Tesla YANKED FSD option without notice - Class Action lawsuit? Any Lawyers here? [Resolved]

[Battpower]

Can we all agree that if someone rooted a car and enabled features that were not paid for, such as, for example, to add EAP or FSD, and during an audit Tesla discovers the car has features activated that it should not have, that Tesla is entitled to remove those features?

What about if the rooted car having features added that were not paid for is then sold to an innocent non-Tesla dealer or innocent private party buyer, and after the car is titled in the name of the new owner, Tesla discovers during an audit that the configuration of the vehicle was altered. Would it be permissible for Tesla to change the configuration to remove the improperly (unauthorized) added features? Doing so would penalize the innocent non-Tesla dealer and/or private party buyer who may have paid a premium for the vehicle.

What if the non-Tesla dealer changed the configuration and then sold the car at a premium to the innocent private party buyer? Can Tesla come in and remove the features?

Things become complicated when software is involved that can be revised with relative ease. As more cars become available on the used market this is going to be an increasingly bigger issue. I’m not sure how one can protect themselves from buying a car having an unauthorized configuration that Tesla later changes except to buy directly from Tesla. And that may not even be enough if they don’t catch the unauthorized configuration before the used vehicle is sold.

Maybe Tesla!s solution is to do what they are doing; namely, remove all the value added features (EAP, FSD, FUSC, etc) from all resold vehicles and require the new owner to rebuy the features s/he wants. Not something I am thrilled about.

I think I understand some of what you are getting at, but may be a bit hypothetical? This threads already done a lot of hypothesizing.

Are you making a case as to why Tesla should habitually strip software add-ons from their cars? Of course illegal enabling of features by hacking is..... Err... Illegal, and if Tesla think it is happening then a) build in better security and b) persue those responsible to the full extend of the law.

To come after your good customers who buy in good faith and rip value out of that group of people is beyond unacceptable.

Also, maybe we are straying too far from OP. All interesting, but in this case the core issue is just that Tesla released a car from their stock without completing the processes they needed to in order to remove a feature from the car.

What their intentions were makes no odds. As others have said, the very essence at auction is 'what you see is what you get, sold as-is' so when you put a car up for auction, be sure to take off your fancy wheels before hand if you want to keep them, because the car will be priced and sold based on what is actually there.

If you can't do that in time, then wait for the next auction.

If the features were changed in a way that materially effected the car's value after the sale was concluded at auction, then in so doing Tesla defrauded the party that bought the car.

 

[hcdavis3]

Full self driving no longer on my account. WTF. Thankfully I printed my FSD Order. This ain’t right.

 

[Battpower]

Full self driving no longer on my account. WTF. Thankfully I printed my FSD Order. This ain’t right.

Seriously?

In what way? Features no longer on car?

 

[TSLA Pilot]

Unfortunately, my state has a limit for small claims as $2500.

Then take it to the higher court, if you must.

Best solution is to begin with a firmly worded letter, with Monroney Sticker copies, of what you purchased.

Retroactive changes are unsat.

Second step: contact a lawyer to have him/her draft a letter.

Third step: pursue recovery against both the selling dealer and Tesla, plus your court costs/legal bills.

I don't see how you'll not lose this one--the legal expense would be far greater for Tesla than to just give you back FSD . . . which was already paid for once!

 

[TSLA Pilot]

you will spend $7k real quick trying to litigate this

Disagree.

OP needs to find a lawyer who will take it on contingency--lawyer will get fully paid upon settlement. The case is of such interest this should not be an issue

 

[MS-Alec]

All, thanks again for your support!
Probably, I should more clearly express myself.
The option was removed during the regular software update in December!
Tesla said the audit was conducted on 11/18/19 .

 

[swegman]

I think I understand some of what you are getting at, but may be a bit hypothetical? This threads already done a lot of hypothesizing.

Are you making a case as to why Tesla should habitually strip software add-ons from their cars? Of course illegal enabling of features by hacking is..... Err... Illegal, and if Tesla think it is happening then a) build in better security and b) persue those responsible to the full extend of the law.

To come after your good customers who buy in good faith and rip value out of that group of people is beyond unacceptable.

Also, maybe we are straying too far from OP. All interesting, but in this case the core issue is just that Tesla released a car from their stock without completing the processes they needed to in order to remove a feature from the car.

What their intentions were makes no odds. As others have said, the very essence at auction is 'what you see is what you get, sold as-is' so when you put a car up for auction, be sure to take off your fancy wheels before hand if you want to keep them, because the car will be priced and sold based on what is actually there.

If you can't do that in time, then wait for the next auction.

If the features were changed in a way that materially effected the car's value after the sale was concluded at auction, then in so doing Tesla defrauded the party that bought the car.

My post above (post 240) is asking hypothetical questions. And no, I am not supporting that Tesla strip all features when a car is resold. I think that would ruin the resale market for used Teslas. I’m merely presenting various scenarios for our discussion and speculating as to whether any (or all) of these scenarios explains why Tesla is taking the drastic action they are (as opposed to our assuming they’re are merely attempting to maximize income).

As for the OP, we don’t know for certain what he was told and shown by the non-Tesla dealer. We do know that he indicated there was no record of features between Tesla and the auction house, and that there was no record of features between the auction house and the non-Tesla dealer. We do not know at least whether (1) the screenshot showing Summon and NoA was taken by the non-Tesla dealer or by the OP, (2) whether the screen shot is from the car the OP bought or was from another vehicle, (3) when the screenshot was taken or (4) even if that specific screenshot was used by the non-Tesla dealer to represent the car as being sold with EAP and FSD. There are too many unknowns that still need to be answered.

 

[TSLA Pilot]

Tesla does not own the car and OP bought it from someone else. If Tesla takes away things from a car then there is a technical term for that and that is THEFT.

Concur.

Someone, at some point, had purchased FSD for this car, correct? (We can assume so since it had it on the Monroney label, and the screen shot of NOA and Summon?)

If so, on what grounds did Tesla remove FSD?!?

This is wrong on so many levels . . . and it makes Tesla look flat out terrible.

Fix this Elon!

 

[MS-Alec]

Disagree.

OP needs to find a lawyer who will take it on contingency--lawyer will get fully paid upon settlement. The case is of such interest this should not be an issue

I wish it would that easy- I talked to a couple of them and they did not want to do on contingency.

 

[Battpower]

I wish it would that easy- I talked to a couple of them and they did not want to do on contingency.

What action did you suggest they took? Against Tesla or the dealer?

 

[swegman]

Then take it to the higher court, if you must.

Best solution is to begin with a firmly worded letter, with Monroney Sticker copies, of what you purchased.

Retroactive changes are unsat.

Second step: contact a lawyer to have him/her draft a letter.

Third step: pursue recovery against both the selling dealer and Tesla, plus your court costs/legal bills.

I don't see how you'll not lose this one--the legal expense would be far greater for Tesla than to just give you back FSD . . . which was already paid for once!

I’m retired now, but my billing rate 7 years ago was $450/hr. Legal fees to the OP will far outstrip the cost of EAP and FSD in short order. We would tell clients not to even think about litigation unless they were willing to spend $1M minimum. Seven years later I’m certain that minimum dollar amount is even higher.

 

[swegman]

I wish it would that easy- I talked to a couple of them and they did not want to do on contingency.

You are very unlikely to find a competent attorney with experience willing to take your case on a contingency basis. There is no return in it for the attorney. If you want to sue, you will most likely have to pay the attorney’s hourly rate.

 

[TSLA Pilot]

I wish it would that easy- I talked to a couple of them and they did not want to do on contingency.

Keep looking.

Try these guys or others that litigated the VW Dieselgate issue and be sure to mention the visibility the firm will get in this new area of law . . . .

Lieff Cabraser Team Wins 2018 California Lawyer of the Year Award for VW Diesel Emissions Case

If no luck, there's always Pro Se--and if you go that route sometimes judges will give you the benefit of the doubt as it's so cool that you've chosen to fight for what's right on your own!

 

[ucmndd]

Keep looking.

Try these guys or others that litigated the VW Dieselgate issue and be sure to mention the visibility the firm will get in this new area of law . . . .

Lieff Cabraser Team Wins 2018 California Lawyer of the Year Award for VW Diesel Emissions Case

Dieselgate settlement opportunity (and outcome) was in the $billions due to the details and size of the affected class.

This case? Not so much.

Not saying it’s impossible but the potential class size is relatively small and the max damages are a tiny fraction vs. Dieselgate.

 

[brkaus]

Dieselgate settlement opportunity (and outcome) was in the $billions due to the details and size of the affected class.

This case? Not so much.

Not saying it’s impossible but the potential class size is relatively small and the max damages are a tiny fraction vs. Dieselgate.

exactly - this is for cars that were sold by Tesla to a 3rd party dealer. Pretty small list and not a lot of documentation on what transcribed between Tesla and the 3rd party dealer.

 

[hcdavis3]

Seriously?

In what way? Features no longer on car?

It was there last week, no longer. I don’t get it. It’s on the car, just not on my account.

 

[swegman]

Concur.

Someone, at some point, had purchased FSD for this car, correct? (We can assume so since it had it on the Monroney label, and the screen shot of NOA and Summon?)

If so, on what grounds did Tesla remove FSD?!?

This is wrong on so many levels . . . and it makes Tesla look flat out terrible.

Fix this Elon!

It is not a certainty that the car was originally delivered with FSD even though it shows in the Montoney sheet. IIRC, there were a few posts on TMC about people that bought inventory cars at the end of quarterly periods when Tesla would work to complete sales, and they would remove features on an inventory car in order to enable the transaction. EAP and FSD are merely toggles set in the car’s configuration.

I don’t think that was the case with this particular car, but if one were to sue, it would not surprise me if Tesla’s legal counsel raised the issue as a defense. I can see Tesla aurging (rightly or wrongly) that the original purchaser bought the vehicle as an inventory car and did not want, for example, FSD and/or EAP, and they took it off the purchase price to make the sale but somehow it as not actually removed from the car. The argument may get thrown out, but in the meantime the OP will end up paying countless dollars in legal fees for just that one issue.

I know how the game is played.

 

[2101Guy]

My opinion? You don’t need a lawyer for this. A few hours of diligent research on the Internet(to include the legal subforum on reddit as well as taking advantage of free legal advice that’s typically available in the pro se department at your local courthouse) will allow you to file the proper paperwork yourself for minimal cost. Strong probability the agent in your state that Tesla hired to represent them (mandatory if they are doing business in your state) will contact you to discuss a settlement to include non disclosure.

At least that’s what happened between me and BMW several years back.....

 

[MS-Alec]

It is not a certainty that the car was originally delivered with FSD even though it shows in the Montoney sheet. IIRC, there were a few posts on TMC about people that bought inventory cars at the end of quarterly periods when Tesla would work to complete sales, and they would remove features on an inventory car in order to enable the transaction. EAP and FSD are merely toggles set in the car’s configuration.

I don’t think that was the case with this particular car, but if one were to sue, it would not surprise me if Tesla’s legal counsel raised the issue as a defense. I can see Tesla aurging (rightly or wrongly) that the original purchaser bought the vehicle as an inventory car and did not want, for example, FSD and/or EAP, and they took it off the purchase price to make the sale but somehow it as not actually removed from the car. The argument may get thrown out, but in the meantime the OP will end up paying countless dollars in legal fees for just that one issue.

I know how the game is played.

So, basically you are saying that Tesla can do anything to us and get away with it.

 

[MS-Alec]

I’m retired now, but my billing rate 7 years ago was $450/hr. Legal fees to the OP will far outstrip the cost of EAP and FSD in short order. We would tell clients not to even think about litigation unless they were willing to spend $1M minimum. Seven years later I’m certain that minimum dollar amount is even higher.

Do I have to sue the dealer in his state, or I can do in mine?