Snippiness 2.0

[eloder]

Anyway, I have a lot of sympathy for the buyer -- he had no way of knowing the car "wasn't supposed to have" those features. From Tesla's side, it may technically be true, but if the car is no longer in the original owner's hands, it's extremely unfair to yank it from someone who made an honest purchase. especially since it costs Tesla nothing to leave it.

Hopefully not getting too OT, but I think it's important to frame the potential impact this may have to Tesla as far as bad press or in case people do try lawsuits.

The Monroney sticker in the US is only valid on new cars, not on used cars. Used cars require the Buyer's Guide. Apparently the dealership used the Monroney sticker incorrectly. Assuming Tesla is being truthful, the dealership never paid for Full Self Driving and I assume that this could easily be proved in a court of law--all the dealership would have to do is present a copy of the purchase agreement to absolve themselves of all responsibility. (Buying a Used Car for reference).

There is a lot of legal precedent for a situation like this: phones. If you buy an iPhone off of Craigslist, and then Apple bricks the phone's hardware and software after receiving a lost/stolen report, who's the blame? Apple, or the person who sold you the stolen phone?

I've worked for a phone carrier. I can't tell you the number of times that some unsuspecting customer bought a stolen phone that was initially working but was flagged lost/stolen and had cellular capabilities bricked--sometimes even days or months later. Yes, we as the cell phone carrier could unbrick the cellular capabilities for the unsuspecting victim who made an "honest purchase" off Craigslist--but doing so would go against the wishes of the original owner as well as promote theft.

In addition, it is not unprecedented that car manufacturers strip features remotely with no compensation. Nissan Leaf owners for example had the option to buy higher trims that came with remote app functionality (climate control, etc.). When 2g networks were sunset, all Nissan Leaf owners lost this functionality with no refunds or compensation. In order to get this functionality back, Nissan Leaf owners were forced to buy a cell hardware upgrade from dealers. But since this was Nissan and not Tesla, this didn't reach the media despite tens of thousands of owners being affected in the US. (A similar thing happened with smart ED owners in North America a couple years back too, except the feature was completely removed and never restored. Unlike Nissan, this was not due to a cellular technology sunset and was purely a "We don't want to support you" cost-cutting move)

 

[Chocochip]

When Tesla buys back a car that has FSD, they are paying the previous owner for everything the car has. In other words, they now own the FSD and can do what they want with it. It's not "double-dipping" because they paid for it when they bought the car back.

Sure, that would make sense if you treat FSD the same you would any other component of the car. However, if you own a Tesla with the FSD package and you're selling it back to Tesla, would you get back all the money you spent on getting the FSD package? That is, the price Tesla pays you, does it equal the price you'd get for the exact same car without FSD, plus the full price for FSD? Or less? Remember, software doesn't "wear out". And when Tesla re-sells that used car, the car itself would be depreciated, but Tesla would still charge the full price for FSD. So not exactly apples-to-apples.

It's really not complicated at all but it seems as soon as the product is software (instead of hardware) some people's logic circuits appear to short circuit. Go figure!

I would agree, except for the stuff I explained above. It IS more complicated than when dealing with just hardware. As a shareholder I'm happy with the margins Tesla can make on its software, but I'm not happy when I see customers feeling cheated, regardless of whether they're correct to feel so or not. Tesla can still make loads of money on its SW packages without acting like jerks.

 

[Nocturnal]

You are misinformed the end purchaser did not buy it from tesla he bought it from a different dealorship. His beef is with the person he bought it from. For all we know they got a limited time offer. Anyway the non dealer advertised it as FSD that who is at fault

Yup. I'm arguing with dumb people on FB about this one. The dealer ripped him off, he needs to sue the dealer.

That's like me selling my cell phone with service included, and then the person being mad at ATT when I stop paying the bill.

This is really easy guys. The buyer has a slam dunk case against the dealer. They advertised a product that had X feature, when it fact it did not. The buyer should be mad...at the dealer. If the dealer was lied to by the original seller, then they need to sue him.

 

[humbaba]

If I remember correctly, this was about someone who had bought FSD and got into an accident, the car was totalled, and the insurance would only cover the purchase of a replacement car but not the FSD package, so that guy would have had to pay again for something they never got a chance to use in the first place (no FSD features were turned on at the time). So the guy was complaining about paying a load of money for something he couldn't use and then being asked to pay for it again. Something like that...

So I gave in and searched. There are a few queries about transfer after totaling in an accident, but at least as many asking about new purchases. But I can't find any that @elonmusk responded to (at least, that is what it looks like in the twitter search).

What I did find was an assertion:

Ok.. I could not engage support via Tesla Chat ; So, I called their customer service number , w/ following responses : Q1 : Yes, FSD will transfer to new car owner ; Q2 : Yes, FSD goes with the car when it gets totaled , CS mentioned that Insurance should pay FSD fair price.

pinoy on Twitter

 

[JRP3]

You aren't wrong, but this is not about hardware, it is about a feature license. And of course people have been railing against this with respect to computers for years. But, like it or not, that is how licensing works: you don't buy the feature, you buy the right to use the feature.

When you buy FSD does it say you are buying a license to a software program?

 

[lklundin]

I saw a “article” on my Apple stock app, and I’ve no idea what it’s supposed to be about. Tried googling, but didn’t see anything related.

edit: also, don’t want to give FUD a click.

View attachment 508880

This seems like a plausible explanation for the problem, i.e. that the Model S was bought back by Tesla who disabled FSD, then auctioned it off to a third party dealer, who then sold it to the current owner, who failed to check what software options were available with the car, when they bought it:
Tesla YANKED FSD option without notice - Class Action lawsuit? Any Lawyers here?

 

[StealthP3D]

Sure, that would make sense if you treat FSD the same you would any other component of the car. However, if you own a Tesla with the FSD package and you're selling it back to Tesla, would you get back all the money you spent on getting the FSD package?

Tesla wants to offer a competitive price on trade-ins but they are not going to pay you substantially more than market value. If they don't (make a competitive offer), you can take the highest offer. To my sensibilities, the fact that you are free to sell it to other parties, absolves Tesla from any obligation you may think they have. Why would Tesla be obligated to pay you more than anyone else? You are not renting the FSD, you are purchasing it with the car with a FSD option.

Tesla can still make loads of money on its SW packages without acting like jerks.

There really isn't any grey area here (like there is with the case of the mistaken transfer of FSD that was not paid for) and it's not even on topic so I think you should take it somewhere else. You have some really far-fetched ideas of what "acting like jerks" entails.

 

[ABCTG]

Then that person is dumb. I figured it had to be FSD because Autopilot is included on every car now

My Tesla Model S loaner provided by Enterprise had no Autopilot.

It had fixed cruise control.

 

[Pezpunk]

That appears not to be the case for the car mentioned by Jalopnik, since that car had FSD listed on it Monroney sticker, i.e. the car originally had FSD. Instead Tesla apparently bought the car back, disabled FSD, auctioned it off to an independent dealer, who sold it to someone who failed to check what software their car came with.

all that would be fine, but it seems that the car DID have FSD when he test-drove it. it was removed remotely sometime between the test drive and the final sale, and neither the dealership nor the buyer were aware it was going to be removed.

 

[StealthP3D]

Yup. I'm arguing with dumb people on FB about this one. The dealer ripped him off, he needs to sue the dealer.

That's like me selling my cell phone with service included, and then the person being mad at ATT when I stop paying the bill.

This is really easy guys. The buyer has a slam dunk case against the dealer. They advertised a product that had X feature, when it fact it did not. The buyer should be mad...at the dealer. If the dealer was lied to by the original seller, then they need to sue him.

I tend to agree that people shouldn't sell something as coming with something it doesn't. However, Tesla has a certain obligation to correct their mistakes in a timely manner. If the FSD was activated accidentally, and Tesla had the opportunity to correct it within a reasonable amount of time but neglected to do so, they may be on the hook for leaving it alone. It all comes down to the details and whether Tesla acted negligently (beyond a simple correctable error). There is no clear answer here and timing and when Tesla discovered their error play decisive roles in who wins this one.

From a non-legal perspective, if the error really did originate with Tesla, I think they should just write it off as a goodwill freebie.

 

[humbaba]

When you buy FSD does it say you are buying a license to a software program?

Spoiler: OT: FSD licensing

That is the fine print I was trying to find, but haven't located yet. I'm sure it is documented somewhere. I'm not sure why it would differ from conventional software licensing where you never buy the software, only a license to use it. (Yes, there are caveats to that and a certain amount of variation, but not only is that OT I do not believe it appreciably changes anything.)

Due to the tenuous connection with investing I'm hesitant to post anything more here. I think the original issue (EAP/FSD being rescinded) isn't related to Tesla investment beyond its impact to the company which seems pretty clear cut:

- the third party is responsible for their sale, not Tesla. There should not be any impact on this point.

- lawsuits can always be filed against Tesla regardless (witness the recent unintended acceleration lawsuit). While this is true, such nuisance suits are a fact of business and after a quick sanity check I don't see how they merit further attention excepting insofar as the suit progresses to the extent that that affects the company

 

[Chocochip]

Tesla wants to offer a competitive price on trade-ins but they are not going to pay you substantially more than market value.

This, right here, goes to the heart of the matter: how does anybody, including Tesla, decide the "market value" for the FSD package on a used Tesla, when that FSD package differs in no way whatsoever from the FSD package on a brand-new Tesla? So much so that much of the functionality that customers pay for is not even activated yet? I understand "market value" for something that's functional but previously used, so it's not fresh out of the box, so to speak, but that doesn't apply to constantly-updating software being sold new in an identical form.

I agree this is not directly relevant to the original topic; my original question related to whether the guy who bought the used Tesla from the 3rd party dealer had FSD in the car at the time he made the purchase, and then subsequently Tesla "corrected an error" and removed it, which is how the story was presented. Do we know that car didn't actually have FSD installed when purchased from that dealer? I would also have a problem if I buy a car from a dealer and I can verify the software pack is installed, and then later it just disappears. Frankly, I don't know what actually happened, and that's why I asked.

 

[StealthP3D]

This, right here, goes to the heart of the matter: how does anybody, including Tesla, decide the "market value" for the FSD package on a used Tesla, when that FSD package differs in no way whatsoever from the FSD package on a brand-new Tesla? So much so that much of the functionality that customers pay for is not even activated yet? I understand "market value" for something that's functional but previously used, so it's not fresh out of the box, so to speak, but that doesn't apply to constantly-updating software being sold new in an identical form.

I agree this is not directly relevant to the original topic; my original question related to whether the guy who bought the used Tesla from the 3rd party dealer had FSD in the car at the time he made the purchase, and then subsequently Tesla "corrected an error" and removed it, which is how the story was presented. Do we know that car didn't actually have FSD installed when purchased from that dealer? I would also have a problem if I buy a car from a dealer and I can verify the software pack is installed, and then later it just disappears. Frankly, I don't know what actually happened, and that's why I asked.

Please take your misconceptions to an appropriate thread. This is not it.

 

[Zaxxon]

OT:

Spoiler: FSD Removal Discussion

You are misinformed the end purchaser did not buy it from tesla he bought it from a different dealorship. His beef is with the person he bought it from. For all we know they got a limited time offer. Anyway the non dealer advertised it as FSD that who is at fault

This is incorrect in this case. The car was sold to that third-party dealership by Tesla, and at the time it was sold to that dealership, it both had FSD and included FSD on the Monroney, with no mention that it would be removed on the disclosure from Tesla to the dealer. If Tesla's going to remove these features upon resale by Tesla, that's fine--but they need to do so before reselling. It's completely unacceptable that the features were left on all paperwork as well as on the car after it was sold by Tesla to the dealership, and that Tesla then decided to remove them after the new owner takes possession.

Frankly, in this case the new owner did pay for FSD, as it was included on the car when it was sold by Tesla.

End of story, IMO.

 

[sparcs]

The Monroney sticker in the US is only valid on new cars, not on used cars. Used cars require the Buyer's Guide. Apparently the dealership used the Monroney sticker incorrectly. Assuming Tesla is being truthful, the dealership never paid for Full Self Driving and I assume that this could easily be proved in a court of law--all the dealership would have to do is present a copy of the purchase agreement to absolve themselves of all responsibility. (Buying a Used Car for reference).

Thanks for this. At least it gives some context about where the dispute might be. It's important since it's making the rounds on a number of blogs.

 

[MP3Mike]

Unless someone can elucidate this for me, it sounds like the reason is Tesla chooses to double-dip. If I understand this correctly, when a customer purchases FSD and then later chooses to sell the car back to Tesla, they (the customer) don't get to keep the software package and use it on a new Tesla vehicle, and Tesla can charge for FSD again when they re-sell the same (used) car. Am I missing something?

You are missing that Tesla paid more for the car then they would have had it not had FSD. So at that point Tesla isn't double dipping because they bought the FSD back.

 

[SageBrush]

You are missing that Tesla paid more for the car then they would have had it not had FSD. So at that point Tesla isn't double dipping because they bought the FSD back.

This is mostly how I see it too, although it is a fair guess that Tesla did not pay full freight for the option on buy-back but they are charging full cost upon resell.

<<shrug>>
It will be impossible to please everybody. Overall I think Tesla is doing the right thing by offering the used car without the FSD, just as they do with a new car.

 

[printf42]

OT

all that would be fine, but it seems that the car DID have FSD when he test-drove it. it was removed remotely sometime between the test drive and the final sale, and neither the dealership nor the buyer were aware it was going to be removed.

Not true, dealer knows it doesn’t have FSD.

If they don’t, Tesla mis-presented the car during the auction. Simple, just give it back.

If they do, also simple, dealer mis-presented the car to the buyer, Tesla is not on the hook.

Can we stop talking about this as if it would have any impact on the company?

 

[TheGrimSweeper]

OT


Not true, dealer knows it doesn’t have FSD.

If they don’t, Tesla mis-presented the car during the auction. Simple, just give it back.

If they do, also simple, dealer mis-presented the car to the buyer, Tesla is not on the hook.

Can we stop talking about this as if it would have any impact on the company?

Agree with this. I haven't been following this closely but if Tesla is in the wrong I'm sure they will just give it back.

 

[Tslynk67]

That’s not quite true. FSD had been paid for by the original buyer of the car. That owner sold it back to Tesla, who then sold it to an auction house. New owner bought it at the auction house, still with FSD. Tesla then figured out they forgot to reset FSD to not being purchased on that car(they typically do that for some reason), and disabled it remotely.

When FSD is bought it stays with the car, why would Tesla remove it?

Personally I don't like this approach, I think the licence should remain with the purchaser, or at least this should be an option.