Tesla Remotely Disables Autopilot On Used Model S After It Was Sold (theverge.com) 344
little1973 shares a report from The Verge: Tesla has remotely disabled driver assistance features on a used Model S after it was sold to a customer. The company now claims that the owner of the car, who purchased it from a third-party dealer -- a dealer who bought it at an auction held by Tesla itself -- "did not pay" for the features and therefore is not eligible to use them. The features were enabled when the dealer bought the car, and they were advertised as part of the package when the car was sold to its owner.
The owner in question, who Jalopnik refers to as Alec, purchased the car last December. The dealer bought the car a month earlier from a Tesla auction, with both "Enhanced Autopilot" and "Full Self Driving Mode" features intact, according to Jalopnik, which reviewed documents related to the car's ownership and sale. The dealer then listed the Model S, advertising both features. However, unbeknownst to the dealer, Tesla had independently conducted a software "audit" of the car after selling it, and disabled those features in a December update. The end result: when Alec picked up the car on December 20th, he did not have access to all its advertised features. Here's what a Tesla customer support representative told Alec: "Tesla has recent identified instances of customers being incorrectly configured for Autopilot versions that they did not pay for. Since, there was an audit done to correct these instances. Your vehicle is one of the vehicles that was incorrectly configured for Autopilot. We looked back at your purchase history and unfortunately Full-Self Driving was not a feature that you had paid for. We apologize for the confusion. If you are still interested in having those additional features we can begin the process to purchase the upgrade."
The report notes that the value of the self-driving features comes out to about $8,000.
The owner in question, who Jalopnik refers to as Alec, purchased the car last December. The dealer bought the car a month earlier from a Tesla auction, with both "Enhanced Autopilot" and "Full Self Driving Mode" features intact, according to Jalopnik, which reviewed documents related to the car's ownership and sale. The dealer then listed the Model S, advertising both features. However, unbeknownst to the dealer, Tesla had independently conducted a software "audit" of the car after selling it, and disabled those features in a December update. The end result: when Alec picked up the car on December 20th, he did not have access to all its advertised features. Here's what a Tesla customer support representative told Alec: "Tesla has recent identified instances of customers being incorrectly configured for Autopilot versions that they did not pay for. Since, there was an audit done to correct these instances. Your vehicle is one of the vehicles that was incorrectly configured for Autopilot. We looked back at your purchase history and unfortunately Full-Self Driving was not a feature that you had paid for. We apologize for the confusion. If you are still interested in having those additional features we can begin the process to purchase the upgrade."
The report notes that the value of the self-driving features comes out to about $8,000.
Consumerist dilemma (Score:2)
"Your" Tesla has just lost $8000 in resale value (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry chump. Didn't you read the EULA?
Re:"Your" Tesla has just lost $8000 in resale valu (Score:5, Funny)
Not good. Not kosher. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not good. Not kosher. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Not good. Not kosher. (Score:5, Insightful)
Why should Tesla take away a feature if the car is sold second hand? Are you buying a car or buying a license to use a car?
Fuck this new world where buying a car is like buying a license to Windows Server.
Re: Not good. Not kosher. (Score:5, Interesting)
That they could digitally disabled features of a vehicle without the permission of the owner, for any reason, makes Tesla a do not buy for me. They can go screw themselves, what else can they do to the vehicle post purchase without permission of the owner, that's what I would demand to know. No way in hell I would buy a Tesla now. Pretty much looking for the least automated electric vehicle, with no wireless updates possible and any hard-wired updates during servicing requiring my permission. Also all on board communications, internet, radio et al, to be totally separate, actually hard wired separate from vehicle control systems and the vehicle control systems requiring a physical key, my key, to access the firmware update port and computer itself.
Screw having some US corporation in control of my vehicle whilst I am driving it, the idea is insane. Not saying US corporations can not be trusted as a rule but yeah pretty much they can not be trusted as a rule, they lie, a whole damn lot, most of the time and are run psychopathically.
Re: (Score:2)
This, 100%
Maybe Tesla should stop nerfing cars. They were already paid once for the fucking feature.
But this kind of mentality makes me never want to get a Tesla, and gives pause for Starlink -- what kind of nefarious tracking/monetizing bullshit will they pull with that?
Re: Not good. Not kosher. (Score:4, Informative)
In this case, it had not been paid for. Just like the premium connectivity is enabled on all tesla currently, a lot of tesla's owner haven't paid for it, and for those car the feature is expected to go away after the free trial... You can always request a free trial of FSD, which enables it for some amount of time, but it`s not permanent. The buyer of the car should have looked at the details (in this case, I expect the dealership is the one to blame..)
Re: Not good. Not kosher. (Score:5, Insightful)
So you're saying that Tesla screwed up and gave it to the original owner for free?
Fine. That's also on them. If my dealer leaves the optional mats in the car when they deliver it to me, they can't come back after I sell it to someone else and hit them up for the extra cost.
Re: (Score:2)
No, they didn`t give it up. Beside, it appear that the dealer is the one who enabled the demo/test run of FSD, and said it was enabled. Beside, it had been re-disabled before the customer purchased it on the 20th. When I was looking to purchase mine, I checked at used ones and the Tesla dealership told me that returned cars (well, upgrade to newer models) were mostly sold without any of the options turned on, and could be activated as we wished, no matter what the original owner had (so we don't have to ove
Re: Not good. Not kosher. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why should Tesla take away a feature if the car is sold second hand? Are you buying a car or buying a license to use a car?
Fuck this new world where buying a car is like buying a license to Windows Server.
Second hand has nothing to do with it. In this case the original vehicle was configured incorrectly.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
This here is the answer. Tesla and dealer messed up by not catching the error pre-sale. The buyer has a case.
But, it is in Telsa's and the dealer's power to downscale the car's features and adjust price appropriately. People seem to miss this point.
What they can't do (or shouldn't be allowed to do legally) is show you the car, sell you the car, and then say "whoops" and remove things you paid for (or post-contract signing). After that, it's YOUR car. And they are robbing your car of stuff post-sale.
Re: (Score:3)
Licenses are irrelevant these days. The government will never defend you against a corporation. So what really matters is whatever a corporation says. If they say they disabled autopilot because the driver had a strange haircut, they could get away with it.
Re: Not good. Not kosher. (Score:4, Insightful)
If they say they disabled autopilot because the driver had a strange haircut, they could get away with it.
Until it went viral... The only thing that motivates companies today is embarrassment.
Re: (Score:3)
The buyer is the customer of Tesla. It should take care of its customers. It should buy the ri
Re:Not good. Not kosher. (Score:4, Insightful)
But Tesla did list the FSD [jalopnik.com]. Jalopnik has the image of the auction Monroney sticker right in their article. They say it outright.
Re:Not good. Not kosher. (Score:5, Informative)
The Monroney sticker describes how the car was configured when it was delivered to the original owner. Not how it's configured at any particular second in time.
If you sell or return a car to Tesla, they'll strip it of its options before they resell it, in order to have a lower sale price (easier to move the car) and to have the possibility of post-purchase upgrades. No different from someone putting a car on different rims or whatnot before selling it. Just because you have a document that says the first owner had X rims doesn't mean that those are the rims on the car when you buy it.
The dealer knew full well that they bought a car without FSD, and didn't pay for FSD, and still tried to convince the buyer that they were getting a car with FSD, and that it was a "glitch" that it went away. That's scummy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think the article was as clear as it should have been. This was very likely a used Tesla that was auctioned off (probably off of lease) that likely had a mistakenly enabled FSD that the original owner did not pay for. In auditing the VIN vs. enabled features, it was found that the feature had never been purchased for that VIN, so it was disabled. The auction process simply obscured the path from source to destination.
IF the auction was done by Tesla or on behalf of Tesla, I believe there will be
Also: Not likely (Score:5, Informative)
I am a big fan of EVs in general and Tesla in particular. But this is bad. If the sticker said it included FSD, it must get FSD. Cant take back after sale. Hope better sense prevails and it reverses course.
Following Tesla has taught me many things, probably the biggest one is skepticism of news reports(*).
First, it's entirely likely that the reported incident is fake.
Second, maybe the update caught Alec by mistake and it will be corrected
Third, maybe the update was correct and the seller lied
Fourth, maybe the EULA specifically states that ED and FSD attaches to the buyer, and not the vehicle (I doubt this)
And lastly, maybe the Tesla in question was repaired by a non-authorized dealer, which invalidates ED and FSD due to liability reasons. And as part of that scenario, the news article didn't mention this point.
Overall, I suspect that either the last or first explanation is correct. I'm a little skeptical of anonymous reports, especially when it's about Tesla. Tesla has generated so much FUD and misinformation that it's hard to believe anything in the news nowadays. I'm especially skeptical of the comment (from the article) "Since then Tesla has been of no assistance to him, and I have been doing my best to get him some help in this case" because of Tesla's generally excellent reputation on service.
Check back in a month and find out whether this is a) actually true, and b) if true, whether Tesla corrected the issue.
(*) Even now I'm sorting through the FUD news articles about Tesla's recent meteoric stock price. You just would not believe the number of articles that say nothing or rely on smoke and mirrors to push an agenda. Did you know that Tesla has a bad Defensive Interval Ratio [seekingalpha.com]? Did you know what a "Defensive Interval Ratios" is? It's one of over 50 possible measurements of a company, whose numeric value has no explicit meaning except for "this seems high".
This article [cleantechnica.com] is an example of non-fud. Whether it is correct or not, it's got straightforward analysis and rational explanation of the EV market. I have yet to find a non-FUD article that predicts Tesla's doom.
Re: (Score:3)
It includes consistent set of images of sales and service document that include the vehicle VIN.
The service document with notes stating that it was intentionally removed say otherwise.
and faked the Monroney sticker? That Telsa issued at the auction?
was not a feature that you had paid for... (Score:5, Informative)
... The dealer then listed the Model S, advertising both features ...
If it was advertised, he paid for it. The dealer should be responsible.
Re: (Score:2)
And Tesla should have audited it before they auctioned it off, so the dealership should go after them.
Re: (Score:2)
And Tesla should have audited it before they auctioned it off, so the dealership should go after them.
Indeed and then all is right with the world. Don't shortcut the system. Each group is on the hook for specific things.
Re: (Score:2)
Tesla doesn't perform the auctions. They have third parties handle this, which just adds to the clusterfuck of involved parties.
Re: (Score:2)
This is how modern business works: If the customer makes a mistake, then the customer loses. If the business make a mistake, then the customer loses.
Re:was not a feature that you had paid for... (Score:5, Informative)
So it's actually Tesla which advertised it, and the dealer which paid for it (they may not have purchased the car at the auction price if they knew it did not have Autopilot).
Re:was not a feature that you had paid for... (Score:5, Informative)
So it's actually Tesla which advertised it, and the dealer which paid for it (they may not have purchased the car at the auction price if they knew it did not have Autopilot).
I don't think that's what happened. Reading TFA it says the dealer enabled Autopilot and FSD as a demo car. Something they are allowed to do in order to demo these features to customers. It's on the dealer for not turning those unpaid features back off at the time of sale.
Re: (Score:2)
Where is the document to prove what options Tesla sold the car with at the auction (note: not the Monroney sticker, since that applied to a sale of the vehicle when new approximately 2 years earlier and not to the sale of the used vehicle)?
Re: (Score:3)
Ummm... so the vehicle was sold with FSD and autopilot when new and you're saying... what? Once the vehicle is resold it no longer has to have those features?
Really?
Re: (Score:2)
I am saying that Tesla can legally strip the options from a car that is in Tesla's possession.
FSD is sometimes delivered as a trial. Are you saying that, if I have an FSD trial active when I sell a car, Tesla is legally obligated to give the new buyer full (non-trial) FSD?
Where is the document that shows the options that the car was sold with at the auction?
Re: (Score:2)
It wasn't in Tesla's "possession" once they sold it on November 15th. It became a bailment. It wasn't in Tesla's possession when they initially sold it with FSD on the Monroney sticker, it was the original owner's vehicle.
You've never bought a car at auction before, have you? It was, tada, the Monroney sticker. They use those
Re: (Score:2)
Documents, documents.
They didn't sell it at the auction on the Monroney sticker. The buyer got a copy of that later.
You don't know that they sold it with a fully paid FSD at the auction because we don't have the documents that cover that sale.
Re: (Score:2)
Says who? Either article? You've just made that up out of whole cloth.
Again, you've never bought a car at auction, have you?
You really need to read the Jalopnik article before you claim what documents did and did not cover the sale. They image them and everthing.
Re: (Score:3)
It's getting really old watching you move the goalposts while educating you about auto sales.
You claimed that we didn't have any auction documents. You were wrong.
You claim that the document must say "as is." That's the default [legalmatch.com].
You claim that the form says nothing about the options on the car. It's part of the VIN record [itstillruns.com].
You can even even pull the Monroney [monroneylabels.com] by VIN number.
Have any further ignorance to put on display?
Re: (Score:2)
It demonstrates the problem with reliance on software vectors for continued operation. The dealer looked, the car said it had autopilot, they sold it as such. No way to know Tesla would remotely disable it later.
Car companies will use this to destroy the used market. Sure you can buy this car used but half the features won't work because they need our servers and we only licence them to the first owner.
Sounds like a job for... (Score:2)
Right to fuckin repair legislation.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: was not a feature that you had paid for... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Yes
There is no evidence of this.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Using your logic, if the Monroney sticker says that a car when sold new comes with upgraded wheels, every owner who buys and then sells the car must include those wheels and is legally barred from swapping out the upgraded wheels for cheaper ones.
Re: (Score:2)
The owner who does that is legally barred from submitting the Monroney sticker to the auction to detail the features, leave the items on the car for the auction, then remove them 3 days later.
That's called fraud.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is probably why Tesla did not submit the Monroney sticker to the auction.
Please try to understand the facts and not post based on what you think happened.
Not Tesla's bad (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Read the Jalopnik article. Tesla listed the features on the Monroney sticker for its auction -- they put a copy in the article. The dealer didn't enable anything.
Congratulations (Score:2)
First we had software as a service, now we have features as a service. Features which someone in some remote location can disable at will from your product.
Isn't technology great? You don't even get to own your stuff anymore without someone telling you what you can and can't do with it.
40 m.p.h. feature; the brave new world (Score:4, Funny)
If you want to drive over 40 m.p.h that is obviously an additional "software" feature that you need to pay for.
Or if you want to drive within a national park.
Or within 10 miles of the down town area.
It is all very clearly stated in the EULA, clause 134(w)(vii) -- you will notice that the word "Can" is capitalized and defined appropriately in the definitions section which is a separate download.
Cars used to be a symbol of freedom. I think we are entering a brave new world.
Re: (Score:2)
Can I interest you in a "slippery slope fallacy"? I'll happily sell you one for your brave new world which has nothing to do with the topic at hand, a topic where a dealer incorrectly enabled a feature the car wasn't supposed to be sold with.
Incidentally yes a car that is able to go above 40mph was once a feature, an expensive upgrade you needed to pay for, but also involved getting a new vehicle. As is driving in national parks. Cars as a symbol of freedom have always been restricted. Restricted in speed,
A good first step. (Score:2)
Did Tesla Disclose? (Score:2)
If Tesla disclosed that the car didn't have those entitlements then the dealer pulled a fast one on the owner. If the dealer bought the car as-is then Tesla fucked up and can't legally change the condition of the car after the sale.
Most auctions are "as-is" but it's entirely possible that Tesla auctions have standard disclaimers. This has nothing to do with what the customer expected except who needs to make him whole. Somebody swindled him, but it doesn't sound like we know who.
Re: (Score:2)
According to TFA, the dealer enabled Autopilot and FSD demo mode and never turned it off. That's the dealers fault, not Tesla's.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. Jalopnik doesn't mention demo mode anywhere. TFA doesn't mention demo mode. You can literally word search "demo" and you'll get zero results.
Jalonik does image the Monroney sticker. Which lists Autopilot and FSD. So those features were part of the sale. The law mandates that they are.
Tesla or the dealer pulled a bait & switch sca (Score:2)
Unless Tesla has something in writing to say otherwise, whatever is installed on the car when it was purchased is what the new owner paid for.
The trick is to stop thinking it is _your_ car... (Score:2)
You just have a license to use it. It still belongs to Tesla. Same evil as with much software today.
This is what happens when you do not own your car (Score:2)
Tesla owns the car, and gives its users a "limited license", just like with software. They can and will do whatever they want with it.
Re: (Score:2)
No they can't, because I just deleted Tesla from my purchase plans.
Food for thought (Score:3)
Here's the original forum thread (Score:5, Informative)
It's a long read:
https://teslamotorsclub.com/tm... [teslamotorsclub.com]
Just cancelled my plan to buy a model 3 (Score:2)
Yup, I love Tesla's designs in general, except for the walled garden software. I've always had my doubts about that and this dickhead move just flipped the bit. No Tesla's in my life, not now, not ever. There are so many sweet internal combustion rides available for better value, I'll wait for free and open electric car software, forever, if necessary. Last thing I want in my life is an Apple with wheels. Spyware in my auto. Theftware. Malware. You can keep 'em Elon.
This was a dick move (Score:2)
I am usually a fan of Tesla... they make some cool shit happen, but this was a dick move.
They need to own up to this. Apologize, and fix it.
Once something reaches a customer, even if you accidentally gave them the gold-plated-super-awesome-limited-edition, you do not take it away from them.
This is customer service 101.
Happy customers tell a friend, unhappy customers tell everyone.
Kind of like Amazon Kindle and post-deleting books (Score:2)
read the original post (Score:2)
here is the link to the forum where it all unraveled:
https://teslamotorsclub.com/tm... [teslamotorsclub.com]
I also have a model 3 and was following that thread from the start. it does not look like a fake report, to me.
its disturbing that tesla is *sometimes* stripping software options when they find out that a car changed hands. tesla does this as it wishes, without consistency (it seems).
one thing the tesla owners want to get from this: raised visibility so that tesla stops being a little child (in this regard) and leaves th
FSD it not an entirely local service (Score:5, Insightful)
Granted Tesla also disabled some performance features, like battery capacity: https://www.reuters.com/articl... [reuters.com] . But this might be different.
Given lack of information, I would wait to see whether:
- Tesla screwed up
- Dealer screwed up
- Buyer screwed up
- or it was just some miscommunication
Additionally, FSD requires remote services to work (keeping routes up to date, software updates, etc). So it is more like a "lifetime subscription" in GPS devices (with a 100x higher price tag). So I would understand them asking for a new license, *if* they did the reselling, and *if* they had communicated this before.
For now, I am in wait and see mode.
Re:Wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
Actual value is more like $0 as we watch Musk walk back FSD claims on investor calls
Actual value is what people pay for it. Clearly that's $8000 given that people happily opt to buy the car at this premium for this feature.
Re:Wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
Even if they shipped it today and it worked flawlessly, there isn't anywhere you could drive it due to the need for laws and regulations to change.
I really don't understand why there is so much speculation and hate towards Tesla for advancing the state of the art here, which they most definitely have done.
Re: (Score:2)
it's nice to be able to use that time to relax and read the newspaper or catch up on emails.
Fuck you. I hope you kill only yourself when the inevitable happens.
Re:Wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
How about some data [tesladeaths.com] to back up the assertion that autopilot "frequently" kills people? Everyone loves data!
8 deaths worldwide since the introduction of autopilot where autopilot was claimed to be in use, only 4 confirmed. In 5 years.
Less than 1 confirmed death per year. Worldwide. That meets no definition of "frequently" I am aware of.
In comparison, distracted driving (largely texting or cell phone use) killed 3166 people in the US, in 2017, alone. [nhtsa.gov]
I'll let you go ahead and apply the least-harm-principle on this one. Don't bother coming back at me with "we just need to educate people about distracted driving" because everyone knows it's fucking dangerous, and people still do it anyway. You would be making the abstinence argument here - we just need to educate people and obviously they'll stop fucking unless they want to make a baby, right?
I would prefer the other side of the metaphor - let's make birth control available to people, because they're going to have sex and we may as well give them the tools to make it safer; the same way that people are going to yak on the phone or text while driving regardless of law or "awareness education" and we may as well give them the tools to make that safer too.
Re: Wrong (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Used it for a year ?
Human driven cars across most of the developed world run into serious accidents once in an order of magnitude of a million miles. Given your imperfect sampling (single person using "it"), to get a confidence value of 99.5% which is the scientific standard for useful observation - you would need to use it for 200 million miles.
Have you used it for anywhere close to 200 million miles ? If not, your observations are worth nothing.
Re: Wrong (Score:3)
But it's still far higher than those who have NOT used it and about the same as someone who has used the same but with an accident....
YMMV.
Re: (Score:3)
Why do you hate words so much, and is that why you're aliterate?
Re: Wrong (Score:5, Funny)
is that why you're aliterate?
Impressively ironic idiocy indeed.
Re:Wrong (Score:4, Informative)
Whether it will be because of a legal fight or an OTR settlement we will see.
More likely Elon Musk will see this in the news and tell them to "Just enable it FFS".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Your argument is flawed because it is based on an incorrect assumption. It should probably be:
1. Tesla customer bought a car. Features were enabled that [possibly] should not have been.
2. Tesla customer sells car to used car dealer. Used car dealer remarkets car with features that are present on the car, without confirming through processes that they are factory installed / enabled (sometimes VIN info has this encoded, you can look it up, etc.)
3. Used car dealer customer buys used Tesla, at coincidental
Re: (Score:3)
My question is:
Who owns the rights to that specific instance of software, the first buyer or the dealer or the last buyer?
Because this is actually a much bigger issue than most people might be thinking. This is a viable service or product that has a value on the resale market ( the driver FDS ). we are talking about 8K feature, and the tax issues related to this is the second aspect... does it depreciate with time or remain in value depending on when it's updated.
Yah, this is a huge can of worms that's been
Re: (Score:3)
My question is: Who owns the rights to that specific instance of software, the first buyer or the dealer or the last buyer?
And not just Tesla. Can I sell my laptop with Windows on it? Microsoft would LOVE to say no...
Re: Wrong (Score:3, Informative)
Did you read the article? The dealer purchased the car from Tesla at an auction.
Re:Bad dealer (Score:5, Informative)
Read TFS again. Tesla duped dealer.
Re:The CUSTOMER paid for them (Score:5, Insightful)
My take on reading this - which could be wrong - is:
1) The dealer bought a car without paying for FSD
2) FSD was accidentally enabled on the car
3) Despite not paying for FSD, since it was enabled, the dealer sold it to a customer as having FSD
4) Tesla discovered the mistake, and that a feature that hadn't been paid for was being used, and disabled it.
At first, my reaction to this was that the dealer is legally in the wrong. They got a gain that they know they didn't pay for an knowingly tried to profit off of it - it would be akin to selling stolen goods. However, after skimming over laws for unsolicited goods and services, I think Tesla's probably wrong here. It appears to vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but in the US, AFAIK (IANAL), a person who receives unsolicited goods or services has no legal obligation to return them, and may use and profit off them at will. Which would imply that Tesla's mistake became permanent the instant it happened.
Now, while it's illegal to demand payment for unsolicited goods and services, and you can't require a recipient to return unsolicited goods and services in the US, I'm not sure about reclaiming accidentally delivered goods yourself; I haven't seen any law on this topic. Any attorneys here?
Re:The CUSTOMER paid for them (Score:5, Informative)
ED: Having learned more about this, it wasn't an "unsolicited goods" situation at all. The used car dealer, after buying the car without FSD, apparently enabled a demo of FSD, but then used that and the Monroney ticker to try to convince the buyer that the car comes with FSD :P It's outright fraud on the used car dealer's part.
Re:The CUSTOMER paid for them (Score:4, Interesting)
Prior post 15 minutes ago said: "who bought it without FSD - but then tried to convince the buyer that it had FSD (because it hadn't been disabled yet when the owner did their test drive),"
Which is it? Why does your story keep changing? What are your sources? Links please.
Re: (Score:3)
For Rei? It's whatever Elon Tweets at any given moment.
Re: (Score:3)
Why does your story keep changing?
It's almost like Rei said exactly why her story keeps changing. Let me quote you a relevant part: "Having learned more about this"
Someone who looks up things and corrects her previous comment, I know why you may be confused, this is Slashdot, home of the opinion in face of facts after all so seeing someone change their story is shocking!
Re:The CUSTOMER paid for them (Score:4, Informative)
Second take on this, but I really need you to explain it to me. How does a used car dealer (" United Traders") that isn't a Tesla dealer enable a Tesla FSD demo mode? And why does Tesla itself state that "AP was removed on 11/18/19" if AP was an option that was stripped before sale on 11/15/19 and then enabled by the dealer as a demo... when?
Re:The CUSTOMER paid for them (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, while it's illegal to demand payment for unsolicited goods and services, and you can't require a recipient to return unsolicited goods and services in the US, I'm not sure about reclaiming accidentally delivered goods yourself; I haven't seen any law on this topic. Any attorneys here?
It seems like that ship sailed once the 3rd party dealer (who bought the car from Tesla) sold it on. Otherwise, we eventually get to a point where nobody can be sure they own anything.
Re: (Score:3)
When Sony removed Other OS from the PS3 via a software update, this is no different. Sony lost the class action lawsuit. Tesla would lose if this went to court , the Sony case has set the precedence.
Re: (Score:3)
#1 is wrong. the car had the fsd option enabled AND WORKING when the dealer bought it.
#1 may or may not be wrong. The option being enabled does not itself prove that Tesla intended it to be enabled, or that the price paid was higher than it would have been without it.
And none of that matters. They bought a complete car with various features. Could Tesla have said, "Oh, we didn't intend it to have tires" and come take those back? Nope. Tesla materially changed the car after sale.
Re:The CUSTOMER paid for them (Score:5, Insightful)
The car was originally a purchase, with the feature enabled, but then returned under lemon law. From what I read, the Monroney sticker was from the original purchase and does not apply to sales of returned cars. Tesla's standard practice for returned cars is to disable the feature before sale. I'm not defending Tesla, but the Monroney sticker itself is not proof.
It doesn't need to be - the question is whether a manufacturer has any right to forcefully take possesion of parts of a property after they have sold it.
You see a car with five wheels (spare). You buy the car. Three days later the manufacturer realises that they accidentally included a spare wheel. They send a group of five large men who, without notice to you, proceed to open the car with a manufacturer key and remove the spare wheel.
That isn't legal, no matter how hard you squint at it.
Tesla sold and delivered a car to the dealer. They can't change their mind later about what the car comes with. The sale is already complete.
Re: The CUSTOMER paid for them (Score:5, Informative)
Re: The CUSTOMER paid for them (Score:4, Interesting)
The original customer certainly paid for them. Tesla is not entitled to be paid over and over again every time the car changes hands on the second hand market.
Re: The CUSTOMER paid for them (Score:5, Insightful)
that's exact what has to be tested, in court, once and for all.
its GOOD that this is very public and happening now. before its too late and this bad policy becomes standard in the industry.
no consumer wants to have features removed (on a whim) by the manufacturer - JUST because the ownership changed! that's absurd. but its what is sometimes happening.
I own a model 3 and I love the car; but the company behavior is borderline shocking. they need to change. they need to be forced to change.
if they don't change this policy, they'll be known for it and they'll suffer, long term, for it. I hope they make the right decision and stop playing it fast and loose with software-based options.
ota (over the air updates) need to be respected and trusted by the public. what tesla did works AGAINST that. I stopped taking microsoft updates after a few of theirs borked things up. they lost my trust and they'll never get it back. I'm hoping tesla will do the right thing and not 'pull a microsoft', so to speak.
I really like my car, but it could be my last if tesla does not do the right thing. and tesla only has a few years lead, left; silicon valley is re-inventing itself as a new car maker and there are tons of self-driving companies all around here; and tesla does not own all the magical engineers in this field. the lead is temporary and they need to manage it well, while they can.
Re: (Score:3)
What's to test though? The original customer paid the original price of the feature, they are entitled to the second hand resale value of that feature.
While I agree with you resale rights are a bit more complicated, especially when licenses are involved. Tesla could, for example, licensed add on features to the person for their use in a Tesla, and not actually make it permanent to a vehicle. I am not saying they do that, just pointing out in the age of software features in cars simply because something functions in a vehicle doesn’t mean it will still be there when sold. The day may come when accessories are like applications that move with some dev
Re: The CUSTOMER paid for them (Score:4, Informative)
That is, of course, not what happened (I've dug more into this story recently).
Someone bought a Model S. They later returned it. Tesla stripped it of options (standard policy for when a car gets returned, so that they can list used cars at the lowest possible price and move them faster, and potentially get post-purchase sales later) and sold it to a used car dealer. FSD was still present when the customer went on a test drive, but had been removed via update before the owner picked up their car. The dealer - who knew they had bought it without FSD - told the customer that it was a "glitch" and referred them to the car's original Monroney sticker showing that it was originally purchased by the previous owner with FSD.
No options get removed when you sell a car to someone else, unless that "someone" is Tesla. People sell Teslas on the used market all the time. You really think this happens and nobody's noticed up until now?
Re: The CUSTOMER paid for them (Score:5, Informative)
So, in the last hour, you've dug into the story, but you can't grace us with any links.
In a Rei post defending Tesla. So surprising.
Re: (Score:3)
Fixed that for you. Tesla sold a car with FSD then extorted the new over for money by illegally disabling it. That’s called fraud.
Nope. Tesla sold a car with FSD, received the car back with FSD making them the new legal owner to do with it what they please. They could have on sold the car without fucking wheels for all the law cares.
You know at least other troll accounts attempt to make sense.