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

[AMPd]

I’m not arguing with you on the matter. I think what Tesla is doing hurts the brand. The fact that they have the legal right to remove (or even add) features once they obtain possession of the car from a prior owner doesn’t mean It is right. Tesla has a disdain for all 3rd party non-Tesla dealers and wants to control all aspects of their cars. In this regard, they operate as if they own the cars at all times (even after a sale of the vehicle) and all you have is a license to use the car.

As to your question, removal of the LTE module would result in the non-functioning of features of the navigation (traffic indication, re-routing due to traffic, etc), non-function streaming of internet services such as Tunein, etc., not being able to access the car using the Tesla (or similar) app, and no longer receiving firmware updates (not necessarily a bad thing these says). In this regard, Tesla requires that all cars sold after a certain date (would have to check the website for the effective date, which I believe was in 2019) be connected to the Tesla mothership to receive updates which must be installed in order to maintain the warranty. And yes, Tesla knows what updates were sent to your car (based on the VIN) and what date each update was installed and whether the update was successful or failed. (I found that out the hard way when I refused to update my car for months because I did not like version 9 of the software and then one day Tesla forced the update onto my car and when I confronted Tesla about it they pulled up on a computer screen the log showing me the date each update was sent to my car and the date I then installed the update).

Although your argument is valid, and no one can really argue the fact that Tesla can REMOVE/ADD any feature to a vehicle they own. However this happened AFTER op has already purchased the vehicle, that’s what people are really upset with. They performed an audit and realized the vehicle should have had it removed, but they no longer own the vehicle... they missed their chance, they no longer have the right to take anything away

 

[S4WRXTTCS]

It looks like Tesla is trying to have it both ways.

Where they claim they can't refund FSD because it's tied to the VIN.

But, then they're removing FSD from the vehicle. If they try to treat it like HW then they can't remove it. By removing it they're stealing from the person buying the car. Since if you're buying a Tesla with FSD then it probably played a role in the purchase decision, and the amount paid.

 

[Az_Rael]

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

Well, you could always try a strongly worded letter from a lawyer, see if that works. You can also probably complain to your state consumer affairs or attorney general’s office or similar. Another route would be a local news or radio station that does reporting on helping locals who get screwed by various big businesses.

 

[Az_Rael]

you may win a judgment, but try and collect

I’ll bet that wouldn’t be too hard. Just send the judgement to [email protected] and they would probably just pay it vs spending the money to appeal.

 

[S4WRXTTCS]

I’ll bet that wouldn’t be too hard. Just send the judgement to [email protected] and they would probably just pay it vs spending the money to appeal.

Or we could all email [email protected] to tell them that they need to stop this practice.

That we're onto what they're doing, and it's not right.

 

[Az_Rael]

Or we could all email [email protected] to tell them that they need to stop this practice
That we're onto what they're doing, and it's not right.

Eh, that would probably only be effective if you were directly affected by this. Otherwise they would probably just reply the equivalent of “don’t believe everything you read on the internet”

If you want to get a response from Tesla, it would be better to rope in the various EV media outlets.

 

[AMPd]

Or we could all email [email protected] to tell them that they need to stop this practice.

That we're onto what they're doing, and it's not right.

Someone affluent needs to tweet Elon and ask him if this is really the way tesla wants to earn a few bucks

 

[S4WRXTTCS]

Eh, that would probably only be effective if you were directly affected by this. Otherwise they would probably just reply the equivalent of “don’t believe everything you read on the internet”

If you want to get a response from Tesla, it would be better to rope in the various EV media outlets.

If the OP did some research to verify the original owners bought EAP+FSD then I'd definitely email legal@tesla to complain.

It was on the Monroney sticker, but having confirmation would put a nice bow around it.

 

[S4WRXTTCS]

Someone affluent needs to tweet Elon and ask him if this is really the way tesla wants to earn a few bucks

Was it someone affluent that tweeted Elon regarding the accidental/fraudulent FSD purchases. That was resolved by tweeting Elon, but I didn't recognize the person that brought it up.

 

[Az_Rael]

If the OP did some research to verify the original owners bought EAP+FSD then I'd definitely email legal@tesla to complain.

It was on the Monroney sticker, but having confirmation would put a nice bow around it.

Agreed. I would probably go the extra step and hire a lawyer to write the complaint to send to them. Just so I wouldn’t sound like the angry customer that I was, LOL

 

[S4WRXTTCS]

Agreed. I would probably go the extra step and hire a lawyer to write the complaint to send to them. Just so I wouldn’t sound like the angry customer that I was, LOL

I've had a pretty good success rate with emails.

It's always worth a shot to at least hope to learn more about what's going on.

 

[Tam]

...Can TESLA reach in current customers and de-content the car, AFTER the car changed hands...

In the old days, the lienholder had to physically tow the car away if the payment was missed.

Now, Tesla just can disable a feature over-the-air.

It's a risk when buying something used, even a house especially, without going through a title company.

If the house was not cleared by the title company, and the new owner still bought the house, then the new owner either have to pay up for all the previous debts, penalties, taxes... or lose the house.

With a used Tesla, it is best to get a receipt of what was paid.

In general, a Monroney sticker is a good indication of the car's features but not always as proof of payment because a customer may not want certain features and didn't pay for certain features and those facts are reflected on a receipt but not on the original Monroney sticker.

 

[MichaelP90DL]

...they operate as if they own the cars at all times (even after a sale of the vehicle) and all you have is a license to use the car.

Expensive license! And the car ain't a piece of software. Tesla ought to realize that.

 

[AMPd]

Was it someone affluent that tweeted Elon regarding the accidental/fraudulent FSD purchases. That was resolved by tweeting Elon, but I didn't recognize the person that brought it up.

I don’t recall, I just assume someone with a lot of followers will reach Elon easier.

 

[MIT_S60]

In the old days, the lienholder had to physically tow the car away if the payment was missed.

Now, Tesla just can disable a feature over-the-air.

It's a risk when buying something used, even a house especially, without going through a title company.

If the house was not cleared by the title company, and the new owner still bought the house, then the new owner either have to pay up for all the previous debts, penalties, taxes... or lose the house.

With a used Tesla, it is best to get a receipt of what was paid.

In general, a Monroney sticker is a good indication of the car's features but not always as proof of payment because a customer may not want certain features and didn't pay for certain features and those facts are reflected on a receipt but not on the original Monroney sticker.

I'd say the bad part here is them removing items that were on the original Monroney sticker. That's shady.

 

[mattwhite]

Disclaimer: this is not legal advice but general opinion.

Some of the legal issues seem straightforward, some more complicated.

First, you may have a contractual claim against the 3rd party seller you purchased from based up the fact that the car had FSD when they sold it to you, unless your purchase documents indicate otherwise (for example, if the documents state that the car now has FSD but Tesla sold it without FSD and has the right to remove it in the future). The dealer may (or may not) have a similar contractual claim against Tesla (again, unless the documentation between Tesla and the 3rd party dealer says FSD is not included/can or will be removed). Any claim the dealer may have against Tesla is independent of your potential claim against the dealer.

As to a claim by you directly against Tesla, you didn't buy the car from them, so you have no contractual claim against them related to the purchase. The issue is whether you have a tort claim against Tesla - something along the lines of tortious interference with the use and enjoyment of your vehicle. This is the interesting legal situation.

Tesla is the first car company to use software updates in this manner. It was all roses until situations like this and others (such as using updates to artificially cap cell voltage to remove capacity/range, and limiting charging speeds and regen). It's the wild west right now regarding all these issues. My guess is that the law will develop to deal with this landscape. Tesla's recent conduct on lots of these issues shows they can no longer be trusted to act in a transparent and equitable manner. More and more people will have issues like this with Tesla and other car companies as they move to OTA updates, etc. There really need to be federal regulation on how Tesla and other car companies are allowed to use software updates to alter vehicle charging, performance and features after purchase. But right now, there is no law. But that doesn't mean a tort claim doesn't exist and won't be recognized by courts in the future. Now bringing such a claim is another matter, considering the time, cost etc.

My first step would be to review all the documents surrounding your purchase. If there's no explicit disclaimer or carve-out re: FSD then contact the 3rd party dealer and request they make you whole.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

I expect that Tesla has the right to disable it, but if they do, somebody in the sales chain needs to be compensated, and the easiest and cheapest way out would be to re-enable FSD.

I don't think it needs to get to a class action, but that the affected owners should group together to get Tesla to re-enable it. The fastest and easiest way might be to hire a lawyer to represent them to Tesla.

The devil will be in the details.
The auction house will have purchased knowing that FSD would be disabled.
The dealer purchased from the auction house and may or may not have known that the cars did not have the right to FSD.
The OP purchased from the dealer not knowing that the car did not have the right to FSD. The dealer may or may not have indicated that the car had FSD, but the OP found that it was enabled.
The OP put the car in for service at Tesla, and may have signed something that gave Tesla the right to modify the software while there.

 

[MS-Alec]

If the OP did some research to verify the original owners bought EAP+FSD then I'd definitely email legal@tesla to complain.

It was on the Monroney sticker, but having confirmation would put a nice bow around it.

Tesla sent me the Monroney sticker per my request! Not sure what else would work.

 

[Battpower]

There seems to be a strong case for Tesla intentionally or unintentionally making it impossible for 3rd party motor trade to process Tesla car sales.

At first, I thought it sounded OK that lifetime free supercharging did not pass down through 3rd party trade sales, as long as owners could still pass the benefit through a private sale to a new owner.

But removing FSD - or even having the right to remove or downgrade any feature once ownership has passed to a new owner (except in cases of misrepresentation by the seller) is totally unacceptable, unworkable and takes huge value away from all existing owners (because no one can trust what they are buying) and puts that value right into Tesla's hands as they can turn already paid for (but temporarily removed) options back on at their whim.

What 3rd party reseller would risk buying a Tesla or taking in pex only to find out half the features get turned off.

Same for vehicles coming off lease. Residuals will be impossible to calculate.

Renault have stopped offering rented batteries on their EVs purely to allow them to sell into fleet and vehicle lease scenarios where residual values play a big part in the calculation. Tesla will shoot themselves in the foot and more dangerous parts of the anatonomy if finance and fleet operators get wind of these risks (of significant value being withdrawn by Tesla after the title has passed to new owner).

While this specific case will hopefully be resolved sensibly by Tesla and be claimed as a mistake, the underlying evidence is that Tesla's sales model is visible as being more of a licence from Tesla to the current owner of the car to make use of the car for Tesla to deliver certain services. While you may focus on the physical car you are buying, it is almost more important to understand the implied license from Tesla that will apply to you as the custodian of the physical vehicle.

 

[brkaus]

I'd say the bad part here is them removing items that were on the original Monroney sticker. That's shady.

Not really. To use the analogy above - they could have removed the rear seat when they had it in their possession.

The key to me is “in their possession”. Not called later and said they wanted their rear seat back.

Every case I have read here has been “sold by Tesla at auction”. At the point of sale by Tesla the enabled features should be clear and static.

now, they probably are not and that’s shady. But it doesn’t have to match the monroney sticker.