Cheburashka
Active Member
Exactly, even if it's technically "legal", it's super petty on Tesla's part and the optics on this are horrible.
Plus it creates even more confusion and distrust.
Plus it creates even more confusion and distrust.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Tesla YANKED FSD option without notice - Class Action lawsuit? Any Lawyers here? [Resolved]
- Thread starter MS-Alec
- Start date
-
- Tags
- class action fsd fsdc
I would guess that Elon took a couple of days off, OR whoever was the creator of this "genius sales tactics" is fencing Elon's twitter from this storm.(just joking)
Either way no a word from Tesla at this point, just a few emails from lawyers now.
I would guess that Elon took a couple of days off, OR whoever was the creator of this "genius sales tactics" is fencing Elon's twitter from this storm.(just joking)
Either way no a word from Tesla at this point, just a few emails from lawyers now.
It will gain traction next week either way. There is probably more to the story as well. My hope is that clear and fair policies will come out of this clusterfalk. My guess is there is still a human error factor in the handling of this. Too early to condem Tesla to the gallows until more comes out a much higher level.
JMHO.
Akikiki
A'-Lo-HA ! y'all
Careful. How will it cost Tesla tens of millions of dollars? And how are you going to measure/prove that's an accurate prediction/statement?
How do you know Elon hasn't already been involved? Just because its not in the media doesn't mean he doesn't know about it or told someone what to do.
Regardless, just like so many tidbits of Tesla business - good or bad, its still publicity.
Akikiki
A'-Lo-HA ! y'all
I would guess that Elon took a couple of days off, OR whoever was the creator of this "genius sales tactics" is fencing Elon's twitter from this storm.(just joking)
Either way no a word from Tesla at this point, just a few emails from lawyers now.
...a few emails from lawyers? what emails are you referring to, please? How do you know that?
Akikiki
A'-Lo-HA ! y'all
This is different that swapping wheels before the auction. The car was sold at auction with EAP and FSD enabled. It was disabled after. We all already know the used car dealer (second owner) could not have enabled or installed EAP and FSD themselves. And the third owner (bought it from used car dealer) saw EAP and used it, he knew the car had it. So Tesla had left it enabled until after third owner had the car.
This one looks like one that Tesla should re-enable, left enabled, since this innocent person had it - bought the car with it and confirmed later that Tesla admitted removing it (disabling it).
For a minute, stop think. There's no comment from the original owner/first owner that they paid the $8,000 at car purchase time. Tesla had a practice around that time of enabling the software for trial use to encourage people that didn't pay for it at purchase/delivery. Just because its on the Monroney sticker doesn't mean the first owner bought it.
Last edited:
doghousePVD
My grandfather’s car
The owner of the car was Tesla. The original buyer sold it back to Tesla. Tesla then, as the owner, removed the FSD and Enhanced Autopilot. The car still had Autopilot as does every Tesla.
It doesn’t matter what the original buyer had or not - he was compensated when Tesla bought back the vehicle.
How will it cost Tesla money? It’s just a matter of how it looks to the public. The facts are less important at least until it gets resolved. If this gets out of hand there will be people (probably many) who make up their minds on the information they have available. How much does Tesla lose if they lose 1000 sales?
I’m not assigning fault anywhere until more is known but this will get spun. This is a PR matter. It needs to get dealt with properly.
......... after they (Tesla) already re-sold the car at auction with EAP / FSD still installed / enabled. This is the foundation of this whole discussion. The history of the car hardly matters, except that Tesla appear to acknowledge in writing that they removed the features AFTER they sold the car, as-is at auction, also with a disclosure statement that made no mention of any pending FSD removal.
Akikiki
A'-Lo-HA ! y'all
I too am not assigning fault. Again, where are you getting your numbers? You throw out 1,000 sales. Just a wild guess huh? Could as easily be 10 or 1. But I think (just a guess) most of the public doesn't even know what's in a Tesla, that the S/X/3 have a large touch screen. They have no idea what EAP and FSD is when they read a Yahoo.com article that talks about this. This is nothing more than a pebble in the Tesla road and will resolve itself before end of the month. The few that will remember it are the those folks reading these threads.
Tam
Well-Known Member
I think that can be a case for a private sale that the owner paid less for skipping the FSD but still got the original but now inaccurate Monroney Sticker. Thus, the private buyer should ask for the receipt that lists features that were paid, and not just the sticker.
The original owner of this sale was not a private owner, but it was Tesla.
This is a sale from Tesla to the Auction house. And from the Auction house to the consumer.
When Tesla sold it to the Auction house, its price is reflected on the Monroney Sticker.
After the deal was closed, Tesla's audit proved that it made a mistake for including that inaccurate sticker but it never informed the Auction house nor it re-do the Monroney Sticker nor Tesla disabled the feature at the time of the audit.
In an auction, consumers buy according to what features are included.
So, the consumer did not make a mistake. The auction house did not make a mistake.
The mistake was most likely from Tesla's policy that NOT all cars under Tesla's ownership should still have FSD even when it was paid by previous owners before.
Somebody from Tesla did not follow the protocol and did not strip this car of FSD and did not update the Monroney Sticker for the Auction house.
So Tesla's solution was to hold the new owner for Tesla's own mistake that did not follow its own policy.
Usually, when a company makes a pricing mistake, they can refuse to honor the price by not releasing the merchandise from their ownership.
However, some companies do honor the erroneous price such as selling the $2,200 lens for the erroneous price of $500.
Tesla's case is different because it already released its car to the Auction house then the consumer. It was an agreed price. It was an agreed purchase based on all the paperwork from Tesla to the Auction house to the consumer.
Tesla is demonstrating that just because it slipped its mind and forgot to supply the correct car sticker with the correct features, it can take the feature back long after it was no longer the owner of the merchandise.
We are now in the new territory.
ucmndd
Well-Known Member
I imagine as the OP and the individual at the heart of this discussion, he’s the only one that COULD know whether or not he’s been contacted by some lawyers.
ucmndd
Well-Known Member
I find it perplexing that so many people are perplexed by the facts of this case and willing to defend Tesla.
What we know for certain:
The car was originally optioned from the factory to include EAP and FSD. Those features were on the window sticker, and ACTIVE in the car when the dealer took possession from Tesla at auction. There was no disclosure at the time of auction that features currently present and enabled on the car would be removed at a later date.
I see two options as to what happened from there:
1) The original purchaser of the car bought it as an inventory vehicle and asked Tesla to remove the EAP and FSD options. Tesla agreed, discounted the price of the car by $8k but then neglected in their incompetence to actually remove the feature for three whole years. They then randomly conducted an “audit” just three days after the car had changed hands a further two times, noticed their mistake, and pulled the features to “fix the glitch”. Rather than admit their incompetence and do right by the dealer and customer who obviously bought the car on the expectation it had the currently visible set of features, they doubled down and stonewalled.
2) Tesla doesn’t give two squirts what transpired during the original purchase and did to the OP what they are now doing to countless others, stripping software features from the cars that run through their possession to make the new owners buy them again. Except in this case, they were too incompetent to do it before the car ended up being sold at auction, so it happened after the sale. Rather than admitting incompetence about their trying to print extra money through selling software features twice, they doubled down on the BS and are stonewalling.
I know which option I choose. I also know it doesn’t matter which option actually happened, Tesla is in the wrong. Full stop.
What we know for certain:
The car was originally optioned from the factory to include EAP and FSD. Those features were on the window sticker, and ACTIVE in the car when the dealer took possession from Tesla at auction. There was no disclosure at the time of auction that features currently present and enabled on the car would be removed at a later date.
I see two options as to what happened from there:
1) The original purchaser of the car bought it as an inventory vehicle and asked Tesla to remove the EAP and FSD options. Tesla agreed, discounted the price of the car by $8k but then neglected in their incompetence to actually remove the feature for three whole years. They then randomly conducted an “audit” just three days after the car had changed hands a further two times, noticed their mistake, and pulled the features to “fix the glitch”. Rather than admit their incompetence and do right by the dealer and customer who obviously bought the car on the expectation it had the currently visible set of features, they doubled down and stonewalled.
2) Tesla doesn’t give two squirts what transpired during the original purchase and did to the OP what they are now doing to countless others, stripping software features from the cars that run through their possession to make the new owners buy them again. Except in this case, they were too incompetent to do it before the car ended up being sold at auction, so it happened after the sale. Rather than admitting incompetence about their trying to print extra money through selling software features twice, they doubled down on the BS and are stonewalling.
I know which option I choose. I also know it doesn’t matter which option actually happened, Tesla is in the wrong. Full stop.
Akikiki
A'-Lo-HA ! y'all
Holy Cow - Batman - you are right on the money with that. I got so deep into this thread, I forgot the OP started this tread and is likely the one the lawyers contacted. Thanks for pointing that out. Good catch. I should-a. Much obligated.
The Monroney sticker was not present at the auction. The OP got it from Tesla after he bought the car as a reprint.
Akikiki
A'-Lo-HA ! y'all
That would be a first. The EV-zines are usually the first to leak these changes. And the owners the last to hear.
Akikiki
A'-Lo-HA ! y'all
Tam
Well-Known Member
With the new 2019 Autopilot and discontinuing EAP from then, I speculate that once an EAP and FSD optioned car is in Tesla's ownership (buyback, trade-in...), it would strip those off and standardize it as Autopilot only for the sake of uniformity and for the sake of getting rid of EAP as fast as possible.
Someone in Tesla let this EAP/FSD beast get out in the wild after an agreed sale to the Auction House and the current buyer and Tesla unilaterally took those features back because Tesla now no longer agrees that EAP should be released out in the wild anymore!
Similar threads
