I'm sorry but I respectively disagree- Tesla did not and I believe still doesn't produce the cars "in inventory", the real customer has to pay a deposit to begin the car production. The Monroney sticker goes with that car. Tesla claims they cannot remove FSDC since it is tied to VIN, if the original customer backs out for any reason and new one wants to buy the car without FSDC.
-
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
This really shows the truth behind Tesla actions. IE their own self interest above all else.
If you are going to sell FSD then by all means sell it in ruturn for what you are paid. And the benefit you bought should either become part of the car or belong to the purchaser and be transferable to a subsequent vehicle that they own (which would be best imo as its a big attraction to brand loyalty whilst also simplifying used car sales as cars would never have attached 'soft addons'. That could apply to all such benefits that they remain with the original owner.
Acura claimed they could not remove the $250 floor mats and $300 locking wheel nuts. So I walked out.
Did the dealer represent that it had FSD or did you only find out after you bought it, found it working and later obtained the Monroney sticker?
Because reading between the lines here it sounds like Tesla removed the FSD license attached to the car before they sold the car to the dealer.
Of course you wouldn't know that if you test drove it with FSD.
Last edited:
linux-works
Active Member
this should be escalated and raised to media attention.
before tesla gets any worse, they need to be taught a lesson. and yes, it has to be legal, as I think they seem to be like a little child that only learns some lessons the hard way.
anti-competitive behavior is not acceptable. they are trying to control even 3rd party sales. ianal but that sounds illegal to me.
I would support legal action against tesla if it will help fix this problem once and for all. precedent needs to be set, as the other poster said, its a wild west and tesla gets away with too much and the trend is not encouraging.
before tesla gets any worse, they need to be taught a lesson. and yes, it has to be legal, as I think they seem to be like a little child that only learns some lessons the hard way.
anti-competitive behavior is not acceptable. they are trying to control even 3rd party sales. ianal but that sounds illegal to me.
I would support legal action against tesla if it will help fix this problem once and for all. precedent needs to be set, as the other poster said, its a wild west and tesla gets away with too much and the trend is not encouraging.
Tam
Well-Known Member
When I bought my Prius that had optional wheels, I didn't want to pay for them and they switched to standard wheels. I paid less for it but I still brought home the original Monroney sticker that said with optional wheels with the higher price.
As much as I love my Tesla I think its past due for a class action on FSD. Tesla needs to tie this license to individuals and allow it to move to other vehicles in their line up at least once during its lifetime.
linux-works
Active Member
they need to pick a business model and stick to it. and that model can include both a buy and a rent option, but what should not happen is that, once defined, the definition of what was delivered with the product should not be reduced without compensation.
*especially remotely*, which is the new twist, here. OTA throws a monkey wrench in all of this and that's the part that needs to be legally defined.
all the rest of the car makers will be doing OTA as it makes sense (lets everyone ship pre-beta software and then improve it over time). this needs to be settled. tesla seems to be asking to be the first precedent case. maybe it should happen, then.
love my car. don't love the company's behavior, much, from all I'm reading, here.
Tam
Well-Known Member
There's a similar case that the owner didn't pay for the EAP but still brought home a Monroney Sticker that said the car had $5,000 EAP on it and Tesla took that EAP away over-the-air while the Monroney Sticker physically remains intact.
EAP on window sticker but I didn’t pay for it, it worked initially and then didn’t
linux-works
Active Member
I wonder, what precedents have been set that define what kinds of value can be 'taken back' by a vendor who manufactured the product. or an entity that sells the product.
amazon sold 1984 (the book) as a kindle e-copy and then 'took it back' for some reason or another. I don't remember how that worked out, but I think it did involve amazon deleting the e-book remotely. perhaps the difference was that amazon refunded the cost of the e-book, but that still does not excuse 'remote electronic theft'.
is this hacking? can tesla be sued for computer fraud? they have a valid reason to remotely 'enter your vehicle' but there are some things they don't have the right to do. this is part of the precedent that needs to be established.
maybe tesla can be the poster child for some new laws. see, this is why we have a government, when companies get too powerful and start to do whatever they want. when they are too strong, you need something that is also strong to balance the power. if this goes to court, well, its because tesla's behavior stopped being self-governing.
amazon sold 1984 (the book) as a kindle e-copy and then 'took it back' for some reason or another. I don't remember how that worked out, but I think it did involve amazon deleting the e-book remotely. perhaps the difference was that amazon refunded the cost of the e-book, but that still does not excuse 'remote electronic theft'.
is this hacking? can tesla be sued for computer fraud? they have a valid reason to remotely 'enter your vehicle' but there are some things they don't have the right to do. this is part of the precedent that needs to be established.
maybe tesla can be the poster child for some new laws. see, this is why we have a government, when companies get too powerful and start to do whatever they want. when they are too strong, you need something that is also strong to balance the power. if this goes to court, well, its because tesla's behavior stopped being self-governing.
I think for this discussion we have to assume that no deceit is intended and that FSD was genuinely attached at time of sale and subsequently removed by Tesla.
The onus should now be on Tesla to give evidence that they are entitled to remove FSD on the grounds that a previous owner / seller effectively misrepresented the status of the car as having FSD.
With so many changes to what is and isn't included with which versions / sale dates or which models I can see used Tesla sales becoming more and more messy to the point that owners genuinely don't know what their car includes and doesnt include and which of those benefits would pass to what catagory of future owner.
Minefield.
The 3rd party dealership advertised FSDC, I have pictures, screen shots and a disclosure report.
I would say they were caught by surprise as well. They stated that there's no so-called a vehicle condition report was present at the auction. (cannot guarantee that, but I tried to get it from the auction house and they couldn't locate it as well)
I have been an Audible member for many years and have thousands of audio books in my 'Library'. Just recently I was browsing through old titles only to find they are no longer available in my account (there is a place holder that remains, but the title no longer accessible). Probably removed due to changes in international rights to the title or something like that.
Gave me reason to contemplate this issue at length. They effectively stole my books, but I have no sensible way of getting the book back.
dbldwn02
Active Member
It sucks that this happened to the OP. I think it's an easy win for him.
On the other hand, maybe this means they're going to be doing something with the people who originally purchased the old version of FSD. Hopefully it's a huge discount off a new car without having to trade in previous car. I know it probably won't happen but I can wish.
linux-works
Active Member
whenever I get a youtube link, I run a program called youtube-dl (youtube-dl) and grab the file and save it locally. THEN I watch it. no 'buffering', (no ads!) and I can watch that video tomorrow, next year, next century (well...), etc. no remote corp saying 'no!' to me.
the cloud sucks. "so many things, I could have done, but clouds got in my way". clouds are just "someone else's computer". I don't like clouds or trust them. I'm old school. I like local copies, thankyouverymuch
here, we are trusting remote-control by the vendor a bit too much.
maybe they should not have root, on our cars.... (LOL)
the cloud sucks. "so many things, I could have done, but clouds got in my way". clouds are just "someone else's computer". I don't like clouds or trust them. I'm old school. I like local copies, thankyouverymuch
here, we are trusting remote-control by the vendor a bit too much.
maybe they should not have root, on our cars.... (LOL)
linux-works
Active Member
this is one of the reasons for so-called piracy. break the DRM, save the unencrypted copy and you have freed it. it is no longer remotely controllable.
there are many examples of companies installing remote DRM internet services, and then years later, they lose interest and turn off those services, stranding the users who bought hardware that depend on those remote services.
by breaking the DRM, you are no longer a slave the company. you have more control and freedom over the product you BOUGHT.
tesla is engaging in digital 'rights' management, in a way, here.
go to the media. escalate this. lets try to fix this, somehow, before it gets even worse.
whenever I get a youtube link, I run a program called youtube-dl (youtube-dl) and grab the file and save it locally. THEN I watch it. no 'buffering', (no ads!) and I can watch that video tomorrow, next year, next century (well...), etc. no remote corp saying 'no!' to me.
the cloud sucks. "so many things, I could have done, but clouds got in my way". clouds are just "someone else's computer". I don't like clouds or trust them. I'm old school. I like local copies, thankyouverymuch
here, we are trusting remote-control by the vendor a bit too much.
maybe they should not have root, on our cars.... (LOL)
The whole new thing with renting software (popular in audio and graphics business) is terrible. You own nothing. And they can pull it at any time.
I call it digital serfdom
Tesla has no relationship with the OP. The OP did not buy the car from Tesla but rather from a third party non-Tesla dealers. The legal relationship is between the OP and the non-Tesla dealer. That is why I asked what representations (if any) the non-Tesla dealer made and that if any representations were made, he should be seeking redress from that non-Tesla dealer and not Tesla.
The non-Tesla dealer may (or may nit) have some legal recourse against Tesla. However, I suspect that the non-Tesla dealer that bought the car at auction likely bought it as is, knowing Tesla’s policies with respect to how Tesla treats features available on auctioned cars purchased from Tesla. It’s no secret what Tesla does to such cars, and the non-Tesla dealer will likely be held by a court to a higher standard than a consumer would be.
The bottom line is that we all know Tesla is doing whatever it can to maximize its bottom line. When buying a used Tesla from a non-Tesla dealer it is imperative that the buyer do a complete and thorough research on the vehicle and get in writing from the non-Tesla dealer as to each and every feature that will be in the car. The Monroney sheet can only be relied upon by the original purchaser of the car as to the features on the car.
linux-works
Active Member
and without a balance of power, there is abuse.
this is abuse.
that's why I support escalation so that it does not grow any further. tesla gets away with it ... 'because they can' and because they are financially stronger than the regular guy.
(someone, remind me, which century are we living in?)
Amazon has sold digital content to people in the past and when they no longer had the right to sell that content they pulled the content from the purchaser. Yes it sucks, but if one reads the license agreement (something most people do not do), we only get the right to use the content. We do not own the content. That is one reason I only buy videos that include the physical disc along with a digital code. The physical disc is my fallback should the digital copy be pulled from my library.
Similar threads
