Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

MASTER THREAD: FSD Subscription Available 16 Jul 2021

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Tesla never said that the FSD in "all hardware" is the "pre 2019. non subscription FSD." They just listed a feature, which is FSD. Maybe Tesla shouldn't call them the exact same thing if they are totally different.

Can you please show me the license agreement for FSD pre 2019, FSD post 2019, and FSD subscription, if it's so clear they are different products and confer different obligations?

Again, the issue here is that it is 100% clear the car does not have the HW to do FSD. That has been clear for years. But there were no damages due to Tesla's incorrect advertising. Now there are.
But they ARE different. In one case you're buying a capability full up forever, in the other you're leasing a service on a temporary month to month basis. If you buy ownership of the capability, they'll include the hardware update free as part of the purchase price. If you're leasing the service, you need to be capable of using the service you're leasing.

When you bought your car they told you you could BUY (not lease) FSD, and if you did, they'd do any necessary hardware updates. That offer still stands. You have zero standing with respect to any subsequent product they offer.

Suppose at the time you bought your car there was no lease option (for all I know, maybe there wasn't.) If they came out with a lease option the next year would you say your'e entitled to convert your purchase into a lease? The answer is 'no', you'd have no standing under any subsequent lease offering. If they dropped the price of the car the year after you bought it would you claim you're entitled to a refund? The answer is 'no' because you'd have no standing under any subsequent offer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Knightshade
One specifically says a HW upgrade is required.
In 2021, two products exist named "Full Self Driving Capability." One requires a hardware upgrade, even though in 2018 "All Tesla vehicles produced in our factory, including Model 3, have the hardware needed for full self-driving capability at a safety level substantially greater than that of a human driver."

Tesla does not get to re-define in 2021 what they said in 2018. Tesla named it full self driving capability in 2018, and is advertising two ways to purchase Full Self Driving Capability in 2021. You don't get to say one of them is what you meant in 2018, but name them exactly the same and describe them exactly the same in 2021, and not charge a premium to only cars with newer hardware.

Anyway, we've both made our points. We'll see in a few months who is right.
 
So in your estimation, Tesla is not within their rights to determine eligibility criteria for their newly announced subscription service?
When you bought your car they told you you could BUY (not lease) FSD, and if you did, they'd do any necessary hardware updates.

Why is everyone ignoring what they said in 2018? "All Tesla vehicles produced in our factory, including Model 3, have the hardware needed for full self-driving capability at a safety level substantially greater than that of a human driver.""

That isn't true, right? The fact an upgrade exists, and is needed for FSD CAPABILITY, makes it untrue. It was always untrue even if you didn't buy FSD.

Tesla's false statement now costs me $1500. If there statement was true, that my car had the capability, this $1500 would not exist. They did not say it has the capability to buy FSD. They said it flat out has the capability.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dan D.
In 2021, two products exist named "Full Self Driving Capability."

Wrong again.


ONE exists called Buy full self driving capability. This is a straight purchase. It is available to anyone with a Tesla manufactured since roughly November 2016.


ONE exists called "full self driving capability subscription"

This is a different, month-to-month, subscription service with it's own eligibility requirements.

Having a car with HW3 is one of those requirements- and subscription to this service is not available to anyone else.

Anyway, we've both made our points. We'll see in a few months who is right.

Spoiler- it's not you.
 
Why is everyone ignoring what they said in 2018?

Because the subscription didn't exist then.

So you literally can not apply what they said in 2018 to a different thing that did not exist in 2018


The FSD capability you were told your car could do without any HW charges is still available for you to buy today

NOTHING about that changed, other than it's gone up in price- which they ALSO told you could happen at the time.


This NEW product is not even AVAILABLE to HW2.x cars.



Tesla's false statement now costs me $1500.

Nope. Again you can still outright buy it just like the day you bought the car and it costs you $0.00 in hardware.

The only thing that costs $1500 is if you want to make an older car eligible for a NEW SERVICE THAT DID NOT EXIST before today.
 
I would think the fact that you’re suing a multinational corporation over a complex contract dispute would be a pretty slam-dunk case for allowing the defendant to be a legal representative of the company you‘re suing.
That's the literal reason they don't allow lawyers- it makes suing any big company too expensive. When the amounts are low enough, the cases need to be treated more simply.

Hell, Google lost in small claims case for $761 over a contract dispute. They weren't allowed a lawyer.
 
There's already tons of them in multiple other threads about it

The investor roundtable for example, and this "master" one-

 
  • Like
Reactions: tren01t
There's already tons of them in multiple other threads about it

The investor roundtable for example, and this "master" one-

Yeah those mofos stole my thunder.
Peace out lol
 
  • Funny
Reactions: Mr X
It’s an interesting theory, and a bit of a conundrum.

If you buy FSD outright, you get the HW3 necessary to run at no additional charge, meeting the obligation in the original claim.

Does the language you’re citing compel them to provide that hardware for free for a subscription service that they chose to offer years after that language was published? I mean, you could certainly try to argue that. I’m not particularly convinced you’ll get anywhere with it, but hey. It’s just time and money!
It is an interesting thought, because those cars should still be able to use basic autopilot on highways (which Tesla love to say is already safer than a human) and if you had purchased FSD at the time then you would get the hardware to actually use the additional features you had purchased. There was never a way to have the possibility of additional features but not the hardware to use it…

Fast-forward to now and you have a different usage ability by just clicking buy on the app and using it for a month or something.
 
That's the literal reason they don't allow lawyers- it makes suing any big company too expensive. When the amounts are low enough, the cases need to be treated more simply.

Hell, Google lost in small claims case for $761 over a contract dispute. They weren't allowed a lawyer.
A corporation can have a real person represent it in the court of law. And that person can be an attorney. You on the other hand can not have an attorney represent you. The “no attorney representation in small claims court” really applies to individuals suing or being sued. Not corporations or stores.
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: gearchruncher
A corporation can have a real person represent it in the court of law. And that person can be an attorney. You on the other hand can not have an attorney represent you. The “no attorney representation in small claims court” really applies to individuals suing or being sued. Not corporations or stores.
In Washington the guideline is below:
"Unless a judge grants permission, Attorneys and paralegals are excluded from appearing or participating with the plaintiff or defendant in a small claims suit."
Small Claims Court | Washington State

The King County Bar's small claims guideline does mention this applies to corporations also (may in fact be there specifically to target corporations), although corporations will tend to try to move the trial to regular court (where there are no such restrictions). See page 3 (or PDF page 8):
http://www.kcba.org/kcba/pbs/pdf/NLClinks/SmallClaimsPacketandForms.pdf
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: gearchruncher
Why is everyone ignoring what they said in 2018? "All Tesla vehicles produced in our factory, including Model 3, have the hardware needed for full self-driving capability at a safety level substantially greater than that of a human driver.""

That isn't true, right? The fact an upgrade exists, and is needed for FSD CAPABILITY, makes it untrue. It was always untrue even if you didn't buy FSD.

Tesla's false statement now costs me $1500. If there statement was true, that my car had the capability, this $1500 would not exist. They did not say it has the capability to buy FSD. They said it flat out has the capability.
Ok I see what you are saying now.

Your HW2.5 car was sold as having all the hardware needed for FSD. It doesn't. You need HW3.

If you buy the software they will do what they said and add the necessary HW3 that the software now needs. No charge to you.

However I also see what the other people are saying. You now have a choice of two options and the subscription choice screws you out of $1500. But you do have the choice and no one's forcing you to take the subscription.

Add to the list of Tesla's "screw-you" grievances. They could just as easily put in the hardware as good customer service, after all it was them who changed the software. They could also easily allow FSD purchases to be transferable too.