good point, however, Rivian’s own archived site from 2020 explicitly stated “Level 3 autonomy will be available on every Rivian vehicle.”
https://web.archive.org/web/20201028101418/https://rivian.com/technology/
They set that expectation, then quietly shifted the narrative to “hardware limitations” while using buzzwords like “8x megapixels” and “10x compute power” to make it sound definitive without ever providing actual data.
It’s at least as plausible that enabling these features on Gen 1 would blur the line between generations and reduce the incentive to upgrade, which makes it a business decision, not a limitation.
And that’s where accountability comes in. Traditional automakers built vehicles meant to last a decade or more before owners even considered an upgrade. The new software-defined model seems to be reshaping that, shortening the lifespan of vehicles by tying major features to new hardware instead of keeping all models evolving together.
We’ve seen it with Androids and iPhones pushing “better hardware” every year to encourage upgrades, but vehicles are a far more expensive, long-term investment. If this pattern keeps up, Gen 3 will roll out and Gen 2 owners will be told their hardware isn’t capable of some new core feature either. That’s not innovation. That’s conditioning consumers to accept planned obsolescence under the label of progress. Software-defined should mean continual evolution, not expiration dates.
Thanks for posting this. I appreciate your point of view.
Something that is a point of contention for me is that my Gen 1 had outdated hardware from day 1. Rivian made their goals for autonomy well known before the Gen 1 launch and then likely realized that their Gen 1 platform wasn’t going to be able to accommodate these goals and just swept that under the rug, so to speak.
It seems they have learned their lesson as they have publicly acknowledged that the launch edition of the R2 won’t have their next-gen hardware to support their next-gen autonomy.
I think they have good intentions, which is why I still support them. Innovation needs to continue to stay relevant, but like most people, I won’t be spending $100k on a new car every few years.
As a relatively early R1T owner, I’ve got mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, I knew that I was buying from a new company with a new product, and I was willing to take some risks. On the other hand, there were *so many* ways that Rivian fell short of what they promised. The extra year waiting for my R1T. I’ll give that to them because pandemic. But poor customer service from the start. Had to drive 4 hours to take delivery despite being told it would be delivered to my home. My own “Rivian Guide” who seemed to change every week until the program was discontinued. Mobile Service that either wasn’t available for a long time because the one tech in my state quit, or now isn’t able to do 95% of the services my truck has actually needed. Tonneau Covers that didn’t ship with my truck with a promise that they would, and then the broken promise that I’d be able to add it later. Power outlets under the dash that were in the manual and the service center said should be there, but aren’t. (the fix was to remove them from the manual…) The list goes on and on. I love my R1T, and have over 100K miles on it, but it has been the worst car buying experience I’ve ever had in my 63 years. So, yes I want to support Rivian and like the product, but I also feel like I’ve been taken for a (non-hands-free) ride.
Rivian signed up for this. The language used “back in the day” was exceedingly specific; no caveats, no asterisks, no “we’re striving for…”. It said, plain as day, “Level 3 autonomy will be available on every Rivian vehicle. By allowing you to take your hands off the wheel and your eyes off the road, you’ll get to see more of the world as you cruise through it.” No caveats. No asterisks. No “we’ll try our hardest to deliver…” I put up with Rivian’s BS for several years because I believed in the product, even after countless promises ultimately evolved into missing features – this brand has had so many missteps, it truly is amazing that they have survived. I really do like my Gen 1 R1S, but it’s not the car I ordered based on the features I was promised. They continued to peddle this Level 3 autonomy BS long after Gen 1’s were driving out of the factory.
I can’t help but wonder if there’s some kind of “gentleman’s agreement” between R.J. and Elon for Tesla to not make a “real” SUV, because if they stuck Tesla’s stack in something other than a pregnant sedan or a dysfunctional refrigerator, I’d abandon my Gen 1 R1S faster than R.J. abandoned all the features he sold me on November 27, 2018. I definitely have felt no love from Rivian for having stuck with them, and even as a stockholder, I’m hoping for success, but I still feeling a pretty nasty burn each day when I watch my neighbor’s Tesla drive to work “hands free”. Hell, even my wife’s Hyundai IONIQ has better “hands free” driving than my R1S does…
Like so many other early adopters, we were quickly (and quietly) cast aside to focus on something else. I refer to my R1S as my “Kickstarter SUV”, because that’s really how it felt. At the end of the day, I absolutely hope Rivian’s held to account for this. All of the decisions they made were done so without any input from the suckers that lined up to buy Gen 1’s. They chose their language and their decisions, and early investors never had a say one way or the other, and the ONLY reason I still have a Gen 1 R1S sitting in the driveway right now is because they stuck with the sale price they originally promised me in 2018—and that sale price included Level 3 Autonomy.
1000%
Jose must have forgot the initial specs/advertising on rivians website.
They specifically wrote what you said. It never came.
Also… before people start yapping. I never bought this vehicle for those abilities. I bought it because it was the first electric suv. I DID think it was cool that it was going to have those capabilities and it was just icing on the cake.
Sign me.
I did not forget, I have screenshots. Which part implies I forgot?
Did you think the article was going to give you so much heat? Jose, I think your a pro Rivian guy, but I also think your a fair guy. You would not have posted the article in the first place, if you did not believe in saying the truth. If your ever in California, look me up, love to take you to lunch or dinner.
IIRC, Rivian never “promised” that gen 1 will have a finite level of autonomy. The language was more along the lines of “could”. But, it doesn’t really matter what popular opinion is. Up for the lawyers to present their sides to the assigned court/judge. If it doesn’t get thrown out, it’ll most likely end in settlement with customers getting pennies and two clear winners: the lawyers and blog writers.
Completely false. I have a screenshot from the rivian website that says without any qualifiers or asterisks “Level 3 autonomy will be available on every Rivian vehicle. By allowing you to take your hands off the wheel and your eyes off the road, you’ll get to see more of the world as you cruise through it.”
This is 100% accurate.
You know I’m so sick of the onus being put on the consumer to “buy something for the features it has not the ones they’re promising” how about putting the onus back on the business either don’t sell it based on features it doesn’t yet have or don’t tout future features you’re not certain can be delivered. I’m suck of companies over promising and not delivering. I love my Rivian with or without self driving but I 100% hope the owners win this one to hopefully set a precedent that makes companies think a lot more carefully and critically about what they promise
I fully agree with everything. But, if I was to be honest I was kinda of bummed by not getting lane change functions they had listed as a feature on the Driver+ page. But outside of that I love my Rivian and would not change anything about my purchase.
Seems like a good compromise would be to offer a paid hardware upgrade to gen1 owners (yes I understand this would require new hardware and software design on their part). Seems like that would be sufficient to make “level 3 autonomy available” to every Rivian vehicle unless there was some language or promise that it would be “included” with every vehicle.
If anyone wants to join:
https://gregcolemanlaw.com/active-matter/coleman-law-investigating-rivian-for-false-advertising/
https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/cornellier-v-rivian-complaint.pdf