Magnuson Moss Warranty act

[SkiTrak]

Tesla is denying to fix a problem with my car because 6 years ago MIT installed some hardware in my car to monitor driver in self driving car. The study that was being done by Lex Freedman worked with Tesla to design the hardware interface to the car. Here are the details:

Lats year my car was upgraded with the new cameras required for FSD. AT first they refused to calibrate and I was told it was because of bad connectors to the cameras. After a coupe of service visits the problem was corrected. Then right after they calibrated i started getting massages that disabled FSD. The message was that the Left Front Camera was occluded. I brought it back to service and they said because it was intermittent that they needed me to wait until it happened more times and they could get more data on the problem. I brought it back recently because it was still occurring and I was told that they could see the issue in the logs and they tried to diagnose it, They were unable but noticed the MIT connection to the diagnostic port. They said that was most likely the problem but even it wasn't they recommended I remove the cable and see if the problem went away, They charged me for the service call and I did not dispute the charge because if they were correct then it was ok with me for the charge, I removed the MIT hardware and drive the car several times including a trip that was about 3,000 miles, The problem continued to happen. So I brought the car back to the original service center where I had the cameras upgraded and previous attempts to fix the problem. They told me that I would be charged $600 to attempt to diagnose the problem with no guarantees they could find the problem without it costing me additional diagnosis time. I asked them why since they created the problem by upgrading the cameras since it never happened before. They told me that when MIT installed the hardware many years before this problem that it had voided my warranty and pointed to their warranty document that says any modifications to the car voids the warranty.

I was aware that manufacturers of cars are not allowed to void a warranty because of work being done or parts being used by 3rd parties unless they can prove it caused the issue.

From what I have read this is trick that car manufacturers have been using for years to refuse to make repairs to cars under warranty if they discover that either service or parts were used to repair, maintain or upgrade a car. I have show the Service Center several links on the Magnuson-Moss warranty act and I am waiting for their response.

So much for Tesla being a different kind of car company as they behave more and more like legacy car manufacturers

 

[jjrandorin]

I was aware that manufacturers of cars are not allowed to void a warranty because of work being done or parts being used by 3rd parties unless they can prove it caused the issue.

From what I have read this is trick that car manufacturers have been using for years to refuse to make repairs to cars under warranty if they discover that either service or parts were used to repair, maintain or upgrade a car. I have show the Service Center several links on the Magnuson-Moss warranty act and I am waiting for their response.

I suggest you check again about magnusson moss. People love to point to that, but it only applies in the case of installing 3rd party items that meet the same specifications / perform the same function as the OEM part. Think getting a different brand of tire than the OEM tire, but one that is Both the same Size as, and also meets the speed and load ratings as, the OEM tire.

Note that a different size tire than OEM, or different load rating, would not be protected under magnusson moss.

Since there is no such thing as "OEM equivalent" for 'MIT hardware installed to monitor self driving", Tesla likely does not have to prove this device / software caused the issue, just that it was installed in the first place and interacted with the car.

Magnusson moss would protect you in this case from claims about stuff not connected to the self driving hardware, like perhaps an issue with the motor in your seats, the battery, or motor, etc, but "I have an issue with cameras / sensors for self driving" coupled with "I installed this aftermarket device that interacts with self driving" seems to be something that tesla can (and would) deny.

Since you appear to be complaining about Issues with the self driving software / hardware, and had an aftermarket device that does not have any sort of OEM equivalent connected, I am fairly certain that magnusson moss does not apply. I am not a lawyer though, but people always paraphrase magnusson moss as if it gives them carte blanche to install or have installed any sort of 3rd party thing, with impunity, and it doesnt.

 

[SabrToothSqrl]

I would love to blame tesla as well here, but I'm going to have to shift that to MIT.
But I'm sure you had to sign something that said tough crap if MIT breaks something.

I would try to politely work something out with MIT to cover any costs, and take it as a hard lesson learned.

 

[ATPMSD]

Tesla is denying to fix a problem with my car because 6 years ago

Pretty sure Magnuson only applies to the warranty, I assume your car is out of warranty and so the act work not apply.

​

 

[Sam1]

Tesla is denying to fix a problem with my car because 6 years ago MIT installed some hardware in my car to monitor driver in self driving car. The study that was being done by Lex Freedman worked with Tesla to design the hardware interface to the car. Here are the details:

Lats year my car was upgraded with the new cameras required for FSD. AT first they refused to calibrate and I was told it was because of bad connectors to the cameras. After a coupe of service visits the problem was corrected. Then right after they calibrated i started getting massages that disabled FSD. The message was that the Left Front Camera was occluded. I brought it back to service and they said because it was intermittent that they needed me to wait until it happened more times and they could get more data on the problem. I brought it back recently because it was still occurring and I was told that they could see the issue in the logs and they tried to diagnose it, They were unable but noticed the MIT connection to the diagnostic port. They said that was most likely the problem but even it wasn't they recommended I remove the cable and see if the problem went away, They charged me for the service call and I did not dispute the charge because if they were correct then it was ok with me for the charge, I removed the MIT hardware and drive the car several times including a trip that was about 3,000 miles, The problem continued to happen. So I brought the car back to the original service center where I had the cameras upgraded and previous attempts to fix the problem. They told me that I would be charged $600 to attempt to diagnose the problem with no guarantees they could find the problem without it costing me additional diagnosis time. I asked them why since they created the problem by upgrading the cameras since it never happened before. They told me that when MIT installed the hardware many years before this problem that it had voided my warranty and pointed to their warranty document that says any modifications to the car voids the warranty.

I was aware that manufacturers of cars are not allowed to void a warranty because of work being done or parts being used by 3rd parties unless they can prove it caused the issue.

From what I have read this is trick that car manufacturers have been using for years to refuse to make repairs to cars under warranty if they discover that either service or parts were used to repair, maintain or upgrade a car. I have show the Service Center several links on the Magnuson-Moss warranty act and I am waiting for their response.

So much for Tesla being a different kind of car company as they behave more and more like legacy car manufacturers

A $600 maintenance fee is pretty cheap for something you've owned for 6+ years.