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

[swegman]

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.

You are kidding I assume. Tesla has in-house counsel (in addition to outside counsel). The in-house counsel are in salary so it costs Tesla nothing.

My battery has been capped by Tesla. My charge rate has been reduced. There is a class action lawsuit against them and they are using every tactic to delay and frustrate us. It will be years before the issue is resolved. I’m speaking as an attorney that is familiar with such tactics.

 

[linux-works]

its good I'm seeing the real tesla. 3 months into my first tesla and I'm getting an education, of sorts, here.

the more I see, the more I'm thinking 'dump this car right around warranty-expire time'. wish I could see keeping my car long-term, but even in-warranty service is hit/miss. I don't want to trust expensive repairs on a car, by a company that is trending this way.

knowing that my car will be a semi-short term thing, that will affect a few of my decisions. one of them would be to not buy fsd 'early'.

so, tesla, I was on the fence about fsd but you've just lost a chance at my $7k. if I'm selling/trading the car in 4 yrs or less, and fsd features are at least a year away if not more, why would I waste money like that?

tesla karma. (tesla carma?). its a bitch.

 

[linux-works]

just wait until they come out with 'software-defined paint colors' and if you don't keep up with you $9.99 monthly paint payment, they change your color to yellow (say). which is great, if you like yellow, I guess

you wait. 'CaaS' (color as a service) is coming.

george orwell had *no* idea what the real future is rolling out to be.

 

[emmz0r]

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.

Yeah but software the company and seller (the same company) have 100% control over the licensing (Tesla), yet you're still under their mercy.

 

[thenaimis]

I haven't seen a EULA for FSD and a quick google search only turned up links to threads like this for the first page. A lot of software licenses start with the phrase "This software is licensed, not sold", which presumably is the approach Tesla has taken. But again I haven't actually seen (to my recollection) the EULA for FSD. Maybe someone with a longer attention span than I can dig it up.

Or maybe it's in the car along with the user manual that I can't pull up because epic MCU1 web browser fail.

 

[israndy]

This thread is a hot mess. People are up in arms mad at Tesla for whatever reason and using this thread to post. There are issues that need to be resolved with Tesla's relations with the owner community and class action is good to make sure they don't forget an expensive issue, but saying that Tesla doesn't have the right to audit their cars to make sure they all have the features they were sold with is redonk

Following the Model 3 threads for about 4 years now I have seen LOTS of cars that magically had Free Supercharging at purchase. Owners were posting here asking why were they different. And eventually, they all got corrected and those individuals don't have it anymore. Tesla didn't come to them demanding payment for the Free charging they got, they just don't have it anymore.

Suggesting that a car's original Monroney sticker is inviolate is redonk too, unless there is a second sticker created for the used car sale there are zero reasons for Tesla to include software features from the original purchase after they have bought the car back. Reset to zero and let the customer add the features they want. This way the car can be sold cheaply but Tesla can continue to make money on it, just like they are doing with the acceleration upgrades they are now offering.

Now, this is ONLY if Telsa buys the car back, private sales should not be reset opportunities, and there needs to be communication between Tesla and auction buyers as to what features are enabled. But I find used car dealers are pathetic at selling Teslas and asking if they have EAP will be usually met with blank stares. This is why it is often worth buying directly from Tesla.

Since the used dealer is uneducated I can see going back to them for redress. "This car was sold with these features, now they are gone". This is where having a second Monroney for the used car sale would be useful.

 

[Battpower]

3 months into my first tesla and I'm getting an education,

Threads like this one can be rather depressing, but don't forget that as well as pretty much launching the mainstream EV marketplace, designing desirable cars to outperform the best of a hundred plus years of ICE evolution, building global manufacturing on an unprecedented scale in equally unprecedented short timescale, they also have to learn how to build brand loyalty, how to treat their present and future clients and how to maintain a fleet of vehicles in a manner that respects the people who buy them.

You can see how far they have to go in that learning process in many posts on TMC. In my case, my new car had a tiny chip on the glass roof. I would have been fine with a 'repair' to polish the chip mark and I'm sure it would have been both invisible and trouble free. Tesla however required that I have the entire glass roof replaced (at their cost).

They booked the work in their service system but they could not give me any status update (even what action they were planning on taking) until the replacement glass arrived at the SC and an appointment scheduled. Maximum cost to them and maximum uncertainty for me, yet hopefully a totally fine outcome. Just makes no sense.

 

[AMPd]

This thread is a hot mess. People are up in arms mad at Tesla for whatever reason and using this thread to post. There are issues that need to be resolved with Tesla's relations with the owner community and class action is good to make sure they don't forget an expensive issue, but saying that Tesla doesn't have the right to audit their cars to make sure they all have the features they were sold with is redonk

Following the Model 3 threads for about 4 years now I have seen LOTS of cars that magically had Free Supercharging at purchase. Owners were posting here asking why were they different. And eventually, they all got corrected and those individuals don't have it anymore. Tesla didn't come to them demanding payment for the Free charging they got, they just don't have it anymore.

Suggesting that a car's original Monroney sticker is inviolate is redonk too, unless there is a second sticker created for the used car sale there are zero reasons for Tesla to include software features from the original purchase after they have bought the car back. Reset to zero and let the customer add the features they want. This way the car can be sold cheaply but Tesla can continue to make money on it, just like they are doing with the acceleration upgrades they are now offering.

Now, this is ONLY if Telsa buys the car back, private sales should not be reset opportunities, and there needs to be communication between Tesla and auction buyers as to what features are enabled. But I find used car dealers are pathetic at selling Teslas and asking if they have EAP will be usually met with blank stares. This is why it is often worth buying directly from Tesla.

Since the used dealer is uneducated I can see going back to them for redress. "This car was sold with these features, now they are gone". This is where having a second Monroney for the used car sale would be useful.

Stopped reading there. Not their car

 

[Battpower]

have the features they were sold with

That's the sticking point.

Does a 3rd party dealer know or care exactly what intangible options are on a car that they buy?

Is such a dealer able or willing to battle with Tesla to find out wich of those options will stay with the car when they re-sell it?

If Tesla change their policy overnight and while a car is in dealer stock, who can be held accountable?

Maybe the best is for all used sales to be handled as brokerage deals with a commission paid to the dealer. At least that way you get to deal with the previous owner and they can still deal with Tesla on obtaining needed proofs.

 

[Battpower]

used car dealers are pathetic at selling Teslas

They have no value to add beyond giving it a good clean.

On the downside they represent a potentially huge gap in the information and liability chains.

 

[mkspeedr]

I am guessing your user name is because Microsoft did the same thing and made you revert back to Linux.

 

[Battpower]

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.

True, but unlike other cars, with Tesla you are clearly bound by an ongoing contract of sorts irrespective of who you buy from. This thread begs the question loud and clear "what parts of my car, if any, are beyond Tesla's direct control / interference?".

If a car accidentally went to auction with an expensive set of alloy wheels, then the original owner came in to the lot after the car sold and started putting old steel wheels on, it would be illegal unless made very clear prior to bidding that the wheels being sold were not those on the car at the time of sale.

If possession is 9/10ths of the law, then having an open tunnel for Tesla to remove value from your car whenever they decide to is unacceptable on many levels. What parts of your car are 'your possession / property'? At the very least there should / must be a mechanism where Tesla have to notify the present legal owner of any (?negative) change ahead of such action being taken, giving the owner chance to respond. Otherwise OTA is like a form of trespass.

 

[swegman]

Stopped reading there. Not their car

We have had thus ownership debate for quite some time now in other threads that we both have read and contributed to (I own my car since 2013, have been a member of TMC since before that and recognize your username).

Tesla considers the cars to be computers on wheels and in that regard, has taken the position that we merely have licenses to use the cars, but that tesla retains ownership rights. Read the numerous licenses associated with the car. I’m not defending them. I feel when I bought my car the physical car belongs to me to do with as I believe. But Tesla believes otherwise. And they are not alone. I know that GM has taken the same position due to all the computerization of their cars.

Cars have evolved and are full of software with lots of licenses. Today’s cars are a far cry from you grandparents ( and even your parents) cars. What is needed is for Congress to establish legislation that address these new questions. Who owns what and what transfers what a car is “sold”? But in the current climate in Washington I would not expect any action on this matter.

 

[mattwhite]

What is needed is for Congress to establish legislation that address these new questions. Who owns what and what transfers what a car is “sold”? But in the current climate in Washington I would not expect any action on this matter.

Exactly. Legislation probably won't happen until there are far more EVs on the road and the other big players are in the market. But it will happen. And Tesla's one-sided positions on this stuff - that they can do whatever they want whenever they want - will probably cause it to happen sooner than it would otherwise.

but saying that Tesla doesn't have the right to audit their cars to make sure they all have the features they were sold with is redonk

Tesla possibly contributed to the OPs problem - if it was indeed Tesla's intent to strip the car of FSD, Tesla should have done so promptly, before the car was sold to the dealer. This delay, until after the car had been sold to the OP (a 3rd party), was wholly avoidable and within Tesla's control. To me this is similar to the recording statues for deeds - the new owner (Buyer #1) has a duty to record their legal instruments in the appropriate public records to put the world on notice of their ownership rights. If Buyer #1 fail to do so and a 3rd party (Buyer #2) comes along and buys the property from the same seller (who's now sold the property twice), then Buyer #1 is out of luck because they failed to record their deed - the theory being that a 3rd party (Buyer #2) is and innocent party unjustly harmed by the lack of diligence of Buyer #1 to promptly record their documents - and Buyer #2 prevails. Similarly, Tesla shouldn't be able to drag its feet on removing FSD, thereby causing damage to an innocent 3rd party.

So Tesla is at least partly at fault. If Tesla's terms and conditions of the sale referred to the removal of FSD, then the dealer is also at fault. But I see no scenario where the OP is the one to blame and should bear any responsibility - he should be made whole.

 

[Az_Rael]

There is a class action lawsuit against them and they are using every tactic to delay and frustrate us. It will be years before the issue is resolved.

I would expect them to go scorched earth over a class action. But a less than $10000 judgement from a single owner? I am guessing they might come to terms with that owner and either restore the software or pay. They could require an NDA to be signed, which they have done in the past when they came to agreements with other dissatisfied customers. (They famously got chided by the NHTSA for requiring an NDA of a customer who had his control arms fail)

 

[swegman]

Tesla possibly contributed to the OPs problem - if it was indeed Tesla's intent to strip the car of FSD, Tesla should have done so promptly, before the car was sold to the dealer. This delay, until after the car had been sold to the OP (a 3rd party), was wholly avoidable and within Tesla's control. To me this is similar to the recording statues for deeds - the new owner (Buyer #1) has a duty to record their legal instruments in the appropriate public records to put the world on notice of their ownership rights. If Buyer #1 fail to do so and a 3rd party (Buyer #2) comes along and buys the property from the same seller (who's now sold the property twice), then Buyer #1 is out of luck because they failed to record their deed - the theory being that a 3rd party (Buyer #2) is and innocent party unjustly harmed by the lack of diligence of Buyer #1 to promptly record their documents - and Buyer #2 prevails. Similarly, Tesla shouldn't be able to drag its feet on removing FSD and cause damage to an innocent 3rd party

The recording statutes you refer to do nit require such recording before the sale occurs or even in the day of sale. Says recording merely needs to be done within a reasonable time period (obviously the sooner the better, and that is why one purchases title insurance to protect yourself in the event there is an issue with a clear title).

In the present situation, it appears the car was auctioned on November 15 and 3 days later (November 18) an audit allegedly determined that the auctioned car was not eligible for FSD. That is not an unreasonable delay.

To the original poster, please clarify whether when you purchased the car on December 5, was FSD operating? As FSD has not yet been released, please clarify for me how you know the car contained FSD at the time you purchased it from the non-Tesla dealer. Was it because it was noted on the Monroney sheet to the original purchaser (not good to rely on with a used Tesla bought from a non-Tesla dealer) and/or because the non-Tesla dealer represented the car as having FSD? I don’t have FSD on either my Model S or Model 3 cars (both purchased new) as I learned a long time ago not to purchase vaporware, so I don’t know how to identify if a vehicle includes a non-released feature.

 

[Battpower]

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.

Despite any comments I've made that may appear to the contrary, I believe that Tesla probably have the right to make changes to vehicles as they see fit as part of accepting OTA updates.
I have not seen evidence as to why the auction house would know that FSD would be disabled. Is it common (or even factual but uncommon) knowledge that FSD does not transfer for life with a vehicle? A big majority of cars end up at auction houses, so is it expected that any with FSD (and previously EAP?) lose that functionality when sold at auction?

If it is the sale at auction that effectively strips the car of a feature, then this is surely anti-competitive against sale by auction.

If established that it is obvious (or should have been obvious) to someone in the chain that FSD would not follow through with the vehicle, and they knowingly sold it on with FSD being included, that is where a misrepresantation took place.

 

[MS-Alec]

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.

It should be simple like a computer purchase- You buy a Microsoft Surface laptop (let's stick to MS brand for now to avoid others brands speculation ) AND the operation system/software with it, plus any add-ons, such as Internet Explorer, MS Paint, MS Defender, etc.
If you choose to sell it to somebody else Microsoft WILL NOT try to extort more money from next owner, AND will provide improvement and security updates till the EOSL.

 

[MS-Alec]

Despite any comments I've made that may appear to the contrary, I believe that Tesla probably have the right to make changes to vehicles as they see fit as part of acception OTA updates.
I have not seen evidence as to why the auction house would know that FSD would be disabled. Is it common (or even factual but uncommon) knowledge that FSD does not transfer for life with a vehicle? A big majority of cars end up at auction houses, so is it expected that any with FSD (and previously EAP?) lose that functionality when sold at auction?

If it is the sale at auction that effectively strips the car of a feature, then this is surely anti-competitive against sale by auction.

If established that it is obvious (or should have been obvious) to someone in the chain that FSD would not follow through with the vehicle, and they knowingly sold it on with FSD being included, that is where a misrepresantation took place.

According to Tesla mobile tech(and Tesla might say later on he had no an idea what he was talking about) any car will loose FSDC and FUSC once the ownership has been transferred to 3rd party buyer! So, he said the car would be stripped at some point anyway.

 

[MS-Alec]

The recording statutes you refer to do nit require such recording before the sale occurs or even in the day of sale. Says recording merely needs to be done within a reasonable time period (obviously the sooner the better, and that is why one purchases title insurance to protect yourself in the event there is an issue with a clear title).

In the present situation, it appears the car was auctioned on November 15 and 3 days later (November 18) an audit allegedly determined that the auctioned car was not eligible for FSD. That is not an unreasonable delay.

To the original poster, please clarify whether when you purchased the car on December 5, was FSD operating? As FSD has not yet been released, please clarify for me how you know the car contained FSD at the time you purchased it from the non-Tesla dealer. Was it because it was noted on the Monroney sheet to the original purchaser (not good to rely on with a used Tesla bought from a non-Tesla dealer) and/or because the non-Tesla dealer represented the car as having FSD? I don’t have FSD on either my Model S or Model 3 cars (both purchased new) as I learned a long time ago not to purchase vaporware, so I don’t know how to identify if a vehicle includes a non-released feature.

The dealer claims he never seen any car condition report from auction house (Title didn't reflect any ownership of the auction house, so Tesla sold the car to 3rd party dealership, and he sold it to me)
The pictures show Summon and NoA, which are definitely indicate at least EAP.
Pictures were taken on 11/15 .
Dealership stated that they executed update a day before I picked up the car, and were under assumption it is a glitch on Tesla side) I realized it is gone after all sale docs were signed (a very simple sale contract and AS-IS note/release their responsibilities from any warranty)