5 ms·

I bet it's also illegal to "tamper" with your own car in such a way as to stop this from happening, but clearly it's been decided the law is not important here.

RijilV 9y ago
While I'm no legal expert, I believe the crux of the issue is in this case the dealership had already signed over the title, meaning the had no legal right over the car. Bad on them for demanding a $200 fee to remove it which wasn't clear upfront (though the dealership never responded to the reporters so all we have is the one sided story) That being said, I think you're referencing the more common cases where these devices are used to disable vehicles on lease to customers. In that case the lease holder is not the owner, so yeah tampering with someone else's car is probably not legal. atleast on the surface that seems reasonable, I wouldn't want someone messing with my vehicle. I'll agree that leasing agreements are often predatory and there is confusion over who's vehicle it is, but if you want ownership you really need to have purchased the title.
- gozur88 9y ago
  I'd be very surprised if the buyer didn't sign something upon purchase that gives the dealer the right to disable the car on lack of payment.
  - adekok 9y ago
    Sure.. but that didn't happen here. He paid off the car. And they still disabled it.
    - djmobley 9y ago
      But he didn't pay all the fees they requested of him. Whether they had a contractual right to request the fee for removal of the tracker is a different matter.
      - EpicEng 9y ago
        Which is completely irrelevant if the buyer owns the car outright? Want your fees? Take it up in small claims. They have no rights over your property.
        djmobley 9y ago
        It's quite plausible that payment of this fee was a condition of title being transferred. Also, even once the title for the car is transferred, the tracker remains the property of the dealer and they will have some rights to recover it.
        theandrewbailey 9y ago
        It was mentioned that the fee was not part of the contract. I'm inclined say the tracker is part of the car, and the dealer has no rights over it (unless mentioned in the contract), similar to how a furnace, thermostat, or water heater is part of a house (because its nailed/bolted to the house). (IANAL)
        djmobley 9y ago
        Nonsense. The tracker is removable and remains the property of the dealer.
        logfromblammo 9y ago
        Removability is not the applicable criterion. It is whether the device is permanently affixed or not. If the dealer left a ballpoint pen in the glove box, sure, you could make an argument that they retain ownership of it. But the lockout device is exactly as removable and as permanently affixed as the car stereo, or the headlights, or the transmission. If you replaced the original manufacturer's car stereo with an aftermarket model, and wanted to keep it and swap it back out for the original stereo, you would have to mention that in the purchase agreement. The same goes for any other fixture or appurtenance on the vehicle. If it isn't removed before the papers are signed, or mentioned in those papers, ownership goes with the title to the vehicle.
  - houseofzeus 9y ago
    Yeah, but he paid off the car and now they want their immobilizer back and to charge him for them to remove it.
    - gozur88 9y ago
      $200 to remove a tracker seems a bit steep, and were I him I'd be inclined to either remove it myself or tell them they were welcome to remove it on their dime. Assuming, of course, he's correct in his assertion the fee wasn't in the contract.
ajross 9y ago
It is in this case (originally), because it's a leased vehicle. It's not "your own car" in any meaningful way. You aren't allowed to do maintenance on a Hertz rental either. Legally there's nothing wrong with this device being on the car. But in this particular case, they had already sold the car to the guy's family and didn't own the title any more. Yet the kill switch was still in place and they decided to use it over some random fee (which seems to have been for the kill switch itself, per the article). That's pretty obviously illegal.
- logfromblammo 9y ago
  Also, being affixed to the car at the time the title was transferred, unless there was a specific mention of it in the purchase agreement, the immobilizer was transferred with the car. If the new owner had the expertise, he could have removed the device himself and destroyed it. The dealer, by remotely accessing the device for which they no longer had authorization, is also technically guilty of criminal hacking.
  - belovedeagle 9y ago
    And to top it all off, they demanded a protection fee in cash and goods (the device) in order to stop the illegal hacking.

RijilV 9y ago

While I'm no legal expert, I believe the crux of the issue is in this case the dealership had already signed over the title, meaning the had no legal right over the car. Bad on them for demanding a $200 fee to remove it which wasn't clear upfront (though the dealership never responded to the reporters so all we have is the one sided story) That being said, I think you're referencing the more common cases where these devices are used to disable vehicles on lease to customers. In that case the lease holder is not the owner, so yeah tampering with someone else's car is probably not legal. atleast on the surface that seems reasonable, I wouldn't want someone messing with my vehicle. I'll agree that leasing agreements are often predatory and there is confusion over who's vehicle it is, but if you want ownership you really need to have purchased the title.

gozur88 9y ago
I'd be very surprised if the buyer didn't sign something upon purchase that gives the dealer the right to disable the car on lack of payment.
- adekok 9y ago
  Sure.. but that didn't happen here. He paid off the car. And they still disabled it.
  - djmobley 9y ago
    But he didn't pay all the fees they requested of him. Whether they had a contractual right to request the fee for removal of the tracker is a different matter.
    - EpicEng 9y ago
      Which is completely irrelevant if the buyer owns the car outright? Want your fees? Take it up in small claims. They have no rights over your property.
      - djmobley 9y ago
        It's quite plausible that payment of this fee was a condition of title being transferred. Also, even once the title for the car is transferred, the tracker remains the property of the dealer and they will have some rights to recover it.
        theandrewbailey 9y ago
        It was mentioned that the fee was not part of the contract. I'm inclined say the tracker is part of the car, and the dealer has no rights over it (unless mentioned in the contract), similar to how a furnace, thermostat, or water heater is part of a house (because its nailed/bolted to the house). (IANAL)
        djmobley 9y ago
        Nonsense. The tracker is removable and remains the property of the dealer.
        logfromblammo 9y ago
        Removability is not the applicable criterion. It is whether the device is permanently affixed or not. If the dealer left a ballpoint pen in the glove box, sure, you could make an argument that they retain ownership of it. But the lockout device is exactly as removable and as permanently affixed as the car stereo, or the headlights, or the transmission. If you replaced the original manufacturer's car stereo with an aftermarket model, and wanted to keep it and swap it back out for the original stereo, you would have to mention that in the purchase agreement. The same goes for any other fixture or appurtenance on the vehicle. If it isn't removed before the papers are signed, or mentioned in those papers, ownership goes with the title to the vehicle.
- houseofzeus 9y ago
  Yeah, but he paid off the car and now they want their immobilizer back and to charge him for them to remove it.
  - gozur88 9y ago
    $200 to remove a tracker seems a bit steep, and were I him I'd be inclined to either remove it myself or tell them they were welcome to remove it on their dime. Assuming, of course, he's correct in his assertion the fee wasn't in the contract.

ajross 9y ago

It is in this case (originally), because it's a leased vehicle. It's not "your own car" in any meaningful way. You aren't allowed to do maintenance on a Hertz rental either. Legally there's nothing wrong with this device being on the car. But in this particular case, they had already sold the car to the guy's family and didn't own the title any more. Yet the kill switch was still in place and they decided to use it over some random fee (which seems to have been for the kill switch itself, per the article). That's pretty obviously illegal.

logfromblammo 9y ago
Also, being affixed to the car at the time the title was transferred, unless there was a specific mention of it in the purchase agreement, the immobilizer was transferred with the car. If the new owner had the expertise, he could have removed the device himself and destroyed it. The dealer, by remotely accessing the device for which they no longer had authorization, is also technically guilty of criminal hacking.
- belovedeagle 9y ago
  And to top it all off, they demanded a protection fee in cash and goods (the device) in order to stop the illegal hacking.