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.