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

[stopcrazypp]

No, that is not where the problem is. As you agreed, Tesla already has the technical capability to (almost) instantly enable/disable software features on their cars remotely. The problem is they are not using at the correct time (i.e. using it after they already sold the car to auction instead of prior). Whether using said capability downloads whole new software or just a new license/configuration is absolutely irrelevant to this issue.

Might be relevant in court however.

 

[Knightshade]

No, that is not where the problem is. As you agreed, Tesla already has the technical capability to (almost) instantly enable/disable software features on their cars remotely. The problem is they are not using at the correct time (i.e. using it after they already sold the car to auction instead of prior).

Right.

Hence when I wrote- in the original post you replied to:

Every time the config is changed in the back end system, the back end automatically initiates a push of a new config to the car IMMEDIATELY. And it keeps retrying until it gets an acknowledgement from the car it was received. And the back end also flags that VIN that it can not be sold until it update has been acknowledged by the car

That 2nd is the right way to fix it- but requires some IT work on Teslas end they're either unwilling, or unable, to do years after this issue first came up.

The immediate-push thing we KNOW they can do- because they do it for acceleration boost. So they'd just need a tiny bit of work to make it do that anytime a feature is REMOVED on the back end.

The "block sale until above is acknowledged by car" bit is potentially the hard part.

It wouldn't surprise me if the current IT back end is so fragmented they CAN'T do this fix because the system flagging features/sending updates is unrelated to the used vehicle sales system for example.



This has nothing to do with the law, it has to do with bad internal IT.

I pointed out the direct problem causing the feature removals to happen post sale- (flag removes are NOT pushed immediately, while flag ADDs already are- so we know they CAN do an immediate push, they just need to add deletes to the things they do it for).

And I pointed out the solution (making BOTH add and remove pushes happen immediately).

I then pointed out the second thing that'd make this solution even better- flagging used cars as NOT FOR SALE until the push is acknowledged by the car... but pointed out poor/fragmented IT systems might make this impossible currently.


Not sure what you're even arguing about at this point.

 

[GeorgeSymonds]

There's got to be an easier way than all this validation, extra information displayed etc (although I would agree free supercharging status should be displayed in the car). It seems Tesla can enable features within minutes, and disable seems to take a long time. Thats a technical issue in how they work, maybe linked to some decision to make the cars remember incase the mothership is down for a period of time to validate features so the car remembers for a period of time before expiring the feature. Whatever it is, the chances of the car being out of comms with Tesla from the point in time when Tesla disable the feature through to even the auction house let alone the dealers lot is pretty remote.

As an aside, does anyone know how long things like acceleration boost takes to cancel in the car if you decide to cancel the order within the 24 hour period or whatever they give you?

 

[whitex]

Might be relevant in court however.

Only if Tesla would claim that there is a valid technical reason for their remote provisioning taking so many days that features are not disabled until after the car goes through an auction, time at the dealer, and some time of the new owner driving it. If Tesla stipulates that once they provision it, the car will be reconfigured within ours or at least as soon as the car is powered on within cellular network range, then the technical details are irrelevant. This clearly is not a technical challenge, they have a button they can push to do what is right, the problem is they are not pushing that button until days, weeks, or even months after they sell the car - you don't need a technical jury to understand that.

Personally I think this could be fixed by simply making a law that says you can only remove car features with owner's explicit approval. While in Tesla's possession, they can agree to remove features, but once the ownership transfers, the change to remove features is gone, unless owner agrees. That is the kind of a law that IMHO is needed, making software licenses similar to physical options.

 

[whitex]

Right.

Hence when I wrote- in the original post you replied to:




I pointed out the direct problem causing the feature removals to happen post sale- (flag removes are NOT pushed immediately, while flag ADDs already are- so we know they CAN do an immediate push, they just need to add deletes to the things they do it for).

And I pointed out the solution (making BOTH add and remove pushes happen immediately).

I then pointed out the second thing that'd make this solution even better- flagging used cars as NOT FOR SALE until the push is acknowledged by the car... but pointed out poor/fragmented IT systems might make this impossible currently.


Not sure what you're even arguing about at this point.

Even simpler solution, require a big green physical window cling sticker "RELEASED FOR SALE by _insert_employee_id_here_" on every car that goes out. No car gets the sticker until said employee actually sits in the car and validates the car configuration matches the advertised features, or simply the back-end features. You can even add a big red cling sticker for every car traded-in "NOT RELEASED FOR SALE pending feature reconfiguration". Yea, I know it's not Elon style tech solution like you suggested, i.e. everything in the App solution, but you know what, tow truck drivers, auction employees, and car dealers don't use Tesla apps, but they will see large window stickers.

 

[Knightshade]

Even simpler solution, require a big green physical window cling sticker "RELEASED FOR SALE by _insert_employee_id_here_" on every car that goes out.

...that's vastly LESS simple than just fixing the internal IT system.

My method requires adding like 2 lines of code, leveraging functions that already exist, to immediately push feature deletes to cars. (the sale block would be a nice addition to that and also just require some internal IT work to automatically happen, but not needed to fix the issue for anything except cars that either have a 100% dead battery or are stored in faraday cages)

Yours requires humans to actively and consciously take physical action for every single used car Tesla handles (and wastes a ton of paper while they're at it).

 

[stopcrazypp]

Only if Tesla would claim that there is a valid technical reason for their remote provisioning taking so many days that features are not disabled until after the car goes through an auction, time at the dealer, and some time of the new owner driving it. If Tesla stipulates that once they provision it, the car will be reconfigured within ours or at least as soon as the car is powered on within cellular network range, then the technical details are irrelevant. This clearly is not a technical challenge, they have a button they can push to do what is right, the problem is they are not pushing that button until days, weeks, or even months after they sell the car - you don't need a technical jury to understand that.

Personally I think this could be fixed by simply making a law that says you can only remove car features with owner's explicit approval. While in Tesla's possession, they can agree to remove features, but once the ownership transfers, the change to remove features is gone, unless owner agrees. That is the kind of a law that IMHO is needed, making software licenses similar to physical options.

It's a bit more nuanced than that. If the authorization method is done by phoning home to the mothership to verify the feature is purchased for that car, Tesla disabling that authorization on their own servers would very unlikely to be treated by a jury/judge as "theft" (even if you ignore all the nuisances of software licensing laws).
This is how BMW does their authorization for software features, and when the server goes down it breaks things (which is why many times there is a bit of a grace period built in):
BMW CarPlay subscription breaks feature during extended ConnectedDrive outage

This is opposed to changing a flag inside the car. This same issue is also discussed for supercharging (and salvage vehicles). Tesla (at least previously, it may be changing) did authorization for it in the car. They toggle a flag in the car to disable it, and people say they are doing an unauthorized modification of their vehicles. If instead they did authorization at the supercharger (as they should have done), this would not be a problem.

 

[whitex]

It's a bit more nuanced than that. If the authorization method is done by phoning home to the mothership to verify the feature is purchased for that car, Tesla disabling that authorization on their own servers would very unlikely to be treated by a jury/judge as "theft" (even if you ignore all the nuisances of software licensing laws).

Why not? An owner enabling a feature they didn't pay for would be considered theft, so why would Tesla disabling a paid for feature not be theft as well? If Tesla legal was to argue enablement or disablement of a feature is not theft of anything of value, then there are people who will happily enable FSD for you for less money (which today would be considered theft, but if Tesla was to agree it is not, doors wide open).

This is how BMW does their authorization for software features, and when the server goes down it breaks things (which is why many times there is a bit of a grace period built in):
BMW CarPlay subscription breaks feature during extended ConnectedDrive outage

Not sure what your point is. Cloud enabled features go down sometimes, which often means they are unusable while the server is down (we've seen Tesla cloud go out on occasion in the past). Perhaps the confusion here is you think of Tesla solely as the cloud service provider, but you should think of them as both, Tesla engineering is the service provider and Tesla car resale is the customer who cannot add/remove features from the cars they sell until the server is back up. So they would have a choice to make, stop reselling cars until server is back up, or sell them with features already on the car - pretty simple concept, no different than if the water was turned off at a dealership and their choice was to so sell unwashed cars or wait for the water service to come back. As I suggested before, a law which says features modification require current owner approval would solve this problem. That would also require for the owner to approve each OTA update, which wouldn't be a bad thing either.

This same issue is also discussed for supercharging (and salvage vehicles). Tesla (at least previously, it may be changing) did authorization for it in the car. They toggle a flag in the car to disable it, and people say they are doing an unauthorized modification of their vehicles. If instead they did authorization at the supercharger (as they should have done), this would not be a problem.

AFAIK salvage cars have all their DC charging disabled, not just supercharging, which is why it would not work to just do the authorization at the supercharger.

That said, I suspect that not authorizing supercharging at the supercharger has to do with reliability - reduce the complexity of the supercharger and not require connectivity for the supercharger to function.

 

[whitex]

...that's vastly LESS simple than just fixing the internal IT system.

My method requires adding like 2 lines of code, leveraging functions that already exist, to immediately push feature deletes to cars. (the sale block would be a nice addition to that and also just require some internal IT work to automatically happen, but not needed to fix the issue for anything except cars that either have a 100% dead battery or are stored in faraday cages)

Yours requires humans to actively and consciously take physical action for every single used car Tesla handles (and wastes a ton of paper while they're at it).

How exactly if your 2 lines of code going to stop a tow truck from picking up the car to go to the auction?

 

[stopcrazypp]

Why not? An owner enabling a feature they didn't pay for would be considered theft, so why would Tesla disabling a paid for feature not be theft as well? If Tesla legal was to argue enablement or disablement of a feature is not theft of anything of value, then there are people who will happily enable FSD for you for less money (which today would be considered theft, but if Tesla was to agree it is not, doors wide open).

Tesla's argument is when they put the car up to auction, it is being sold without that software feature. The issue is they are remotely disabling the feature (by toggling flag inside car) after the dealer takes possession, and thus the legal argument is they are making an unauthorized modification to a vehicle that they no longer own by toggling that flag. If instead however, the process is Tesla is disabling something on their own server, even if it were delayed a few days, they aren't doing anything on the owner's car. The argument is similar with cases where they do audits, where the car may have changed hands (or immediately as it changed hands). That will defeat the analogy of taking the wheels off the car after it has changed ownership (which a judge/jury may more easily buy).

Also Tesla have not sue anyone for "theft" (at least that I'm aware of) for doing software changes to enable certain features. They certainly do try to use software to fight against it (like doing audits, and doing updates to try to make the hacks not work).

Not sure what your point is. Cloud enabled features go down sometimes, which often means they are unusable while the server is down (we've seen Tesla cloud go out on occasion in the past). Perhaps the confusion here is you think of Tesla solely as the cloud service provider, but you should think of them as both, Tesla engineering is the service provider and Tesla car resale is the customer who cannot add/remove features from the cars they sell until the server is back up. So they would have a choice to make, stop reselling cars until server is back up, or sell them with features already on the car - pretty simple concept, no different than if the water was turned off at a dealership and their choice was to so sell unwashed cars or wait for the water service to come back. As I suggested before, a law which says features modification require current owner approval would solve this problem. That would also require for the owner to approve each OTA update, which wouldn't be a bad thing either.

To clarify, that feature was not a cloud feature. CarPlay works even without an internet connection. What happened is BMW's authorization method relies on phoning home to their server, and when that went down, so did CarPlay. I'm just saying Tesla could use a similar authorization method and not have to deal with the question of "modifying" the car or "stealing" from the car.

AFAIK salvage cars have all their DC charging disabled, not just supercharging, which is why it would not work to just do the authorization at the supercharger.

That said, I suspect that not authorizing supercharging at the supercharger has to do with reliability - reduce the complexity of the supercharger and not require connectivity for the supercharger to function.

That's not the case yet, DC charging through CHAdeMO still works, only supercharging is disabled. There is discussion in other threads that this may change in the future with a new supercharger protocol that Tesla may push out that disables a flag inside the car (that would presumably break both), I presume to address cases where the salvage owner have disabled the internet connection to Tesla, so Tesla can't remotely disable it.
DC Fast charging after accident

 

[Knightshade]

How exactly if your 2 lines of code going to stop a tow truck from picking up the car to go to the auction?

Unless the car was sent to auction in a faraday cage, it wouldn't need to.

The SW push happens when the feature is removed on the back end, just like feature adds are RIGHT NOW.

So by the time it gets to auction what you see is what you get.


Which makes WAY more sense than your idea where each individual tesla sales center taking a trade in needs to physically do paperwork and rely on 100+ different places with 100+ different humans all getting it right every time they handle a used Tesla.

Why not? An owner enabling a feature they didn't pay for would be considered theft

Quite a number of owners have done this...enabling heated seats on SRs, enabling acceleration boost (or full performance) via 3rd party mods, etc...

Can you cite any examples of them being arrested or charged with theft? Ever?

, so why would Tesla disabling a paid for feature not be theft as well?

Because Tesla removed the feature from their back-end server while THEY owned the car.

Which is where that other user is suggesting the actual license exists.

They can't steal from themselves after all.

The entire problem today is that SOMETIMES that change having happened does not get transmitted to the vehicle immediately so it's not until that updated info gets to the car that you "see" that vehicle is not licensed for that feature.

 

[ucmndd]

I do so love the armchair IT professionals arguing the nuance and specific flavor of Tesla’s utter incompetence and greediness.

I really hope more people start pressing this with dealers and/or in court. It’s shameful behavior on Tesla’s part and unfortunately more than a few people are gonna need to get burned before they stop.

 

[Knightshade]

I do so love the armchair IT professionals arguing the nuance and specific flavor of Tesla’s utter incompetence and greediness.

I'm afraid you need to pick one.

EITHER they haven't added the 2 lines of code to fix this because their IT people are too incompetent to figure out how... OR they ARE competent and haven't added it out of greed.

Can't really be both.


Based on everything else I've seen of Tesla IT BTW, it's the first one.

I really hope more people start pressing this with dealers

Tesla doesn't have dealers of course- and individual stores have very little ability to do much of anything for you outside of normal process.

I absolutely 1000 percent agree they should have fixed this a long time ago. It's incredibly simple to do so.

I just think you shouldn't ascribe to malice what is easily explained by incompetence- especially given how much other evidence we have of internal incompetence at this sort of stuff.

 

[ucmndd]

Tesla doesn't have dealers of course- and individual stores have very little ability to do much of anything for you outside of normal process.

By “dealers” I mean the third party dealers that are buying these things at auction and pawning them off on customers. If they get burned a few times and end up having to unwind transactions due to misrepresented features, they’ll become understandably wary of Tesla’s cast-offs and the auction values will tank. Nobody is going to want to touch these things on the used market given Tesla’s incompetence/greed and their ability to alter the value of any given car by literally ten or more thousand dollars at their whim.

 

[stopcrazypp]

By “dealers” I mean the third party dealers that are buying these things at auction and pawning them off on customers. If they get burned a few times and end up having to unwind transactions due to misrepresented features, they’ll become understandably wary of Tesla’s cast-offs and the auction values will tank. Nobody is going to want to touch these things on the used market given Tesla’s incompetence/greed and their ability to alter the value of any given car by literally ten or more thousand dollars at their whim.

Except Teslas (and most cars really) are selling really well on the used car market, FSD or not, so they won't be able to resist. The dealers should just be much more careful about confirming what features are actually included in auction Teslas or just assume they don't have any software features included (which seems to be the case so far).

 

[whitex]

Unless the car was sent to auction in a faraday cage, it wouldn't need to.

The SW push happens when the feature is removed on the back end, just like feature adds are RIGHT NOW.

So by the time it gets to auction what you see is what you get.

Tesla already has a push capability and they don't ship cars in Faraday cages, yet features are removed days, weeks, or months later. So obviously that system doesn't work. With a clear "DO NOT TOW, CAR NOT READY" on the car, no tow truck driver would pick it up until someone at Tesla verifies that the features have been removed.

Tesla's argument is when they put the car up to auction, it is being sold without that software feature. The issue is they are remotely disabling the feature (by toggling flag inside car) after the dealer takes possession, and thus the legal argument is they are making an unauthorized modification to a vehicle that they no longer own by toggling that flag. If instead however, the process is Tesla is disabling something on their own server, even if it were delayed a few days, they aren't doing anything on the owner's car.

Tesla is doing something on their server. The car then connects to that server and downloads an updated configuration file. That new configuration file disables functionality on the car. Are you seriously suggesting that this is not Tesla modifying a car they don't own????

Consider a different example - I send an email to google server. Your phone connects to said server and retrieves this email, then you click on a link (or perhaps just display an image which uses a flaw in the rendering engine to click for you) so the phone downloads a program which encrypts the entire content of your phone - your the argument is I did not do anything on your phone at all because the your phone did all the work and I didn't touch it???? So according to you me asking for payment for a decryption key is a legitimate service offer (your phone encrypted itself, not me, I sell you a decryption service)?

Quite a number of owners have done this...enabling heated seats on SRs, enabling acceleration boost (or full performance) via 3rd party mods, etc...

Can you cite any examples of them being arrested or charged with theft? Ever?

You don't have clear examples in the press because nobody in their right mind would offer such a service and expect to win in court. The acceleration boost was not a license hack, but instead an inline CAN device which is in a grey area of the law. The law in question by the way is DMCA (applies the USA). Simply offering to enable features in a Tesla would very clearly violate this law.

The entire problem today is that SOMETIMES that change having happened does not get transmitted to the vehicle immediately so it's not until that updated info gets to the car that you "see" that vehicle is not licensed for that feature.

Hence someone should be checking the car BEFORE the ownership is transferred. The delay cost is on Tesla, not the new owner. The law should require any changes to the car to be done before the sale, and whether your system sucks and doesn't update the car in time, or the person who was supposed to do it was sick and didn't even enter it into the system, that is on you, not the new owner. Imagine if Tesla sold the car and forgot to remove premium 21" wheels. They issued the internal work order to their staff (similar to made a change on internal backend) while they owned it but the car was sold before the order was executed. Are they allowed to break into the car while in new owner's possession to swap the wheels, just because they issues the internal order before the ownership was transferred?

 

[Knightshade]

Tesla already has a push capability

I know. Since I've pointed that out like 3 times already.


The part you keep missing is they do not actually use it for feature removes right now.

2 lines of code and they could.

And it'd fix the actual problem automatically with no humans required to do anything manually.


Versus your idea of hundreds of individual people, at hundreds of individual Tesla showrooms, having the physically put a note on the vehicle, then keep checking it to see if the update hit the car yet, then remove the sign... and to get it right every single time.


Your method is vastly more error prone than the one I suggested, as well as being far more time, cost, and labor intensive.

yet features are removed days, weeks, or months later.

Days in the case of the OP... I think it was sold on a Friday and the feature removal hit the car on Monday or something like that.


EDIT- Yup looked it up. Car sold at auction Nov 15 2019 which is Friday.

FSD removed via software audit on Nov 18 2019, which is Monday.

So obviously that system doesn't work.

Yes. And I told you how they can fix it. Easily. Entirely on the back end.

You don't have clear examples in the press because nobody in their right mind would offer such a service and expect to win in court.

Sure they do.

Multiple places sell products that enable otherwise PAID Tesla features.

None have even had to appear in court, let alone expect to win there.

The acceleration boost was not a license hack, but instead an inline CAN device which is in a grey area of the law.

This is factually wrong as far as the breadth of their products and how they work.

WTF even is a "license hack"?

It's hardware that tells the car it has paid features that nobody ever paid Tesla for.

For the AB upgrade their device is basically telling the car "THE HAS AB BOOST FLAG IS SET TO YES" instead of the NO the "from tesla" config file would show.

Same thing for the heated seats that are a PAID Tesla upgrade for SR vehicles... they sell HW that tells the car you paid Tesla for it (and thus enables it) even though you didn't pay Tesla.

For the ghost upgrade the same folks sell (to turn an LR AWD into a P) they literally flash the drive motor- that's why you have to give them remote access to the car to be able to do it.... and it's why the upgrade may not survive a Tesla software update.... because it's not just an "inline" thing, it's changing the actual code running on the car.

Yes they remain in business- have people reselling their product- and nobody is going after them for "theft"

Why do you suppose that is?


It's exactly the thing you claimed would get you shut down for theft. And it doesn't get anyone shut down for theft.

The law in question by the way is DMCA (applies the USA). Simply offering to enable features in a Tesla would very clearly violate this law.

That is... not an accurate reading of that law.

The 2 major "new" things in the DMCA were a safe harbor for hosts (irrelevant here), and making it illegal to circumvent copy protection like encryption for piracy purposes... Teslas code is largely not encrypted in this way in the first place so again not really relevant here.... (there was also clerical/process stuff on procedures, bringing certain rules in line with international treaties, etc- but again largely not relevant to anything in this discussion)


The fact Tesla isn't going after them for DMCA violations is also evidence of that of course--- but if you wanna try and cite the actual wording in the DMCA you think they're violating feel free to post it here.

 

[dmurphy]

Yes they remain in business- have people reselling their product- and nobody is going after them for "theft"

Why do you suppose that is?

… same reason Microsoft turned a blind eye to blatant piracy for so long in the 80s and 90s ….. marketing. Tesla can’t afford to turn their supporters against them over minor revenue leakage.

 

[stopcrazypp]

Tesla is doing something on their server. The car then connects to that server and downloads an updated configuration file. That new configuration file disables functionality on the car. Are you seriously suggesting that this is not Tesla modifying a car they don't own????

Not if the car program is what does the check of a flag that is on a remote server (instead of Tesla pushing the change from the server side, as they currently apparently do).

Consider a different example - I send an email to google server. Your phone connects to said server and retrieves this email, then you click on a link (or perhaps just display an image which uses a flaw in the rendering engine to click for you) so the phone downloads a program which encrypts the entire content of your phone - your the argument is I did not do anything on your phone at all because the your phone did all the work and I didn't touch it???? So according to you me asking for payment for a decryption key is a legitimate service offer (your phone encrypted itself, not me, I sell you a decryption service)?

Sending a whole new executable is not anywhere near the same as above which is an executable already installed, checking a predetermined flag on a remote server. Also, many jurisdictions have laws specifically against sending malicious software. It's not remotely the same thing.

 

[whitex]

Sending a whole new executable is not anywhere near the same as above which is an executable already installed, checking a predetermined flag on a remote server. Also, many jurisdictions have laws specifically against sending malicious software. It's not remotely the same thing.

I didn't send it, your phone fetched it. You claim there is a distinction if the car connects and downloads a payload vs. sending it to the car. So your phone fetching an executable (perhaps very small, just big enough to scramble the keys your own phone uses to encrypt the data) is no different than Tesla fetching an update, whether a configuration which disables a feature, or a whole new executable which disables a feature (or nerfes the battery, or charging rate, etc).