If Tesla Disables Features You're Using...

[Sylvia Else]

After a consideration of the limitations of litigating before the Civil and Adminstrative Tribunal, I've decided to try going through NSW Fair Trading instead. What follows is a draft of my submission. I invite comments. If anyone wants to use all or part of this in their own complaint to a consumer protection agency, please feel free to do so.

------------
When I ordered the Powerwall system, I was aware that it would need to be connected to the Internet in order for its associated smartphone ap to work. I did not know that its firmware could be upgraded over the internet, though I was aware that this was frequently the case for Internet connected systems.

When the system was installed, I became aware that its firmware could be updated over the Internet, but I still did not know that Tesla has the technical ability to this without my knowledge or consent. I only learned this sometime later.

There is a warranty associated with the product, which states "By installing your Powerwall and connecting it to the Internet, you consent to Tesla updating your Powerwall through these remote upgrades from time to time, without further notice to you." I had read some of the warranty before placing the order, but only as far as seeing what guarantees were offered. I had not read the above statement. In any case, I do not believe that a manufacturer can acquire the right to modify a product after sale without the express consent of the owner merely by an assertion in some document that does not form part of the contract of sale that some action by the owner will create that right.

At most Tesla can make it a condition of the express warranty that they be permitted to make such upgrades, but until and unless the owner gives express consent, it is my view that they have no right to make changes to the product once it is owned by the purchaser

When the Powerwall was delivered, it supported a web interface that could be used to change the reserve level below which the Powerwall would not discharge in the absence of a grid outage, with the change having immediate effect. Tesla have used their ability to modify the Powerwall in a way that prevents the change having immediate effect unless the previous change occurred a significant period earlier. Since this cannot be characterised as an "upgrade" the change does not even fall within the scope of the consent that Tesla claim is created by connecting the Powerwall to the Internet.

The significance of the change is that with the original firmware, I could use software to make second-by-second decisions on whether the Powerwall should discharge or not, and to some limited degree, whether it should charge itself from the grid. With the changed firmware, this no longer works because some changes to the reserve level do not take effect.

Tesla's advertised way of achieving limited control over the Powerwall is by means of an ap, but this functionality only exists if the Powerwall has access to the Internet. There is no way of using the ap while technically preventing Tesla from updating the firmware.

While the web interface functionality was not advertised in the marketing of the product, it was nevertheless present when it was delivered, and Tesla have limited it since. Though they deny having changed it in the way I claim, I contend that Tesla have done this for the specific purpose of preventing owners from controlling their Powerwalls in this way, and that it was not done for any valid technical reason. I further contend that using their access in this way was a trespass on chattel and unconscionable conduct.

I have asked that the earlier firmware be reinstalled on my Powerwall. Tesla have not responded to that request.

 

[power.saver]

Sylvia,

I've been following your posts, and all I can say is WOW. This is clearly an issue that feel very strongly about, as you should since it affects the way you use the product.

But in the second to last paragraph, you say "I contend that Tesla have done this for the specific purpose of preventing owners from controlling their Powerwalls in this way, and that it was not done for any valid technical reason." How do you know for sure there isn't a technically valid reason?

For example, it is possible that frequent changes to the reserve level, made in a manner that constantly changes the mode from charging to discharging and back again, could somehow reduce the life of the batteries or the inverter itself? While I don't know at all how the inner workings are designed, it seems that there may be a technical reason that they have yet to disclose, or may never disclose.

In the States, it would be very hard to prove that, because they could just counter that there is a reason but we won't divulge it because it is proprietary and/or a trade secret.

Now I think that they should be much more open with users on what we can and cannot do, including documenting whatever API calls they have and allow users to see this for their own benefit, including both control and monitoring.

I wonder if another approach to get them to provide this information would be more successful than installing earlier firmware? I would guess they don't want to support earlier versions, and may not even honor the warranty if the firmware is not current.

Sean

 

[Sylvia Else]

But in the second to last paragraph, you say "I contend that Tesla have done this for the specific purpose of preventing owners from controlling their Powerwalls in this way, and that it was not done for any valid technical reason." How do you know for sure there isn't a technically valid reason?

For example, it is possible that frequent changes to the reserve level, made in a manner that constantly changes the mode from charging to discharging and back again, could somehow reduce the life of the batteries or the inverter itself? While I don't know at all how the inner workings are designed, it seems that there may be a technical reason that they have yet to disclose, or may never disclose.

Sean

Well, of course I don't know absolutely for sure that there's no valid technical reason, but I'm extremely sceptical.

I find that it often cycles quickly and repeatedly between charging and discharging anyway. It does this whenever there's an appliance operating that frequently changes the load it represents, such that the total household load varies from below the solar power output to above the solar power output. When it's below, the battery is charging. When it is above, the battery is discharging. I have a cheap thermostatically controlled oven that does this about twice a minute. My washing machine also does it because its wash cycle involves moving the clothes for a bit, and then sitting still for a bit, repeatedly.

So if their argument was that the much less frequent changes to the reserve level could damage it, they'd have to explain how my ordinary use, which I suspect is not at all unusual, does not.

Turning the inverter and charger on and off, even quite frequently, is thus a normal part of the function. If changes to the reserve somehow manage to have a detrimental effect despite that, they could reasonably be expected to change the firmware so that the detrimental affect does not occur, rather than disabling the feature.

If this ended up in court, the court would not just take their word for it. There would have to be a witness giving evidence, and that witness would be subject to cross-examination. Faced with questions relating to the above, the witness would have to answer, and courts are perfectly capable of recognising when a witness is being evasive.

I have submitted my complaint to NSW Fair Trading. I'll keep the forum advised of progress.

 

[smithy]

I'm at a loss as to why you originally purchased a PW2. What did you assume/want it to do, and what advertised features are no longer available that were the reason you purchased it? When I purchased mine over 12 months ago, I don't recall Tesla ever saying they would enable you to control charging/discharging through a third party means, or enable direct web access to the PW2. In fact the only options you originally had was either self consumption or backup, and from memory that is all they advertised (TOU was later added in an update). Sure, they have updated firmware constantly since it was first installed, but I can't imagine anyone seriously arguing this is a bad thing, as it has added additional functionality, not to mention firmware fixes/mods that we are unaware of but no doubt improve the performance of the Pw2 based on ongoing monitoring and software development. If I was Tesla I would just give you your money back and remove the PW2, but I'm guessing you don't really want that...

 

[cwied]

I think one point over which I would fault Tesla is the frustrating one-hour update cycle for configuration changes of the Powerwall. This is not at all obvious until you actually use it. If the Powerwalls picked up the app changes in real-time, I would not be as concerned about the local API at all. The main advantage of the local API is the ability to change configuration more quickly (which is helpful for demand-reduction programs).

 

[Sylvia Else]

I'm at a loss as to why you originally purchased a PW2. What did you assume/want it to do, and what advertised features are no longer available that were the reason you purchased it?

The simple answer to that is that it was bought to be a backup system, because the Australian governments, both Commonwealth and state, had demonstrated considerable incompetence when it comes to ensuring that the lights and airconditioning will stay on.

After the purchase, I found that there was the ability to control it from its local interface, and calculations indicated that it would be worthwhile cycling it in conjunction with a suitable electricity tariff. Steps were taken.

It's not at all unusual to discover after one buys a product, that it can be used in a way one didn't originally envisage, and that using it that way is something one decides to do.

What is unusual is for a manufacturer to be able to change the product after it has been sold so that the way of using it that one discovered disappears. Once one buys a product, one owns it, and no one else is entitled to change it without consent. In this case, that includes Tesla, who never asked whether I was willing for them to change it. They just went ahead and did it.

 

[Sylvia Else]

I think one point over which I would fault Tesla is the frustrating one-hour update cycle for configuration changes of the Powerwall. This is not at all obvious until you actually use it. If the Powerwalls picked up the app changes in real-time, I would not be as concerned about the local API at all. The main advantage of the local API is the ability to change configuration more quickly (which is helpful for demand-reduction programs).

Their advertising blurb "Seamlessly monitor and automatically manage your Powerwall, solar panels, Model S or X anytime, anywhere with the Tesla App." is at best misleading. One may ask in what sense one's managing it anytime if the effects are not immediate. They should have said "At anytime, anywhere, specify changes to the management of your Powerwall that we'll apply later in our own good time."

 

[smithy]

What is unusual is for a manufacturer to be able to change the product after it has been sold so that the way of using it that one discovered disappears. Once one buys a product, one owns it, and no one else is entitled to change it without consent. In this case, that includes Tesla, who never asked whether I was willing for them to change it. They just went ahead and did it.

That's not actually true. Software companies do it all the time - think Windows, Adobe etc. Features get added, others changed (I know from experience with Excel which I use in my business every day...changes are made such that features that were there previously are changed and it doesn't work in the same way). The software in your car's engine management system is often upgraded at a service and you know nothing about it. Likewise phone apps. Pretty much anything software based these days.

Their advertising blurb isn't misleading. You can monitor and automatically manage all those devices anywhere, anytime, but they are not giving you any guarantee that a change made will be instantaneous.

I can understand you are annoyed at (possibly) no longer being able to use a "feature" that perhaps Tesla never intended to offer (and never promoted it as a feature), but you have admitted that you didn't purchase the product on the basis of this "feature" but discovered it after you purchased. Therefore you were not mislead by Tesla when you made the purchase. I think you are wasting your time and are actually on very thin ice.

 

[pv135]

There are still avenues to use the server API even if the local API is blocked. That is more likely to stay working since it's mission critical for them. Honestly I don't understand their thinking behind limiting updates to be hourly, though.

I'm experimenting to see how well I can control the Powerwall through frequent changes of the time-based control settings. If it works well enough manually, I might try to automate it.

Hi, I have local api control working very well for me, lucky enough to be still on 1.15.1 so for the meantime I'm not calling Tesla about anything and am considering disconnecting access to the thing until we can have some logical answers.
From what you all are reporting I'm anticipating worse case alternate is using the public api and just factoring in the hour delay with the changes, not ideal but better than what it looks like is going to happen at least in the short term.

I am looking at the public api as well, I can retrieve a token and using the /products call read the soc so far which is a start but can't find much further documentation about other calls, such as home, solar, grid, powerwall instantaneous & cumulative values as well as history retrieval. I also find I need a new token each time I retrieve soc, using a previous token just gives the old data, which i don't think is right.

Do you know of a site that gives details of all the known calls possible on the public api?

Many thanks

 

[Sylvia Else]

Hi, I have local api control working very well for me, lucky enough to be still on 1.15.1 so for the meantime I'm not calling Tesla about anything and am considering disconnecting access to the thing until we can have some logical answers.
From what you all are reporting I'm anticipating worse case alternate is using the public api and just factoring in the hour delay with the changes, not ideal but better than what it looks like is going to happen at least in the short term.
Many thanks

I think disabling Internet access is a good idea in the short term.

The difficulty with using the api of the ap is that the time from making the change in the ap to the change appearing in the Powerwall is not fixed.

It's not really a public api either, and there's nothing to stop Tesla from changing it - they merely have to provide updates to the ap to go with the changes. Each time they do, someone has to patch the ap so that a man-in-the-middle attack can be implented so as to discover what the changed api is. While Tesla cannot make that impossible, they can certainly make it difficult, to the extent that there may be longer and longer periods between the changes to the api and someone publishing details.

 

[Sylvia Else]

That's not actually true. Software companies do it all the time - think Windows, Adobe etc. Features get added, others changed (I know from experience with Excel which I use in my business every day...changes are made such that features that were there previously are changed and it doesn't work in the same way). The software in your car's engine management system is often upgraded at a service and you know nothing about it. Likewise phone apps. Pretty much anything software based these days.

Car manufacturers would start to have considerable trouble if they made changes that altered the functionality of the car in a way visible to owners, and at least when one hands one's car over to a dealer for service, one is authorising the dealer to do things to the car. If the dealer started coming round to your house, and doing things to your car without your consent, they'd certainly be breaking the law, regardless of whether they thought they had a good reason.

With software, changes are not usually forced on you. Even ap automatic updating can be disabled, at least under Android. You have the option of forgoing upgrades in exchange for having a stable behaviour. Granted, doing that with an ap may ultimately lead to it's not working to the extent that it needs to communicate with a remote server, but if the ap is doing something purely local, then it will continue to work the way it did indefinitely.

In any case, software tends to come with licence conditions, which modify the situation somewhat. Whether one really needs to accept the licence conditions when one installs software that one has bought is something of an open question. Usually, the software provider offers to refund the purchase price if one chooses not to accept the licence conditions, so this issue does not get tested in the courts.

To be clear on this, I do NOT need a licence to use the firmware on my Powerwall. Indeed, I'm not aware that Tesla have made any attempt to imply that I do.

So the situation remains that the Powewall is mine, and Tesla should not be changing it in any way without getting my express consent first.

 

[smithy]

Car manufacturers would start to have considerable trouble if they made changes that altered the functionality of the car in a way visible to owners

But the functionality you are referring to with the Powerwall isn't visible to owners either unless you start "hacking" with external code. Tesla provide you with an App to access Powerwall functionality. They do not provide you with a web interface or API to talk directly with the Powerwall, and there is no legal basis for them to have to do this. I have no problem with people accessing the powerwall through their own third party means (if possible), but to attack Tesla because you can no longer use what wasn't a feature of the product is ridiculous. And Tesla do not need to give you access to the software within your Powerwall, period. Tesla's changes to the software do not change in any way the basis upon which the product was sold to you (and for which you purchased it). The Powerwall still performs exactly the same as when you purchased it, and in fact adds additional functionality with time of use.

Maybe you also need to read this clause in the warranty:
"In order to provide this Warranty for the full ten year warranty period, Tesla requires the ability to update your Powerwall through remote firmware upgrades. Installation of these remote upgrades may interrupt the operation of your Powerwall for a short period. By installing your Powerwall and connecting it to the internet, you consent to Tesla updating your Powerwall through these remote upgrades from time to time, without further notice to you"

Seems pretty clear to me.

 

[Sylvia Else]

Maybe you also need to read this clause in the warranty:
"In order to provide this Warranty for the full ten year warranty period, Tesla requires the ability to update your Powerwall through remote firmware upgrades. Installation of these remote upgrades may interrupt the operation of your Powerwall for a short period. By installing your Powerwall and connecting it to the internet, you consent to Tesla updating your Powerwall through these remote upgrades from time to time, without further notice to you"

Seems pretty clear to me.

They can't assume I want the warranty, and they certainly can't make a unilateral declaration that some action on my part gives them the authority to make changes. "If you drink a cup of coffee today, you give me permission to enter your home and mess with your belongings".

Without an Internet connection, I can't even use the ap, so at the moment, they're saying that to make use of the advertised method of control, I have to accept that they can make any changes they like.

This doesn't even approach being reasonable.

 

[smithy]

Oh come on. This is just ridiculous. Now you don't want the warranty?? Why don't you just admit that you are peeved that you can't use something that was actually never offered?

 

[cwied]

Do you know of a site that gives details of all the known calls possible on the public api?

As far as I can tell, no one has done the work to reverse engineer the Powerwall API yet. The android APK contains the code to talk to the Powerwall API, though, so that can be used to find the endpoints (and parameters, with a little work). I assume you found the documentation for the rest of the API at Tesla Model S JSON API · Apiary, right?

 

[Sylvia Else]

As far as I can tell, no one has done the work to reverse engineer the Powerwall API yet

The powerwall's API for the earlier firmware is documented here vloschiavo/powerwall2. Firmware 1.20.0 switches over to using https. Firmware 1.21.0 changes at least one field name.

 

[cwied]

The powerwall's API for the earlier firmware is documented here vloschiavo/powerwall2. Firmware 1.20.0 switches over to using https. Firmware 1.21.0 changes at least one field name.

I'm talking about the Powerwall API on Tesla's servers, not the local API. The local API is just the one used by the setup wizard and is quite easy to reverse-engineer. I have my own scripts working using this API to allow IFTTT automation of configuration changes. The drawback is that you can't set TOU mode using the setup wizard, so the local API doesn't support it either. Using the server API would allow controlling TOU schedules and settings, potentially allowing more control over the Powerwall's behavior.

 

[pv135]

As far as I can tell, no one has done the work to reverse engineer the Powerwall API yet. The android APK contains the code to talk to the Powerwall API, though, so that can be used to find the endpoints (and parameters, with a little work). I assume you found the documentation for the rest of the API at Tesla Model S JSON API · Apiary, right?

yes I saw that documentation, it was very helpful to get this far, beyond that it seems I run out of talent at this point, thanks very much for the info

 

[pv135]

I think disabling Internet access is a good idea in the short term.

The difficulty with using the api of the ap is that the time from making the change in the ap to the change appearing in the Powerwall is not fixed.

It's not really a public api either, and there's nothing to stop Tesla from changing it - they merely have to provide updates to the ap to go with the changes. Each time they do, someone has to patch the ap so that a man-in-the-middle attack can be implented so as to discover what the changed api is. While Tesla cannot make that impossible, they can certainly make it difficult, to the extent that there may be longer and longer periods between the changes to the api and someone publishing details.

an up to 1hr delay whilst not ideal would be enough, and yes as this owner api isn't supported Im not sure how much more time i'd bother with it

 

[BJReplay]

I actually think this is simpler - they advertised it with support for TOU and control, and they have not delivered (Tesla Powerwall): "Supported Applications Solar self-consumption Time of use load shifting Backup Off grid". The current functionality of TBC (charge from off peak, lose 15% in round trip losses, and discharge into off peak) would not pass the reasonable person test for their expectation of Time of use load shifting.

Similarly, their current claims are "Seamlessly monitor and automatically manage your Powerwall... anytime, anywhere with the Tesla App." That is "anytime", subject to arbitrary delays imposed by Tesla up to two hours.

Their advertising is "Warranty 10 years". No *, no subject to allowing us to change or remove features.

In Australia, thanks to the ACL, game over for Tesla. It may not even matter if you signed a contract that contradicted the advertising if you purchased it based on the advertising and the contract that contradicted the advertising was insufficiently clear that a feature that was advertised was not available (and the contract is insufficiently clear).

Silvia, I, and others, have worked around the fact that it doesn't operate as advertised having discovered, with little effort, that we can a) not only make it operate as advertised, but b) do so in such a way that we reduce throughput on the battery and increase the value of the purchase.

The arguments that if they don't specifically list every feature, they can take away a feature that existed when the customer took title simply don't hold up, and are muddied thinking based on software warranties. What software warranties do - that the Tesla warranty doesn't - is explicitly exclude any feature that is not documented from any warranty express or implied, and explicitly state that undocumented features can be changed or removed at any time.