I'm a dealer and Tesla removed my car's FSD

[AMPd]

This is not correct. The only way a vehicle "loses FSD" is if Tesla regains possession and decides to remove it.

If a vehicle is traded into any other dealer, FSD will transfer to the next buyer.

Maybe this whole policy backfires on Tesla. Now so many people are confused and think FSD is difficult to transfer and has very little resale value.

The problem is sometimes, and we’ve seen it here before, Tesla doesn’t do it right away. So it’s sold to a dealer with FSD and dealer sells it to a customer with FSD and then later it’s removed during an “audit”

 

[50amp]

Right, and if someone did that it would be fraud, and you'd be within rights to refuse payment and delivery.

But if someone buys a trade-in car with red paint, but it's chipped or whatever and they repaint it white before selling (maybe the red paint is on backorder, whatever), that's 100% perfectly OK. The fact that the car was "originally" red doesn't matter, they told you they were selling you a white car and you got a white car, you don't get to cite some other source about the original configuration as fraud.

What Tesla is doing is the latter, not the former. Because if they were doing the former, people would be successfully suing them for $10k on every one of these transactions.

You seem to be suggesting that after final inspection and the sale Tesla could remove the drive train and the purchaser is at fault. The purchaser agreed to buy a red car, he was sold a red car, when he goes to pick it up it's a white car. I would argue that is not "as is".

 

[Tam]

You seem to be suggesting that after final inspection and the sale Tesla could remove the drive train and the purchaser is at fault. The purchaser agreed to buy a red car, he was sold a red car, when he goes to pick it up it's a white car. I would argue that is not "as is".

I would argue that there are exceptions to the principle of visual appearance to be considered "as is" if there's documentation to serve as a small print, footnote, or full disclosure.

For example, the listing has a picture of an expensive Cell Phone with its cheap phone case, and the description "as is" is the phone not included, you are buying the phone case, not the Cell Phone.

Although that is a deceptive "as is" picture, the description is a legal loophole to sell something that not 100% "as is" in the picture.

Similarly, they can show a red car and deliver a white one as long as there's a footnote saying that "Notice, the picture is generic and buyers should not rely on its paint color".

Thus, in this auction case, in the absence of a footnote to serve as an "as is" legal loophole, what we see is what we should get!

 

[50amp]

I would argue that there are exceptions to the principle of visual appearance to be considered "as is" if there's documentation to serve as a small print, footnote, or full disclosure.

For example, the listing has a picture of an expensive Cell Phone with its cheap phone case, and the description "as is" is the phone not included, you are buying the phone case, not the Cell Phone.

Although that is a deceptive "as is" picture, the description is a legal loophole to sell something that not 100% "as is" in the picture.

Similarly, they can show a red car and deliver a white one as long as there's a footnote saying that "Notice, the picture is generic and buyers should not rely on its paint color".

Thus, in this auction case, in the absence of a footnote to serve as an "as is" legal loophole, what we see is what we should get!

The OP says the exact vehicle was offered for sale and then previewed it with FSD. As a follow up I ask what parts are Tesla not allowed to remove after a vehicle is offered and presented for sale?

 

[Tam]

...As a follow up I ask what parts are Tesla not allowed to remove after a vehicle is offered and presented for sale?

If it is a physical property, Tesla has to go through a normal channel of legal procedure to get it back

If optional expensive fancy wheels were not paid, Tesla just cannot climb the residential wall, walk through the yard, then break into a home garage to repossess those wheels.

It has to go to court. The current owner will be properly served. The court will decide who's right. And if Tesla is right and the owner refuses to surrender the wheels, Tesla has to get a warrant to enter the residence to get them.

However, these very expensive features are software that can be turned on or off over the air. Tesla takes the advantage of non-physical properties to bypass the current repossession law. I don't think that's right but Tesla has been doing it with no legal consequences.

 

[Webeevdrivers]

Note to dealers. Walk away from any Tesla that has been repurchased by Tesla and then resold. Or count on and pay accordingly that it has been electronically stripped of any software upgrades.

I don’t have a problem with this practice by Tesla, but the execution kinda sucks.

 

[50amp]

If it is a physical property, Tesla has to go through a normal channel of legal procedure to get it back

If optional expensive fancy wheels were not paid, Tesla just cannot climb the residential wall, walk through the yard, then break into a home garage to repossess those wheels.

It has to go to court. The current owner will be properly served. The court will decide who's right. And if Tesla is right and the owner refuses to surrender the wheels, Tesla has to get a warrant to enter the residence to get them.

However, these very expensive features are software that can be turned on or off over the air. Tesla takes the advantage of non-physical properties to bypass the current repossession law. I don't think that's right but Tesla has been doing it with no legal consequences.

Thanks for the response.

"as is" to me would mean if the vehicle is presented with FSD installed then it should be sold that way. The FSD maybe in-op (as is), but still part of the vehicle.

I am old and still have a little trouble not holding my music in my hand .

 

[stopcrazypp]

Then you need to get a lawyer and sue them. If this is correct, that's a clear contract violation and you have an obvious case. Complaining to sympathetic ears on the internet isn't going to get you your money back, but this will.

But again, I very strongly suspect that the truth is the contract you signed listed the car configuration correctly and you just missed it.

I'm interested if this is the case also. The last dealer auction story we heard we never got those details. What we only know is the end user was promised FSD by the dealer, and it was removed before it got to that end user. What we never got was the details on what did the auction paperwork actually say? Did the auction paperwork say FSD was included, excluded, or was it not mentioned? Can @Gu$ G perhaps let us know the working in the paperwork? Or if that can't be disclosed due to a legal suit, we understand too.

Seeing the software in the car while it was being showcased or in pictures from before the auction or on a Moroney sticker really doesn't mean much, as we know that Tesla has a practice of removing FSD from their auction cars once ownership changes hands. The interesting side is what the paperwork actually says.

 

[stopcrazypp]

The problem is sometimes, and we’ve seen it here before, Tesla doesn’t do it right away. So it’s sold to a dealer with FSD and dealer sells it to a customer with FSD and then later it’s removed during an “audit”

Note I don't believe there was ever this case. Even in the case that exploded in the media and reddit (where Tesla added the feature back under public pressure), the feature was removed before the customer took ownership of the car. The car was bought at auction by the dealer November 15, the feature was removed November 18, the car was not sold to the customer until December 20. So the feature was long removed already when the end customer bought the car.

Tesla seems to be stripping software features when cars are resold

Basically Tesla removes FSD/EAP from auction cars shortly after it changes ownership. Probably what would "solve" this problem is if they do it before it goes to auction.

But anyways, we never really got a good look at what the auction paperwork actually said the car includes in terms of features. The OP here may be able to give us some insight on this.

 

[Gu$ G]

I won't get into the specifics of what my "paperwork" said to help avoid saying something wrong if I do decide to pursue legal recourse.

My arbitration claim was denied despite a pretty significant effort on my part. Manheim auto auction claims they are not responsible. They see FSD as a subscription service similar to Sirius XM.

In general, the listing/ad/paperwork doesn't have a default mechanism to list FSD. It does have adaptive cruise control, as an example. So, to a previous dealer's point, Manheim can claim they didn't offer the car with FSD.

I agree with the prevailing theme here. Tesla can remove this feature if they own the used car, but they are doing this is a terrible and misleading way. The right way to execute this would be to remove the feature before the car is presented for sale. Dealer's trust what they see in person and in Manheim condition reports. The majority of cars are night sight unseen. Tesla is taking advantage of this fact. This being a software feature is a giant loophole that helps them get away with it.

 

[linux-works]

seems that only a huge lawsuit AGAINST TESLA will change tesla's view on this.

I hope it happens, too. sorry for all you tesla stock owners, but sometimes punishment is the only way to teach children how to act in a proper society.

once tesla learns their lesson (and I predict it will happen, someday) - we'll all be better off for it. like the child who behaves better for learning his lesson. its how society matures, over time.

tesla is still a spoiled child and has a lot of emotional growing left to do before its a full adult. so to speak.

 

[Maxpilot]

My biggest gripe with Tesla Autopilot and the like is it seems they have been coded by someone who isn't a good driver. Basic assumptions about road shapes and maneuvers etc. are not those of an experienced driver. It lacks think ahead and consistency logic (a posteriori prioritization of upcoming scenarios consistent with the past).

A little FSD ranting...

Autopilot/FSD drives like a drunk. Doesn't the programmers know that (at least in the US) highway lanes are 12 ft wide? Many times when I pass the end of an on-ramp, my car will try to move to the right to "center" itself in what it thinks is a new 24 ft wide lane. Progammers... program the car to center itself 6 ft from the lane line on the driver side, or obstacle. Make smooth lane changes. Start slowing down sooner for traffic lights or stop signs instead of driving full speed and then slamming on the brakes.

I am very disappointed in FSD. I wish I had never bought it. I figure that having FSD will increase the value of my car in a future trade... but maybe not?

 

[linux-works]

I'm probably not the majority view, here, on this; but I will never pay for FSD on a used car. too much worry that tesla will 'tesla', if you get my meaning.

$10k value is a lot to bet on a company that acts (sometimes) like a thief in the night.

until there is a legal statement that tesla keeps its hands OFF owner's property - I see zero value in used FSD (or new FSD, for that matter).

tesla can't remove my wheels, but they can mess with 'paid sw features' and that's just not something I care to be a part of.

again - the only way to make people like me feel ok about software paid options is to burn the license into one-time-programmable secure flash, so that once you bought it, it TRULY ALWAYS stays with the car. at that point, then you can trust the $10k value (if you believe it has $10k of value..) will be there for the next guy, etc.

I think you guys are insane to trust $10k on tesla's company ethics. they basically have none and will steal you blind if/when they can.

again, I like my car but I hate the hell out of this company.

 

[PDX-Y]

I will never pay for FSD on a used car. too much worry that tesla will 'tesla', if you get my meaning.

This was an auction sale, not a used car sale to a consumer. No one has ever had FSD removed from a vehicle they own. The level of straight up misinformation no this subject is just shocking. People just interpret what they want to believe.

 

[S4WRXTTCS]

This was an auction sale, not a used car sale to a consumer. No one has ever had FSD removed from a vehicle they own. The level of straight up misinformation no this subject is just shocking. People just interpret what they want to believe.

I see both misinformation on what's actually happening, and a complete denial of how ridiculous Tesla is being.

FSD is advertised as a feature that stays with the car, and that's why you can't get a refund for it.

The auction house needs to establish better rules for this because long term its going to damage their business. If the OP had heard of previous auction nightmares with Tesla vehicles they wouldn't have bothered with it.

The problem is only going to get worse as more, and more SW enabled features are enabled on cars. The auction house doesn't seem to have any clear indication of what SW enabled features come with the car. Instead they seem to be stuck in last decade.

 

[juliusa]

Seems the FSD subscription was valid until the sale occurred. Since the subscription is non-transferable, it was cancelled upon sale.

 

[rxlawdude]

That might be an effective way to change Tesla's behavior.

I am with the victim of this case in buying and seeing an "as is" transaction. If I see a red car "as is" and paid for it with the condition of "as is", I should not be forced to pick up a white car just because someone played an expensive prank and painted it to transform it from red to white. That's no longer "as is": It becomes what you see is not what you get.

This^

 

[rxlawdude]

Seems the FSD subscription was valid until the sale occurred. Since the subscription is non-transferable, it was cancelled upon sale.

Yes, but that's deceptive. Look up what "AS-IS" means in a contract purchase.

The only countervailing argument is that Tesla owned the vehicle through the auction process, and they have the right to disable software features while in their possession.

The issue is, what did the buyer agree to purchase in the contract?

 

[juliusa]

Yes, but that's deceptive. Look up what "AS-IS" means in a contract purchase.

Agree. Subscription should have ended when ownership transferred to Tesla.

 

[rxlawdude]

If it is a physical property, Tesla has to go through a normal channel of legal procedure to get it back

If optional expensive fancy wheels were not paid, Tesla just cannot climb the residential wall, walk through the yard, then break into a home garage to repossess those wheels.

It has to go to court. The current owner will be properly served. The court will decide who's right. And if Tesla is right and the owner refuses to surrender the wheels, Tesla has to get a warrant to enter the residence to get them.

However, these very expensive features are software that can be turned on or off over the air. Tesla takes the advantage of non-physical properties to bypass the current repossession law. I don't think that's right but Tesla has been doing it with no legal consequences.

Small Claims Court, for the limit in that particular state. (CA it's $10K, conveniently enough.)

But, I'd love to see your de-identified purchase contract from the auction, as well as any marketing materials presented during the auction.