Tow Mode camera 2022 vs 2023

[CortexM0]

That's an awesome workaround Cortex!

Thank you. It's not an ideal solution, but it's the best I've been able to come up with so far.

I'm getting ready to go on a much longer trip. I'll soon be able to report how well it works over several thousand miles.

 

[pr3dict]

The option (Towing Technology Plus) you paid for is the digital rear view mirror and the trailer steering. If you got those, you can use what you paid for. You currently can’t purchase an additional accessory that works with it, but the ability to use that accessory did not carry a line on the window sticker or an additional cost you paid.

Part of the digital rear view mirror is wiring for a 2nd trailer camera, it comes with every digital rear view mirror regardless of what package was paid for. The Limited Level 1 is an other example of how you could have the plug on your bumper.

If you had ordered (and Ram accepted) the specific tow-mode camera option it would have come with the 2nd camera for the DRVM.

There is a “trailer camera wiring (no camera) by Mopar” option that is different. It’s not the same camera, and actually gets horrible reviews. If you ordered that and couldn’t get the camera then you would have paid for an option you can’t currently use.

Sure it’s semantics, but it’s also part of understanding what you got, how you got it, and what you were charged extra for.

This is exactly the issue we are trying to articulate. We paid for the digital rear view mirror 3.0. that was in the technology group. The only reason most of us did that was to use the new mirror with the explained feature of being able to connect the wired tow mode camera. The fact that they sold us a mirror that had a feature that is impossible to use is the problem.

Most companies aren't dumb enough to advertise a feature that requires another product and then not release that other product it's contingent on. However stellantis isn't really the smartest company in the world. But I digress. Hopefully someone sues them with a class action lawsuit and we all get some type of compensation.

 

[AH64ID]

This is exactly the issue we are trying to articulate. We paid for the digital rear view mirror 3.0. that was in the technology group. The only reason most of us did that was to use the new mirror with the explained feature of being able to connect the wired tow mode camera. The fact that they sold us a mirror that had a feature that is impossible to use is the problem.

Most companies aren't dumb enough to advertise a feature that requires another product and then not release that other product it's contingent on. However stellantis isn't really the smartest company in the world. But I digress. Hopefully someone sues them with a class action lawsuit and we all get some type of compensation.

It super frustrating. The tow-mode camera and 360° camera availability delayed me ordering my truck for months. I wouldn’t not have ordered it without the tow-mode camera.

All that aside, what do you expect compensation for? You didn’t pay for anything you can’t use. The tow-mode camera isn’t part of the tow tech plus group, and it’s not specific to the DRVM 3.0. You got 100% of what you paid for, a class action lawsuit is laughable at best.

The will likely become available and hopefully soon.

 

[Brutal_HO]

It super frustrating. The tow-mode camera and 360° camera availability delayed me ordering my truck for months. I wouldn’t not have ordered it without the tow-mode camera.

All that aside, what do you expect compensation for? You didn’t pay for anything you can’t use. The tow-mode camera isn’t part of the tow tech plus group, and it’s not specific to the DRVM 3.0. You got 100% of what you paid for, a class action lawsuit is laughable at best.

The will likely become available and hopefully soon.

I want to start a class action lawsuit against Charmin and King Soopers for not having enough TP during Covid. They still ran all the commercials with the bears didn't they?

ROFL.

 

[pr3dict]

It super frustrating. The tow-mode camera and 360° camera availability delayed me ordering my truck for months. I wouldn’t not have ordered it without the tow-mode camera.

All that aside, what do you expect compensation for? You didn’t pay for anything you can’t use. The tow-mode camera isn’t part of the tow tech plus group, and it’s not specific to the DRVM 3.0. You got 100% of what you paid for, a class action lawsuit is laughable at best.

The will likely become available and hopefully soon.

Well thats the beauty of how our legal system works. I, a plaintiff, would present facts that said the DRVM 3.0 was ADVERTISED to be able to show the rear of a trailer with a camera that FCA had decided to stop/not sell. That advertised feature swayed me as a consumer to buy their product vs their competitor. After purchasing said product, the advertised feature is unusable or otherwise does not exist. I would call that "False advertising, or misleading advertising"....

According to el google.

When an advertised feature doesn't exist, it's often referred to as false advertising or misleading advertising.

False advertising is the use of false, misleading, or unproven information to advertise products to consumers. The intent is to make the product or service more appealing and to encourage potential buyers to purchase. However, if a feature is advertised but doesn't actually exist, it can lead to consumer dissatisfaction and potential legal troubles for the company.

In many jurisdictions, false advertising is illegal and consumers have the right to file a complaint or sue a company that has engaged in false advertising. Regulatory bodies, such as the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in the United States, enforce laws related to false advertising and can penalize companies that are found to have engaged in this practice.

So, to recap. They advertised a feature of DRVM that we cannot use. We don't need to have purchased the tow mode camera for us to have standing here. The fact that we want to purchase it and cannot is enough in my mind for us to fulfil the prong of proving misleading or false advertising.

Now the other side is the defense. If you're the defense and arguing for FCA, and saying, "Well the DRVM can do what we said it could. Just because you can't buy that extra piece that is required does not mean we didnt fulfil our advertised feature." Also your other speculative argument that "will likely become available and hopefully soon"....

Now a judge would be the one to decide if this is fair and who has a stronger argument based on how the laws are written.

Gotta love our legal system and how we both have our own facts and perspective and a judge gets to pick which one is more "right".

There are legal precedents where companies have been sued for false advertising when features technically exist but are otherwise unusable or not as advertised.

One such case involved Apple and its claims about iPhone storage. In 2015, a class-action lawsuit was filed against Apple alleging that the company misrepresented the storage capacity of its iPhones, iPads, and iPods. The plaintiffs argued that while the devices were advertised with 16 GB of storage, the actual user-available storage was significantly less due to the size of the pre-installed iOS operating system. In essence, the advertised feature (16 GB storage) technically existed, but a substantial portion was not usable for consumers' personal storage as many would expect. The outcome of the case was a settlement agreement.

Another case involved Sony and its PlayStation 3 console. In 2010, Sony released a firmware update for the PlayStation 3 that removed the "OtherOS" feature. This feature, which was advertised as allowing users to install and run Linux on their PlayStation 3, technically existed when the consoles were sold, but was later rendered unusable by Sony's update. Sony faced a class-action lawsuit over this issue and ultimately agreed to a settlement.

Again - We paid ~+-$100,000 for a truck. Every feature advertised goes into that decision. Not just one or two line items listed on a window sticker. It's the whole package. Screw up one of those and you can convince a judge/jury/whomever that the feature was a contributor to that decision and "I" would argue that you have standing for a case. Laugh all you want, but unless you can convince me that you know exactly how a judge/jury/whomever will rule on a case, then it doesnt matter.

 

[mountainears]

So in the case of the Apple lawsuit, Apple paid $500M. Consumers got $25 and still couldn’t use the memory.

In this case, let’s say you win. You paid $100k for a truck, Stellantis paid hour a couple $100M in damages, you get a $300 check 5 years later and still no feature that works. Would that make you feel better?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[pr3dict]

So in the case of the Apple lawsuit, Apple paid $500M. Consumers got $25 and still couldn’t use the memory.

In this case, let’s say you win. You paid $100k for a truck, Stellantis paid hour a couple $100M in damages, you get a $300 check 5 years later and still no feature that works. Would that make you feel better?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Im not saying our legal system is perfect and by no means is it. However, the class representative does usually get more compensation. Also the fine/settlement agreement is usually designed to penalize the defendant from doing something like this in the future. Also dissuade other companies in similar situations from making decisions like this in the future. While lawsuits are hopefully supposed to make people "Whole" It also is a method to make the future of the consumer a little better.

So, no I wouldnt be too happy with a $300 check but I would be happy if stellantis had to pay a few hundred million dollars as an FU for screwing with the consumer. Hopefully hurting their bottom line and letting future consumers know of the deceptive business practices they have.

----- I'm curious why you ask though. Do you work in the risk department of FCA to find out if you should start getting ready for a lawsuit?

I don't expect anyone that thinks I'm wrong to change their mind btw. It would be crazy for the defense to concede their position no matter how logical the plaintiff is. Their job is to argue the opposite no matter what. The judge/jury is who needs to be convinced of my arguments.

 

[mountainears]

No. Just not a big fan of class action lawsuits. I don’t think the consumer generally gets a lot of benefits. Large companies do what they want regardless of those outcomes. They’ll probably take the $500M they would have spent making cameras and bank it to pay the lawsuit.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[pr3dict]

No. Just not a big fan of class action lawsuits. I don’t think the consumer generally gets a lot of benefits. Large companies do what they want regardless of those outcomes. They’ll probably take the $500M they would have spent making cameras and bank it to pay the lawsuit.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Working for a very large manufacturer, I can tell you it's not that simple. Every decision goes into making profit. There is no choosing between pay lawsuit vs make product that increases market share and profit. If they believe making the camera will make them money they'll do it, if they don't then, well, they won't.

I tent to agree though. Usually smaller companies will factor lawsuits into their deceptive business practices and typically if they lose they won't change how they do business.

Bigger companies though, they have shareholders to answer to and they have disclosures they need to make. Typically lawsuits that have any substantial payout will result in some type of Internal process change.

At the same time we both agree the lawsuit itself doesn't usually end up making the class whole they way it should.

 

[AH64ID]

Looking at your Apple 16GB suit, I just don’t see it as apples to apples (pun intended). Apple advertised a specific amount of storage, and they charged the consumer based on that storage capacity. For the Apple suit to be similar they would have had to claim additional storage after the purchase, and then never offer that storage.

Ram offered a capability and didn’t charge you for it, you got exactly what you paid for… in your case the DRVM 3.0, associated cameras, and the trailer steering. The added wiring for the tow-mode camera is part of every DRVM, it’s not an up charge and it wasn’t implied that they had toffee you a camera. It’s crap, no doubt about it, but you’re not missing anything you paid for.

Talk to your dealer, try to get some money back.. it may happen, and may be more than the pittance you’d get from a lawsuit.

I got money back on my truck because a package was advertised as having auto-dimming high beams, but my truck doesn’t have them. Turns out it’s not possible with my DRVM without the Safety package. Anyhow that was cut and dried false advertising, so they ponied up. You never know, and it can’t hurt to ask. Still different than the ‘23 tow-mode camera issue, but who knows what FCA will do.

 

[Jimmy07]

I guess I just can’t wrap my head around the entitlement to something that isn’t available to buy at the moment because of shortages. Right now, the tow mode camera kits are reserved for vehicles ordered with that option. There are actually not many electrical parts available to buy that are on backorder no ETA for the 2023’s right now.

 

[pr3dict]

Looking at your Apple 16GB suit, I just don’t see it as apples to apples (pun intended). Apple advertised a specific amount of storage, and they charged the consumer based on that storage capacity. For the Apple suit to be similar they would have had to claim additional storage after the purchase, and then never offer that storage.

Ram offered a capability and didn’t charge you for it, you got exactly what you paid for… in your case the DRVM 3.0, associated cameras, and the trailer steering. The added wiring for the tow-mode camera is part of every DRVM, it’s not an up charge and it wasn’t implied that they had toffee you a camera. It’s crap, no doubt about it, but you’re not missing anything you paid for.

Talk to your dealer, try to get some money back.. it may happen, and may be more than the pittance you’d get from a lawsuit.

I got money back on my truck because a package was advertised as having auto-dimming high beams, but my truck doesn’t have them. Turns out it’s not possible with my DRVM without the Safety package. Anyhow that was cut and dried false advertising, so they ponied up. You never know, and it can’t hurt to ask. Still different than the ‘23 tow-mode camera issue, but who knows what FCA will do.

Lol. If you aren't an attorney and are looking for a career change or path (depending on how old you are) then you should consider going to law school. You speak just like a lawyer should. You are breaking down my argument with your own "version" of the facts and why my argument shouldn't be accepted. Granted, I don't sign on to your reasoning or logic but that's ok. That's what a judge/jury is for. You can argue that it's not apples to apples all day. I believe my version of the facts and you believe yours (or atleast you need to argue as if you did).

It's kinda funny. To give you an example of how this works in the real world with first hand experience...

I was in court the other day and there was a dispute between two parties. A homeowner and a driveway asphalt company. Long story short the asphalt company made verbal promises (according to the homeowner) to have the job turn out a certain way and the homeowner did not like how it turned out. However, the asphalt company never had a contract signed or even presented to the homeowner until 3 days AFTER they walked off the job. The homeowner sued for damages as they would now need to hire a new company to "redo" the work the asphalt company did. The asphalt company countersued for the full $8,000 to do the job.

The asphalt company argued they DID have a contract. Regardless the fact that it was sent 3 days after the work had been started and 90% completed. They argued that their "system" said that the homeowner "accepted" the contract electronically because they clicked on the link to view the contract.
The homeowner argued that the logic the asphalt company was arguing was flawed because they would never accept a contract three days after the asphalt company walked off the job and they clicked the button to view the contract only to view it not to actually accept it or agree to it.

The asphalt company held there ground and obviously did not concede that fact to to the homeowner.

Anyway what I'm getting at is. When I present those two sides to you, you now have to make a decision about who you believe based on the way they present their case and logic.. They both think they are right.

Back to the FCA case with the DRVM. I gave my case and the logic why I believe it's false advertising, case law of other cases that had similar outcomes, and why I thought they were related enough to rely on that outcome.

You've presented your version of the logic and why you think I'm wrong and that the cases are not "apples to apples". There is zero shot I think I'll change your mind as you believe what you believe at this point and have taken a stance.

The next step is how much you actually believe your case will win to either settle or go to court. You saw the two cases I presented settled. The probably means, what is usually true, which is that even though they both thought they were right, they didnt trust 1 person (a judge) or 8 (a jury) to actually 100% agree with what they were arguing. So yeah we can argue pretrial all we want but when push comes to shove arguing back and forth is worthless until the time comes to either go to trial or settle.

 

[pr3dict]

I guess I just can’t wrap my head around the entitlement to something that isn’t available to buy at the moment because of shortages. Right now, the tow mode camera kits are reserved for vehicles ordered with that option. There are actually not many electrical parts available to buy that are on backorder no ETA for the 2023’s right now.

Thats the thing. FCA hasnt actually said that it's backordered. The part says discontinued and they have given no indication that it will be available for sale at any point. I know a bunch of us have reached out to ask.
If they gave direction that said, "YES, we will come out with this part eventually" then I think the idea of a lawsuit/entitlement to get this resolved would go away quickly. However, their silence is what is turning up the frustration with the community.

 

[Jimmy07]

Even if they discontinue the kit all together in order to eventually just sell individual parts from the kit for repairs to those that ordered the option, they are under no obligation to have any of those parts available for just anyone to buy.
Does anyone have a link to any official advertising that says if you get the tow technology plus package, you will be able to buy the tow mode kit later (and I’m not talking rendered images of a truck that has the tow technology plus package, that also just so happens to show the separate tow mode camera option in use)?

 

[pr3dict]

Even if they discontinue the kit all together in order to eventually just sell individual parts from the kit for repairs to those that ordered the option, they are under no obligation to have any of those parts available for just anyone to buy.
Does anyone have a link to any official advertising that says if you get the tow technology plus package, you will be able to buy the tow mode kit later (and I’m not talking rendered images of a truck that has the tow technology plus package, that also just so happens to show the separate tow mode camera option in use)?

As from the case law I showed earlier - If they advertise a feature and then discontinue it (oh by the way they are still advertising the feature) they could be found to have been falsely or misleadingly advertised. You say they are "under no obligation" but I'd love to see where that is codified in law or case law somewhere. From my experience, if they advertise a feature, it better damn well be available.

This is right from https://www.ramtrucks.com/ram-3500/capability.html

 

[pr3dict]

When these cases are brought up one big factor is proving that the average, or reasonable, consumer would have been misled by the advertisement. The concept is called the "reasonable consumer standard" or "reasonable person standard" in advertising law. This is the idea that advertising messages are evaluated from the perspective of a "reasonable consumer" - an average person who comes across the advertisement and not an exceptionally skeptical or gullible person.

So when looking at what I posted above I would argue that nowhere does it say that the feature is only available if the tow-mode camera is bought at the time of ordering. To the contrary, I'd argue that it is worded so generically that "a trailer camera" connected at the rear bumper, might lead a consumer to believe that ANY trailer camera could work with this system. Not some 1 line item camera that is ONLY available when ordering the truck new. It's easy to tear this a part to be honest.

 

[AH64ID]

As from the case law I showed earlier - If they advertise a feature and then discontinue it (oh by the way they are still advertising the feature) they could be found to have been falsely or misleadingly advertised. You say they are "under no obligation" but I'd love to see where that is codified in law or case law somewhere. From my experience, if they advertise a feature, it better damn well be available.

This is right from https://www.ramtrucks.com/ram-3500/capability.html

View attachment 58552

You should at least link the ‘23 data… that’s the photo and verbiage from the ‘22, which the camera is available for.


Additionally this line at the bottom of the webpage you linked covers them in the event things change.

Pricing and offers may change at any time without notification.

 

[Jimmy07]

As from the case law I showed earlier - If they advertise a feature and then discontinue it (oh by the way they are still advertising the feature) they could be found to have been falsely or misleadingly advertised. You say they are "under no obligation" but I'd love to see where that is codified in law or case law somewhere. From my experience, if they advertise a feature, it better damn well be available.

This is right from https://www.ramtrucks.com/ram-3500/capability.html

View attachment 58552

That’s an explanation of the capability of the DRVM. It can be had with the tow mode camera option (which people have ordered and received). That doesn’t say anything about the tow mode camera being available when the tow tech plus package is ordered. Am I missing something?

 

[pr3dict]

You should at least link the ‘23 data… that’s the photo and verbiage from the ‘22, which the camera is available for.

Oh my bad. It's on the 23 also in more detail lol.

 

[pr3dict]

That’s an explanation of the capability of the DRVM. It can be had with the tow mode camera option (which people have ordered and received). That doesn’t say anything about the tow mode camera being available when the tow tech plus package is ordered. Am I missing something?

Yes, your missing that we've or atleast I've argued that it doesn't matter that the tow mode camera was ordered or not. The false advertising is based on the DRVM having the capability. If you order the DRVM you should reasonably expect that you can have a trailer camera to work with it. The fact that they don't disclaimer that if you don't order the tow mode camera at time of ordering for this functionality to work is a liability on their part.

Everyone is hung up knowing the reality of the situation but when we talk about false advertising we don't talk about reality we talk about what a regular consumer would expect. Based on the advertising of the DRVM a consumer that doesn't come to this forum would believe they can buy the camera to make that feature work, at any time.

There are features that FCA does list cannot be added later. This is not one of them. But in fact it is the case right now.