They sell it, it's a product. You can call it a beta product. This is entirely pointless semantics.

>By your logic, should Toyota pay for all accidents that happen in Toyotas? No, because Toyotas are not fully self driving? I have news for you. Neither are Teslas.

You are going in a loop. That's not logic, and certainly not my logic. Toyota doesn't sell self-driving cars, so why would Toyota be responsible for how the cars drive. If there is a defect in their cars, they would be responsible for that. You are once again playing semantics. Tesla sells cars with a self driving product. You are trying to play a semantic game by saying it's not "full self driving" because some aspect of its function, but what words we call it is besides the point, what matters is how its functions. Tesla is liable for how the product functions because it's in control of how the product functions, not because its "full" or "partial" self driving.

>Your hypothetical sounds reasonable in theory, but it’s predicated on an imaginary situation that does not exist.

You literally just keep making up nonsense in order to justify your positions. Like saying "it's a beta" so it's not a product. You can buy it. It's a product. They are already facing lawsuits over it. Get real. Hands down one of the most pointless conversations I've had here when you are engaging like this.