I am sure you are an expert on the thousands of HR settlement agreements you have written. But I am looking at the human side and what is best for Lucid long term. Most people on this board have no interest in monetary damages. They just want Lucid to fix the problem and offer an apology(especially when Lucid ghosted them and only responded to them when they went to the media). These early adopters have been good will ambassadors free of charge for Lucid. Without apologies many who I'm sure feel like they have been taken advantage of, may still feel some ill will(as many have stated they will never buy or recommend a Lucid to anyone else again.) Are apologies naive and foolish as you stated. I would say certainly yes to a lawyer's mind or judges instruction. But human beings are not machines and don't always think in terms of lawyers or HR settlements. Sometimes an apology will go a long way to calm the waters and give some closure to a perceived or actual mistreatment. Some won't need the apology, but others will. It cost nothing to Lucid and if worded properly should not expose them to litigation. I'm sure there are those who on this board who think I am naive and foolish for stating my viewpoint, but I would bet there are others who agree with me.
I appreciate the human angle here. I really do. And I don’t think it’s foolish to want some acknowledgment when a customer feels mistreated. But in practice, corporations (especially publicly traded ones) don’t issue apologies for the kind of isolated transactional disputes we’re talking about here even if they result in real frustration.
When do companies apologize publicly? Typically, it’s in response to:
- Widespread systemic failures (e.g., a data breach affecting millions of customers)
- Regulatory violations (where an agency has stepped in or issued a fine)
- Product recalls or safety issues (especially those with legal liability implications)
- Criminal conduct or unethical behavior by senior leadership
Non of that has happened here, especially none of that has happened on the Lucid Motors side. (BofA probably has had run ins in every category in the past, lol.)
Those apologies are usually carefully worded by legal and PR teams, often accompanied by a fine, settlement, or some form of restitution. But when it comes to billing disputes, customer service breakdowns, or even lease-related friction like we’ve seen here? The best we’ll usually get is a policy change, a goodwill gesture, or a statement that “we’re reviewing our processes.” (Basically all of which happened for
@JoshG)
It’s not because Lucid doesn’t care it’s because issuing formal apologies in these contexts sets a precedent and creates legal exposure. (Especially when Josh is determined to share it with the world and to every nosey reporter.) Even a carefully worded apology could be used in arbitration or court by someone trying to assign fault. So companies generally fix the problem quietly and move on.
In my view, it’s better that Lucid focus on improving transparency and consistency around lease returns because that’s something that can help everyone. An apology, even if it “costs nothing,” (as you say) could actually cost quite a lot.
To put it in perspective, since some say this could be solved with 100-200k think about if you have manufactured 26k vehicles of which 50% are leased, 13,000 leased vehicles. You can average the cost of labor (to dispute/process the claims) and fix vehicles with wear and tear at $2k per vehicle. This would create a 26M potential liability. Sure these numbers have no basis in reality as I’m too lazy to do a ton of research. But a 2k (or in this instance $650) refund can cost a company millions of dollars each year. Something BofA/LFS wouldn’t want to bear and lucid doesn’t have the power to control.
I honestly think your perspective is naive, and I’m sorry this is the way the world works. But I challenge you to show me any auto manufacture that’s come out and said sorry for something in this context. (Maybe I’m wrong, always a distinct possibility)
