No more free unlimited supercharging for some used Tesla vehicles

[ohmman]

To me the delineation seems clear on the surface, and I completely agree (again, on the surface) with the analogies to premium wheels or any other add-on. As I posted up-thread, Tesla should be able to remove anything from any car that they purchase back via trade-in or otherwise, but once they start removing things from cars that they don't own, it becomes anywhere from cloudy to outright wrong.

There is a nuance to this in that FUSC isn't a physical item like wheels. It's a right to use a service that is provided by and operated by Tesla. I can't think of a great analogy, and maybe one isn't necessary. The questions then become whether they have the legal right to change access to their service, and whether they have an ethical right to do so. Legally, it sounds from this thread that they're trying to use a bit of a loophole - since commercial owners cannot have FUSC, as soon as a vehicle enters the hands of a commercial entity (wholesaler/etc), FUSC becomes automatically removed. I know nothing about consumer law, but that sounds like a reasonable legal argument. I think it can be interpreted differently from an ethical standpoint depending on the person with whom you're speaking. Personally, I don't like it.

The one that would be most clearly in the wrong legally and ethically is private party transfers, and I am guessing that's why they haven't touched those. Will this encourage more private party sales of cars with FUSC? Seems like it might.

While I overall disagree with how this is being implemented - my preference would be that Tesla remove FUSC only from vehicles they purchase, I do think we all have to remember the nuance of this being access to a service, and not a physical item like wheels or a sound system or whatever.

 

[VifferFun]

To me the delineation seems clear on the surface, and I completely agree (again, on the surface) with the analogies to premium wheels or any other add-on. As I posted up-thread, Tesla should be able to remove anything from any car that they purchase back via trade-in or otherwise, but once they start removing things from cars that they don't own, it becomes anywhere from cloudy to outright wrong.

There is a nuance to this in that FUSC isn't a physical item like wheels. It's a right to use a service that is provided by and operated by Tesla. I can't think of a great analogy, and maybe one isn't necessary. The questions then become whether they have the legal right to change access to their service, and whether they have an ethical right to do so. Legally, it sounds from this thread that they're trying to use a bit of a loophole - since commercial owners cannot have FUSC, as soon as a vehicle enters the hands of a commercial entity (wholesaler/etc), FUSC becomes automatically removed. I know nothing about consumer law, but that sounds like a reasonable legal argument. I think it can be interpreted differently from an ethical standpoint depending on the person with whom you're speaking. Personally, I don't like it.

The one that would be most clearly in the wrong legally and ethically is private party transfers, and I am guessing that's why they haven't touched those. Will this encourage more private party sales of cars with FUSC? Seems like it might.

While I overall disagree with how this is being implemented - my preference would be that Tesla remove FUSC only from vehicles they purchase, I do think we all have to remember the nuance of this being access to a service, and not a physical item like wheels or a sound system or whatever.

Your post very clearly articulates the matter Here's an analogy:

Suppose a car manufacturer sold a vehicle with a 4-year 80,000km warranty, but after selling many vehicles they decided to reduce the warrantee to 3-year 80,000km. In this scenario the manufacturer wouldn't be removing a physical item from the car; however, they would be removing 1 year of warranty that was promised to people when they purchased with the car. Although the warantee isn't a physical asset, it is certainly an intangible asset that is part of the value of the car and upwardly influenced the price of the car when it was sold by the manufacturer. The manufacturer can make this warantee change for vehicles that they have not yet sold or vehicles that they purchased back from owners, but the manufacturer CANNOT make this warantee change for vehicles that are currently owned by anyone other than the manufacturer (i.e. car dealerships, private individuals, etc.) since they would be stealing an intangible asset.

Substitute "Free Unlimited Supercharging (FUSC)" with "Warrantee" and the same argument holds

 

[Geek190]

Your post very clearly articulates the matter Here's an analogy:

Suppose a car manufacturer sold a vehicle with a 4-year 80,000km warranty, but after selling many vehicles they decided to reduce the warrantee to 3-year 80,000km. In this scenario the manufacturer wouldn't be removing a physical item from the car; however, they would be removing 1 year of warranty that was promised to people when they purchased with the car. Although the warantee isn't a physical asset, it is certainly an intangible asset that is part of the value of the car and upwardly influenced the price of the car when it was sold by the manufacturer. The manufacturer can make this warantee change for vehicles that they have not yet sold or vehicles that they purchased back from owners, but the manufacturer CANNOT make this warantee change for vehicles that are currently owned by anyone other than the manufacturer (i.e. car dealerships, private individuals, etc.) since they would be stealing an intangible asset.

Substitute "Free Unlimited Supercharging (FUSC)" with "Warrantee" and the same argument holds

Excellent analogy

 

[Mark_T]

Your post very clearly articulates the matter Here's an analogy:

Suppose a car manufacturer sold a vehicle with a 4-year 80,000km warranty, but after selling many vehicles they decided to reduce the warrantee to 3-year 80,000km. In this scenario the manufacturer wouldn't be removing a physical item from the car; however, they would be removing 1 year of warranty that was promised to people when they purchased with the car. Although the warantee isn't a physical asset, it is certainly an intangible asset that is part of the value of the car and upwardly influenced the price of the car when it was sold by the manufacturer. The manufacturer can make this warantee change for vehicles that they have not yet sold or vehicles that they purchased back from owners, but the manufacturer CANNOT make this warantee change for vehicles that are currently owned by anyone other than the manufacturer (i.e. car dealerships, private individuals, etc.) since they would be stealing an intangible asset.

Substitute "Free Unlimited Supercharging (FUSC)" with "Warrantee" and the same argument holds

It is better than wheels, but it doesn't deal with the non-availability of the service to business users.

We don't know for sure that this is the basis that Tesla are using, that was just a suggestion I made a few days ago, but if it is what they are doing then the problem is what contractual right a business that can't use the service has to pass on that service availability to a subsequent non-business user...

This is a messy and poorly documented service at best so no idea how it would play out if it ever made it into court...

 

[ohmman]

Your post very clearly articulates the matter Here's an analogy:

Suppose a car manufacturer sold a vehicle with a 4-year 80,000km warranty, but after selling many vehicles they decided to reduce the warrantee to 3-year 80,000km. In this scenario the manufacturer wouldn't be removing a physical item from the car; however, they would be removing 1 year of warranty that was promised to people when they purchased with the car. Although the warantee isn't a physical asset, it is certainly an intangible asset that is part of the value of the car and upwardly influenced the price of the car when it was sold by the manufacturer. The manufacturer can make this warantee change for vehicles that they have not yet sold or vehicles that they purchased back from owners, but the manufacturer CANNOT make this warantee change for vehicles that are currently owned by anyone other than the manufacturer (i.e. car dealerships, private individuals, etc.) since they would be stealing an intangible asset.

Substitute "Free Unlimited Supercharging (FUSC)" with "Warrantee" and the same argument holds

I also considered this analogy, but I don't think it holds up very well overall. FUSC is for life - warrantees generally have an endpoint. And Tesla does offer a warrantee and isn't changing it. Another example I considered was "free oil changes for life," which I think is a closer match, but also poses enough differences to disqualify it as a good choice.

I do think that most here agree that the grey area lies in the "corporately owned third party transactions". I don't think there is much of an argument against Tesla taking it away on cars which they possess, and I think there is a good argument against Tesla taking it from private transactions, which they aren't. So we can probably all focus simply on the commercial transfer aspect.

 

[AMPd]

You guys and your analogies!

Bottom line, Tesla alters a vehicle they own = no problem. Tesla alters a vehicle they don’t own = problem.

 

[PWlakewood]

You guys and your analogies!

Bottom line, Tesla alters a vehicle they own = no problem. Tesla alters a vehicle they don’t own = problem.

Exactly. I've brought that up in the last 4 phone calls to tesla and still get the same bs from them. Class action here we come!

 

[samppa]

So has Tesla actually removed free supercharging after a 3rd party sale? Or is this all speculation?

I see it's been removed from cpo vehicles.

 

[Huachipato]

There is no CPO. Just used cars.

I'd like to say I do fall in the 3rd party purchased car that had FUSC removed. I asked Tesla specifically if my car pass through their hands before it went to the dealer I purchased the car from, and they bypassed that question and said any wholesaled car has FUSC removed.

 

[Mmyohe]

My October 2015 P90DL purchased in June just had the free supercharging removed. This is the response i got from customer service.

"Thank you for your response. After further research, we have determined why you are being charged for Supercharging. It appears the previous owner had acquired free Supercharging from a Sales incentive. However, that incentive was not transferable with the sale of the vehicle. In turn, once you placed the ownership of the vehicle in your name, the Supercharging configuration from the previous owner expired. I do apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused. "

The free supercharging was a big reason for purchasing this car in particular!

 

[ohmman]

My October 2015 P90DL purchased in June just had the free supercharging removed. This is the response i got from customer service.

"Thank you for your response. After further research, we have determined why you are being charged for Supercharging. It appears the previous owner had acquired free Supercharging from a Sales incentive. However, that incentive was not transferable with the sale of the vehicle. In turn, once you placed the ownership of the vehicle in your name, the Supercharging configuration from the previous owner expired. I do apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused. "

The free supercharging was a big reason for purchasing this car in particular!

Yeah, this is not cool. How are buyers supposed to keep track of wholesaling history, promos, etc.? Tesla needs to be clear with all owners and potential buyers about the car’s Supercharging billing status. If they aren’t, and a new owner gets a car with free unlimited Supercharging, they really, really should not be taking it away.

Sorry to hear about your situation. I’d be unhappy, too.

 

[kev1n]

My October 2015 P90DL purchased in June just had the free supercharging removed. This is the response i got from customer service.

"Thank you for your response. After further research, we have determined why you are being charged for Supercharging. It appears the previous owner had acquired free Supercharging from a Sales incentive. However, that incentive was not transferable with the sale of the vehicle. In turn, once you placed the ownership of the vehicle in your name, the Supercharging configuration from the previous owner expired. I do apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused. "

The free supercharging was a big reason for purchasing this car in particular!

that doesnt make any sense as all cars prior to jan 15 2017 or so had free supercharging by default iirc.

 

[AMPd]

that doesnt make any sense as all cars prior to jan 15 2017 or so had free supercharging by default iirc.

That was my exact thought, there was no free supercharging promotion for pre facelift vehicles.

 

[kev1n]

That was my exact thought, there was no free supercharging promotion for pre facelift vehicles.

my only thought of why it would be "promotional" is that if this car was a demo car until bought in 2017 and the free supercharging is moved to "1st owner only type"

you should check when this car was originally purchased as new. something like carfax should show when it was originally titled.

 

[FlatSix911]

My October 2015 P90DL purchased in June just had the free supercharging removed. This is the response i got from customer service.

"Thank you for your response. After further research, we have determined why you are being charged for Supercharging. It appears the previous owner had acquired free Supercharging from a Sales incentive. However, that incentive was not transferable with the sale of the vehicle. In turn, once you placed the ownership of the vehicle in your name, the Supercharging configuration from the previous owner expired. I do apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused. "

The free supercharging was a big reason for purchasing this car in particular!

That is an unacceptable response from Tesla. Did you purchase from a private party?

 

[Geek190]

Total bullshit.
Sorry to hear that they've stooped so low.
Can't wait until they remove it from my car.

 

[Mmyohe]

That is an unacceptable response from Tesla. Did you purchase from a private party?

Yes i did

 

[erik_k]

That is an unacceptable response from Tesla. Did you purchase from a private party?

Yes i did

Was Seller first/only owner? Just wondering if he bought it used in or after 2017.

 

[Mmyohe]

Was Seller first/only owner? Just wondering if he bought it used in or after 2017.

Original owner

 

[Geek190]

I don't see how it matters.
I think we can all agree that if Tesla purchased a car back and resold it, then they have every right to remove the option. If that isn't exactly the case, then they have no right at all to remove options, including FUSC from a car. Whether it was resold through a dealer, an auction, a private party, the original owner or never even resold - if it was an option on your car the day you purchased it then they aught not be able to remove it.
If it's ok for them to take away FUSC, then how about AP? Again, if they never purchased it back for resale. How about ludicrous mode? These are all things that were purchased with the car and I believe should stay with the car.
Taking them away will affect resale value, and I can't think they could have that right.