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

[Knightshade]

BUT if the owner trades the car into a different (non-Tesla) dealership and the dealership knows that FSD is going to be stripped when the car changes hands again and can't be sold as a marketable value-add, the dealer is going to pay the original owner less for the car.

But that doesn't actually happen.

FSD was only stripped in this case because tesla took ownership of it.

Tesla's behavior on this proves otherwise.

No, it doesn't.

The fact that they can/will remove the option from the car states that it is not tied to the car.

It's tied to the car exactly as much as the wheels are.

If Tesla never takes ownership of it again- they stay on the car.

If they do- they can choose to remove it.

If it was tied to the car, it would stay with the car. It's kind of like it's tied to the car as long as the car is owned by the person who bought the option.

No- it's tied to the car as long as the car is never owned by Tesla again.

Lifetime Premium Connectivity works the same way- and Tesla explicitly states this in writing in the connectivity FAQ.

The problem is the lack of communication.

No- the problem was Tesla removed the feature on the back end, during their own ownership of the car- but didn't push that update TO the car before it was sold at auction.

That's an IT problem, not a communication problem.

Teslas internal IT is terrible and they know it... (there were new stories back around late dec/early Jan that they're working on a wholesale revamp of this- obviously they're not there yet).

If Tesla was clear about FSD and just openly came out and said that when you sell your car, certain features you purchased may be removed, a lot of this would be avoided (I think they actually started doing this now).

Again- no.

Private sale does not remove FSD. And Tesla has never said anything different.

Sale to Tesla means they might remove it though.


Same for lifetime premium connectivity.

 

[Battpower]

But that doesn't actually happen.

It might have happened, but certainly not as general policy which is important. Tesla accidentally allows all kinds of things to happen, and then tries to deal with the implications. But that doesn't make it a policy.

No, it doesn't.

Again, certainly not as a policy.

That's an IT problem, not a communication problem.

Well, it may be an IT problem for someone, but it surely becomes a communication problem when you try and resolve the effects of the IT problem.

Private sale does not remove FSD. And Tesla has never said anything different.

I think the concern is that now there is some focus on the fact that changes are for whatever reason happening to some cars (whatever the reason) , how can owners / dealers be confident it won't happen to them?

 

[2101Guy]

disagree on it "not" being a communication problem.
Tesla could have avoided the Jalopnik article (and its bad press), bad customer service experience, etc, by simply setting expectations properly via communications.

If Elon can tweet out "hear ye hear ye...FSD is going to go up in price in 60 days" then SURELY Tesla could have communicated the terms on when they planned to revoke software based features and the date they plan to start doing so. MUCH better than just sneaking in the middle of the night, going into people cars, and taking back things.

 

[Az_Rael]

If Elon can tweet out "hear ye hear ye...FSD is going to go up in price in 60 days" then SURELY Tesla could have communicated the terms on when they planned to revoke software based features and the date they plan to start doing so

Tesla only communicates things that benefit them. That Elon tweet served to sell more FSD packages in the short term. Telling everyone that the FSD package you buy for $7k doesn't transfer with the car would hinder package sales. Better to keep that on the DL.

I personally don't think non-transferrable software is the actual policy, but in true Tesla form, we don't really know.

 

[Knightshade]

disagree on it "not" being a communication problem.
Tesla could have avoided the Jalopnik article (and its bad press), bad customer service experience, etc, by simply setting expectations properly via communications.

A better way to avoid that problem is fix their internal IT- so that the problem never happens in the first place.

"Getting better at explaining why a problem happened" is a crappy band aid compared to "fixing the system that causes the problem"

d
If Elon can tweet out "hear ye hear ye...FSD is going to go up in price in 60 days" then SURELY Tesla could have communicated the terms on when they planned to revoke software based features and the date they plan to start doing so. MUCH better than just sneaking in the middle of the night, going into people cars, and taking back things.

Again, this is not at all what Tesla is doing.

Tesla removed the feature on their end when they bought the car back.

They just didn't send that info TO THE CAR. Instead the back end system passively sits there until the next audit/update touches the car and checks the car against the back end systems.

That's an IT problem.

Then the car went to auction....and after the auction (but before the dealer who bought it at auction delivered it to an end user) the software push DID go to the car and remove FSD from it.


Fix the IT problem and the car goes to auction without FSD in the first place- and there's no problem to "explain" later.

 

[dannycamps]

Again, this is not at all what Tesla is doing.

Tesla removed the feature on their end when they bought the car back.

They just didn't send that info TO THE CAR. Instead the back end system passively sits there until the next audit/update touches the car and checks the car against the back end systems.

That's an IT problem.

You're splitting hairs here. If you buy a car from a dealer who purchased the car at auction and it goes two months without a software update and then said update happens and FSD vanishes from the new owner, how are you as the consumer going to view that? And this is ABSOLUTELY happening to people based on recent board/forum activity.

Perception in these cases is more important than reality.

Bottom line - regardless of how they code the car when they take it back, if they don't push the changes out to the car prior to resale, they should not be allowed to strip the features after the title changes hands.

 

[Knightshade]

You're splitting hairs here. If you buy a car from a dealer who purchased the car at auction and it goes two months without a software update and then said update happens and FSD vanishes from the new owner, how are you as the consumer going to view that? And this is ABSOLUTELY happening to people based on recent board/forum activity.

Is it?

I've seen a couple people report FSD appearing/disappearing/reappearing in their online account but not actually being removed from the car.

I've seen Alec report FSD wasn't on the car at all at the time he took delivery from the dealer because the removal on the car-side took place post-auction but before the dealer delivered the car to him.


I don't think I've seen cases where an owner months after buying the car and having FSD suddenly lost it long term- but if you have please link me to them so I can see the new information I'm not aware of.

Bottom line - regardless of how they code the car when they take it back, if they don't push the changes out to the car prior to resale, they should not be allowed to strip the features after the title changes hands.

Which is why I said this was an IT problem- not a communication problem.

Fix the back end system to immediately push a software update to the changed car when a feature is removed. Flag the update as CRITICAL so it goes out over LTE too to avoid the car not being updated till it hits Wifi.

Problem solved.

Nothing to communicate to anybody as the system quickly and properly handles it.

 

[Geek190]

I don't think that your assumption that the software changes were made while Tesla owned the car and were later pushed to the car, are any better an assumption than they made the change after transfer of ownership and pushed it through immediately.

You are giving Tesla the benefit of the doubt that IT made the change before the sell, but I don't believe that you actually know that to be a fact do you?

I can't recall anything from Tesla or the dealer confirming your order of events.

Maybe I missed something?

 

[Battpower]

I could be wrong, but pretty sure Tesla's own correspondence showed their audit was after the sale of the car to the dealer.

 

[JRP3]

Didn't they also say it was a mistake? I can imagine some intern forgot to change the setting before the sale and tried to cover his/her as$ with an after the fact stealth update. This doesn't seem to be widespread policy.

 

[Geek190]

I could be wrong, but pretty sure Tesla's own correspondence showed their audit was after the sale of the car to the dealer.

That was my recollection as well

 

[Knightshade]

I don't think that your assumption that the software changes were made while Tesla owned the car and were later pushed to the car, are any better an assumption than they made the change after transfer of ownership and pushed it through immediately.

Mainly I base it on I've never seen Teslas front and back ends do anything quickly or in a remotely coordinated fashion that even vaguely resembles one hand knowing what the other is doing.


Car was auctioned Nov 15. (we don't actually, far as I know, know the date Tesla bought it back from original owner)- That's a Friday by the way.

The SW audit that touched the car was Nov 18. That's a Monday.

I doubt pretty highly anybody was working on this over a weekend.


So applying Hanlon's razor I'd expect internally they marked FSD to be removed well before it even went to auction- ASSuming the car would find out about it before it actually got sold... (but probably with that person having no idea either when the auction would be... or when the SW audit would actually happen.)


I don't know it for a fact, but it fits a LOT better with Teslas, well, entire history of existing to be honest, than "they randomly decided to remove features from a car they just happened to cease owning ONE business day earlier in a swift and timely fashion involving multiple internal systems.

I could be wrong, but pretty sure Tesla's own correspondence showed their audit was after the sale of the car to the dealer.

The one that updated the car was.... it happened the next business day after the auction.

My premise is it was flagged for that on the back end before that- which even 1 business day earlier would put it during the time Tesla owned it.

As I say- maybe your experience with Tesla is that you can get multiple people and departments to all take coordinated action in a single day. Mine hasn't been- and neither have most folks.

Not to mention assuming they DID do all that on the same day (18th) would require explicit malice on their part- and it'd be especially hard to explain since they auction lots of cars and 99% of them don't have this happen.

Which again suggests a lack of timing/coordination, rather than the opposite that your suggestion would require.

 

[Geek190]

You might very well be right.
Perhaps Tesla's dysfunction and timing came together in a terrible way, and it looks much more malicious than it actually was.

I sure do feel that there have been quite a lot of instances where because Tesla is so dysfunctional, and because their communication is atrocious, they come off seemingly malicious. The more often these instances of seeming maliciousness happen, the more apt I am to believe they are in fact acting with - at the kindest interpretation - complete disregard.

According to Harold's razor, sometimes if it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck.....

Your assumption is more generous than mine, and in all fairness, Tesla did ultimately make it right.

 

[MS-Alec]

A better way to avoid that problem is fix their internal IT- so that the problem never happens in the first place.

That's an IT problem.

Fix the IT problem and the car goes to auction without FSD in the first place- and there's no problem to "explain" later.

Not trying to reignite the conversation, but do you really care how exactly you became sick after you have eaten a meal in the restaurant?
Are you going to blame a chef who undercooked your meal, or a vendor who supplied them a spoiled batch of greens, or a waiter who did not wash his/her hands? It does not matter at this point. The whole restaurant as a business entity failed you. Period
Would you agree?

 

[Knightshade]

Not trying to reignite the conversation, but do you really care how exactly you became sick after you have eaten a meal in the restaurant?

...yes?

Because it makes it easier- both for myself and anyone else "innocent" in the supply chain, to avoid such problems in the future.

If you don't know, specifically, what caused a problem you can't fix it- or even be sure it has been fixed.

N
Are you going to blame a chef who undercooked your meal, or a vendor who supplied them a spoiled batch of greens, or a waiter who did not wash his/her hands? It does not matter at this point. The whole restaurant as a business entity failed you. Period
Would you agree?

No.

It absolutely matters.

For example if the restaurant as a general practice has poor hygiene I'd probably avoid that place in the future.

If instead they and a bunch of other places all got hit by a bad supplier of greens (and that issue has been fixed) I'd have no qualms returning to that restaurant.

 

[MS-Alec]

Because it makes it easier- both for myself and anyone else "innocent" in the supply chain, to avoid such problems in the future.

If you don't know, specifically, what caused a problem you can't fix it- or even be sure it has been fixed.

I do not believe I have seen any official statement or policy change/explanation from Tesla.

It absolutely matters.

For example if the restaurant as a general practice has poor hygiene I'd probably avoid that place in the future.

How does any first-time customer suppose to know that or even care? Please do not bother to answer , it was a rhetorical question.

 

[Chaserr]

For example if the restaurant as a general practice has poor hygiene I'd probably avoid that place in the future.

If instead they and a bunch of other places all got hit by a bad supplier of greens (and that issue has been fixed) I'd have no qualms returning to that restaurant.

If they make it impossible for you to know which is true, and all you know for certain is they definitely have some undisclosed hygiene issues that cause customers problems, will you eat there? Will you put their food in your childrens' mouths? All you know for certain is there are multiple reports, some better confirmed than others, all pointing to an ongoing problem that doesn't seem to stem from one day's produce.

 

[2101Guy]

Couple of questions
Has it been confirmed by TEsla:
- A sale between two private parties, will result in FSD (if already present) remaining with the car/new private owner
- Any form of sale that involves anything other than a private party to private party transaction, WILL result in FSD being removed from the actual car. (At some point)


If the above are true (are they?) has it been formally communicated by Tesla, publiclly?

 

[Knightshade]

Couple of questions
Has it been confirmed by TEsla:
- A sale between two private parties, will result in FSD (if already present) remaining with the car/new private owner

To my knowledge over the many thousands of such sales there's never been a case where it didn't (ie in a sale where Tesla wasn't in the chain of ownership after original sale)

Further- Teslas FAQ on connectivity explicitly cites private sale conveys car features while used sales through Tesla may not, no reason to expect FSD to follow different rules.

- Any form of sale that involves anything other than a private party to private party transaction, WILL result in FSD being removed from the actual car. (At some point)

No such policy I'm aware of. Indeed if you look at Teslas own used cars for sale some HAVE FSD on em, some don't.

If I had to guess at how they make those decisions it'd be they remove or add to maintain a certain mix of offerings- but knowing Tesla is might be entirely random based on each person processing the turn-around of a used car to be put up for sale who just flips a coin or something.

 

[dannycamps]

Couple of questions
Has it been confirmed by TEsla:
- A sale between two private parties, will result in FSD (if already present) remaining with the car/new private owner
- Any form of sale that involves anything other than a private party to private party transaction, WILL result in FSD being removed from the actual car. (At some point)


If the above are true (are they?) has it been formally communicated by Tesla, publiclly?

I believe this has been confirmed:
If you trade your Tesla into Tesla and then Tesla resells it directly as part of their used program or auctions it to another dealer, the features will be removed.

If you trade your Tesla into Toyota for a new Prius (maybe because you got hit in the head or something) and Toyota sells the car to another buyer, the features (FUSC definitely and possibly FSD) will be removed. This car would not pass through Tesla's hands at all in this scenario.

As of right now I don't believe a completely private transaction between two people has resulted in the loss of features.