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

[MS-Alec]

How about this for a comparison: A dealer buys on old PC at auction that has Adobe products installed with a license. You purchase it from the dealer and 3 days later Adobe stops working because the original owner requested that Adobe cancel, or transfer, the license but it took Adobe a few days to do it.

I'm sorry but you are trying to compare the apples to oranges.
Did Tesla ever said that any and all software or future/option is a subject to subscription fee? It was not when I checked last time.

 

[MP3Mike]

I'm sorry but you are trying to compare the apples to oranges.
Did Tesla ever said that any and all software or future/option is a subject to subscription fee? It was not when I checked last time.

I didn't say a subscription, I was taking about the old perpetual licenses linked to a PC.

 

[MS-Alec]

Thank you for posting the Monroney sheet. This clarifies things a bit.

The car was built in 2017 and included the computer and other hardware (at a $3,000 cost) to enable full self driving (eg, this is FSDC). The Monroney sheet does NOT show that the FSD software was part of the car when it was built. So one of 2 possibilities exist: (1) FSD software was incorrectly added to the car when built and then removed once Tesla discovered the error (via the audit, hence the reason FSD is not listed in the Monroney sheet), or (2) the original owner added FSD after having purchased the car, which Tesla then removed in accordance with their stated policy when getting back possession of a car, which would most likely be via a trade-in.

Why do you say you do not have EAP? Because you do not have Summon and NoA? As previously noted, at some point Tesla moved these two features from EAP to the FSD software, which it looks like was not supposed to be included on the car when originally built according to the Monroney sheet you attached. I’m not certain what was a part of EAP when your car was built, but I’m certain there are members here that can answer that question.

Can someone tell the OP what features of EAP should be on his car, based upon his car’s month and year of manufacture, so he can determine whether or not he still has EAP.

BTW, you are not missing much not having Summons. Search this forum and you will find tons of posts where the cars crashed into objects using Summons.

EAP has Summon and NoA, which were moved under FSD at some point as you said (beginning of 2019 or so)
EAP was a software option and FSDC was a promise to replace the hardware to new one to handle FSD autonomy once , if ever it will be legal!
Why they want retroactively make people to pay a second time for that is beyond me.

 

[ucmndd]

Why they want retroactively make people to pay a second time for that is beyond me.

Basically because they can.

I agree it’s in extremely bad taste to sell one customer what amounts to snake oil and then turn around and charge someone else for the same thing on the same car. It’s greedy and foolish and is leading to an untenable situation where it’s going to become near impossible to figure out what a car actually has and doesn’t have in the used market.

It’s bad business all around. That said I really don’t know that you have much recourse.

 

[swegman]

I think you missed the point. OTA updates, while novel in delivery form, are no different from physical updates from an ownership/transfer standpoint. Let's say you bought a used car and found, after purchase, the owner had accidentally left some personal items in the trunk. Do you own those also? If they are not part of the bill of sale, then you almost certainly dont (this varies across jurisdictions, but you get my point). If the dealer did not specify that the car came with FSD then this is pretty much the same situation.

Where it gets dubious is that "if", since the OP only referenced the monroney, which only covers the car when it was sold new. We dont know how Tesla represented the car when sold to the dealer, nor how the dealer represented the car to the OP. If Tesla sold the car specified as being with FSD and later revoked it, they are clearly in the wrong and everyone should get mad at them (including me). If the dealer explicitly sold the car with FSD when it didn't have it (regardless of if it was working or not), then he is responsible (even if it was just an honest mistake). If neither Tesla nor the dealer represented the car as having FSD, then its down to the OP for erroneously assuming the car had FSD (presumably based on the monroney).

However, if Tesla were late in revoking the feature, and thus created an expectation from the OP (just by playing with the car, as we all would), then regardless of how "right" they were legally, they certainly were downright stupid from a customer relations standpoint.

The OP obviously did not rely on what was indicated on the Monroney sheet since, by his admission, he did not get it until sometime after he purchased the car. So an attempted argument that he relied on a written document of tesla’s is out the window.

According to MP3MIKE, Tesla replaces EAP with regular AP when a car comes back to Tesla (“passes through their hands”). So the issue is not whether the OP should have FSD (which it appears he was not entitled to based on an examination of the Monroney sheet), but rather, whether Summon and NoA were a part of EAP in cars built in 08/2017, which Tesla downgraded to regular AP once the car passed back through their hands, snd if thus us the case, whether such act is permissible.

It seems the OP‘s gripe should not be about losing FSD (as it appears the car should not have had it to begin with) but rather, about whether his EAP should have been downgraded to AP once the car was sold at auction and/or by a third party non-Tesla dealer.

Unless the non-Tesla dealer gave the OP a written document that the car included the FSD SOFTWARE to enable full self driving ;thus misrepresenting the features on the car), the OP has no recourse against the non-Tesla dealer as his purcharge contract with the non-Tesla dealer stated it was an AS-IS sale.

Further, the OP said the suction house had no written feature documents on the car, so there is no misrepresentation from Tesla to the auction house, and likewise, from the auction house to the non-Tesla dealer.

I feel bad for the OP but this is the realty of the risk of not buying a used car directly from Tesla. Tesla may still have downgraded EAP to regular AP if he bought the car directly from Tesla, but he would have most likely known what was included on the car, and if their printed listing of the used car said EAP and then he actually got AP, he would have recourse against Tesla.

 

[swegman]

I think you missed the point. OTA updates, while novel in delivery form, are no different from physical updates from an ownership/transfer standpoint. Let's say you bought a used car and found, after purchase, the owner had accidentally left some personal items in the trunk. Do you own those also? If they are not part of the bill of sale, then you almost certainly dont (this varies across jurisdictions, but you get my point). If the dealer did not specify that the car came with FSD then this is pretty much the same situation.

Where it gets dubious is that "if", since the OP only referenced the monroney, which only covers the car when it was sold new. We dont know how Tesla represented the car when sold to the dealer, nor how the dealer represented the car to the OP. If Tesla sold the car specified as being with FSD and later revoked it, they are clearly in the wrong and everyone should get mad at them (including me). If the dealer explicitly sold the car with FSD when it didn't have it (regardless of if it was working or not), then he is responsible (even if it was just an honest mistake). If neither Tesla nor the dealer represented the car as having FSD, then its down to the OP for erroneously assuming the car had FSD (presumably based on the monroney).

However, if Tesla were late in revoking the feature, and thus created an expectation from the OP (just by playing with the car, as we all would), then regardless of how "right" they were legally, they certainly were downright stupid from a customer relations standpoint.

The OP previously said there was no representation (at least no written representation) from Tesla to the auction house as to the features on the car and there also was no written representation from the auction house to the non-Tesla dealer as to the features on the car.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

Basically because they can.

I agree it’s in extremely bad taste to sell one customer what amounts to snake oil and then turn around and charge someone else for the same thing on the same car. It’s greedy and foolish and is leading to an untenable situation where it’s going to become near impossible to figure out what a car actually has and doesn’t have in the used market.

It’s bad business all around. That said I really don’t know that you have much recourse.

If the trade-in value reflects that the car has FSD, then one person pays for it.

 

[swegman]

EAP has Summon and NoA, which were moved under FSD at some point as you said (beginning of 2019 or so)
EAP was a software option and FSDC was a promise to replace the hardware to new one to handle FSD autonomy once , if ever it will be legal!
Why they want retroactively make people to pay a second time for that is beyond me.

Tesla did not remove FSDC (which is hardware and cost $3,000). Rather, Tesla removed the FSD software, which is seperate from FSDC, and is NOT indicated on the Monroney sheet to be included on the car when it was built. Somehow the car’s configuration was changed to indicate that the car included the full self driving software, which Tesla removed (corrected, stole, whatever you want to call it) when an audit (likely triggered by a retitling of the car) indicated that the FSD software option should not be indicated to be a part of the car.

 

[ucmndd]

If the trade-in value reflects that the car has FSD, then one person pays for it.

lolwut

 

[redgt]

you will spend $7k real quick trying to litigate this

 

[ucmndd]

Tesla did not remove FSDC (which is hardware and cost $3,000). Rather, Tesla removed the FSD software, which is seperate from FSDC, and is NOT indicated on the Monroney sheet to be included on the car when it was built. Somehow the car’s configuration was changed to indicate that the car included the full self driving software, which Tesla removed (corrected, stole, whatever you want to call it) when an audit (likely triggered by a retitling of the car) indicated that the FSD software option should not be indicated to be a part of the car.

This is just plain wrong and needlessly confusing. You’re creating a distinction between hardware and software that has never existed in the context of this feature.

 

[MS-Alec]

The OP obviously did not rely on what was indicated on the Monroney sheet since, by his admission, he did not get it until sometime after he purchased the car. So an attempted argument that he relied on a written document of tesla’s is out the window.

According to MP3MIKE, Tesla replaces EAP with regular AP when a car comes back to Tesla (“passes through their hands”). So the issue is not whether the OP should have FSD (which it appears he was not entitled to based on an examination of the Monroney sheet), but rather, whether Summon and NoA were a part of EAP in cars built in 08/2017, which Tesla downgraded to regular AP once the car passed back through their hands, snd if thus us the case, whether such act is permissible.

It seems the OP‘s gripe should not be about losing FSD (as it appears the car should not have had it to begin with) but rather, about whether his EAP should have been downgraded to AP once the car was sold at auction and/or by a third party non-Tesla dealer.

Unless the non-Tesla dealer gave the OP a written document that the car included the FSD SOFTWARE to enable full self driving ;thus misrepresenting the features on the car), the OP has no recourse against the non-Tesla dealer as his purcharge contract with the non-Tesla dealer stated it was an AS-IS sale.

Further, the OP said the suction house had no written feature documents on the car, so there is no misrepresentation from Tesla to the auction house, and likewise, from the auction house to the non-Tesla dealer.

I feel bad for the OP but this is the realty of the risk of not buying a used car directly from Tesla. Tesla may still have downgraded EAP to regular AP if he bought the car directly from Tesla, but he would have most likely known what was included on the car, and if their printed listing of the used car said EAP and then he actually got AP, he would have recourse against Tesla.

My gripe is loosing EAP. Let's assume for a moment that Tesla sold the car through auction AS-IS , don't they can remove anything afterwards? I would be fine with the AS-IS state when car left the auction site!

 

[redgt]

definitely only buy a used tesla from tesla or maybe from a private party

feel for you OP. hopefully you got a good deal on car

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

lolwut

Total amount paid for FSD
= Amount paid for FSD by buyer 1
- Amount for FSD given in trade-in to buyer 1
+ Amount paid for FSD by buyer 2

 

[swegman]

This is just plain wrong and needlessly confusing. You’re creating a distinction between hardware and software that has never existed in the context of this feature.

I’m sorry, but it’s not confusing. Review the OP first post number 1. He originally asserted that Tesla removed FSDC from his car (and the title of this thread also states FSDC tanked) via a software update. Now it turns out that FSDC (which is hardware) was not removed but that his gripe is that EAP (which is shown on the Monroney sheet he received sometime after purchasing the car) was downgraded to regular AP (see post 151), and hence he lost Summon and NoA (which in 2017 was a part of EAP but now is a part of the optional FSD software).

 

[ucmndd]

Total amount paid for FSD
= Amount paid for FSD by buyer 1
- Amount for FSD given in trade-in to buyer 1
+ Amount paid for FSD by buyer 2

So what you’re saying is Tesla’s just playing the middleman in this whole thing and not making any money?

hahaha

 

[ucmndd]

I’m sorry, but it’s not confusing. Review the OP first post number 1. He originally asserted that Tesla removed FSDC from his car (and the title of this thread also states FSDC tanked) via a software update. Now it turns out that FSDC (which is hardware) was not removed but that his gripe is that EAP (which is shown on the Monroney sheet he received sometime after purchasing the car) was downgraded to regular AP (see post 151), and hence he lost Summon and NoA (which in 2017 was a part of EAP but now is a part of the optional FSD software).

My point stands. You are just making things up.

It’s not just EAP. It’s the $3k the original owner paid for FSD, which is clearly reflected on the window sticker along with the $5k for EAP.

That $3k is NOT for hardware. It was never, ever sold or marketed that way. It was to enable the feature.

“FSDC” is just a made up acronym from what I can tell. It didn’t exist before this thread.

 

[P85DBeast]

I’m sorry, but it’s not confusing. Review the OP first post number 1. He originally asserted that Tesla removed FSDC from his car (and the title of this thread also states FSDC tanked) via a software update. Now it turns out that FSDC (which is hardware) was not removed but that his gripe is that EAP (which is shown on the Monroney sheet he received sometime after purchasing the car) was downgraded to regular AP (see post 151), and hence he lost Summon and NoA (which in 2017 was a part of EAP but now is a part of the optional FSD software).

You're losing me. At the end of the day, his car's abilities were limited after Tesla discovered that he purchased a third-party. Tesla's FSD 3k was not for the cameras or hardware it was to be able to get the feature working when avail. You're confusing me. I think he's upset about the entire ordeal not just about losing EAP.

 

[dgatwood]

Unless the non-Tesla dealer gave the OP a written document that the car included the FSD SOFTWARE to enable full self driving ;thus misrepresenting the features on the car), the OP has no recourse against the non-Tesla dealer as his purcharge contract with the non-Tesla dealer stated it was an AS-IS sale.

An AS-IS sale just means that the dealer does not warrant it. Legally speaking, it is still fraud to claim that a car had a feature that it doesn't have, whether it is sold AS-IS or not. And the burden of proof is on the dealer to show that Tesla provided them with false information; if they did, then Tesla is guilty of fraud. Either way, one of the two committed fraud, and determining which one made the mistake is what discovery is for.

Just saying.

 

[swegman]

“FSDC” is just a made up acronym from what I can tell. It didn’t exist before this thread.

I respectfully disagree. See, for example, Tesla FSDC (Full Self-Driving Computer) , which indicates that FSDC (Full Self-Driving Computer) is the processor which received the name "completely independent computer" in the company. FSDC is the hardware. FSD is the software.