I find this interesting because it seems that morality, legality, and propriety (in this context, what one would consider good customer service) are all out of sync here. It’s probably why this thread is so long, because it’s a great example of how right and wrong can be harder to apply in real life. It resembles the good posts on Reddit’s r/AmITheAsshole forum.
I enjoy this kind of casuistry so prepare for a long post!
Morally, OP is not entitled to what he didn’t pay for. He’s already acknowledged this. That he got EAP despite not ordering it is a mistake on Tesla’s part, and they are entitled to remove it once they are aware of the mistake. These are the basics. In some ways it really is like receiving the wrong change from a cashier, or money mistakenly deposited in a bank account. The best thing to do would be to let the cashier know and give back the difference.
There are two problems that complicate this, though:
1.) The sticker said it had EAP, even though the bill of sale didn’t. There seems to be some legal ambiguity about whether the sticker itself is binding. This is where the legality may not match up with the morality exactly, though the principle behind the law is morally sound: what you see on the sticker ought to be what you get. That was the purpose of the sticker to begin with, and when the features don’t match, it’s understandable that the customer would believe that he might be entitled to it after all. It might not technically violate the law, but it seems to violate its spirit.
2.) The feature was disabled without warning, and it’s a feature that affects safety. Yes one can say that you shouldn’t depend on a feature you didn’t pay for, but it would be the decent thing to do to give the driver a heads up that the feature was being disabled. Especially if it’s a safety-affecting one. This seems negligent to some degree, even if it wasn’t legally required. To me this shows less than ideal “propriety” (customer service), and it might even be a little morally questionable too. Especially when the free trial was unwritten and lengthy. Tesla ought to understand this can create unreasonable expectations, because we’re all human.
Both sides had ideal responsibilities that they didn’t fulfill. Ideally, OP should have let Tesla know right away that he didn’t order EAP and that it would be ok if they disabled it, and not used the feature thereafter. But it’s also Tesla’s responsibility to ensure that this situation would never come up. A purchase should be transparent, and the sticker should reflect reality (and it might even be illegal that it doesn’t).
There’s also the problem of scale: it’s one thing to realize you got $0.39 in change more; it’s another when it’s $10,000 in your favor at the bank. And in terms of monetary value, this is far closer to the latter. But then this isn’t about wheels, or brakes, or something physical; this is about a software switch for capabilities already present. For Tesla, it’s a sunk cost.
To use the Reddit terminology: ESH (everyone sucks here). OP should have let them know they gave him more than he paid for and not used EAP so much he became dependent on it. But the best thing Tesla should have done, given the sticker description, the length of the “trial,” and it’s safety consequences, is cut him some slack. It’s probably a bridge too far to just give him an expensive feature for free, especially with their thin margins. But they shouldn’t have turned it off without warning. And the best service would give him a reduced price at least for the trouble and confusion. They probably don’t have to legally or technically. But it’d be better service wise and even morally if they did.
Fascinating case. I hope it all gets resolved well, OP.