4 ms·

People keep referring to the Monroney sticker here. It’s irrelevant. Yes, when the car was new, it came with FSD. Then Tesla took it back as a trade, and while

People keep referring to the Monroney sticker here. It’s irrelevant. Yes, when the car was new, it came with FSD. Then Tesla took it back as a trade, and while it was in their possession, they deleted the features. They are well within their right to do that, since they own the car. There is no Monroney sticker for used car sales, so the one the article shows is a reprint of what the car had when sold new, which is no longer accurate. Just as it would be inaccurate for a gas car if someone had done an engine swap from a V8 to a diesel. The one and only issue is whether Tesla represented that the car came with FSD in the sale at auction to the dealer. If they didn’t, then the dealer doesn’t have a leg to stand on here, unfortunately. Another analogy - I might buy a car at auction where the Sirius radio works, because the old owner forgot to disable it. If they disable it later, then I would only have a claim if the seller claimed that the car came with lifetime free Sirius. Just because it worked when I bought it, doesn’t mean it will keep working, if it wasn’t intended to be included with the car. As others have noted, Tesla does not remove features except when they are the owner of the car. The only exception being, “lifetime free supercharging” does not transfer with change of ownership, except on the oldest Model S cars out there.

leereeves 7y ago
Tesla seems to have admitted that they removed this feature when they weren't the owner, according to the picture of the in the invoice that says AP was removed on Nov 18, after Tesla had sold the car (on Nov 15). I imagine their actions were based on the idea that AP is software and not included in the sale of the car. That's how computers are sold, but it is tremendously surprising for a car and a dangerous precedent. A modern car (especially a Tesla) is driven by software. If used car buyers don't own the software in the car, do they even own the firmware that drives the car?
- URSpider94 7y ago
  You are correct. I should have said Tesla INTENDED to remove the feature while they were in possession. Perhaps they removed it on paper, but didn’t go through the step of removing it via a SW update. More to the point, they don’t arbitrarily yank features off of cars in the field, though of course they have the ability via SW update to do so - they could lock me out of my car right now if they wanted to, or set the stereo to play Baby Shark on repeat at max volume and disable the volume controls. All possible. The point remains, if they intended to remove it, and notified the purchaser that the car didn’t have the feature, then I would side with Tesla, though it’s indeed very sloppy. Again - it would be as if I moved into a house and the lawn guy kept coming for two months because the previous owner forgot to cancel the service. On the other hand, if the car was represented to the first buyer (the dealer) as having FSD, then Tesla is on the hook. I’m sure the lawyers will figure it out ...
  - leereeves 7y ago
    > and notified the purchaser that the car didn’t have the feature If you mean before the sale, then I agree. If they clearly told the buyer in advance that FSD wasn't included (despite the sticker saying otherwise), then not actually disabling it until a few days later isn't an issue. But if there were evidence of that, I think Tesla would have responded. I'm sure a few people there read Hacker News. And I fear the only thing the lawyers will sort out is who has more money to pay lawyers.
lawnchair_larry 7y ago
No, this didn’t happen. It was on the window sticker, and the feature was never removed from the vehicle until after the new owner already had it. Tesla may be within their rights to remove it while they own it and then sell it as a car without, but they didn’t remove it. They sold it with it. Then later they removed it. That’s unacceptable.
- URSpider94 7y ago
  It’s sloppy, yes. To me, it comes down to what they did or didn’t tell the first buyer in the sale paperwork. If they were silent on the issue or listed the car as having AP, AP worked at the time of sale, and the car was originally equipped with AP, then I side with the dealer. If the paperwork indicated no AP, or listed all the features on the car but not AP, then the dealer made an error.
  - lawnchair_larry 7y ago
    Doesn’t matter. Auction vehicles are sold as is. If it needed repairs, it would have been the buyer’s problem. If the seller auctioned something for too low a price, or unintentionally gave the buyer more than intended, too bad. Once it is the new buyer’s property, they have no right to revoke what is legally owned by the winner of the auction.

leereeves 7y ago

Tesla seems to have admitted that they removed this feature when they weren't the owner, according to the picture of the in the invoice that says AP was removed on Nov 18, after Tesla had sold the car (on Nov 15). I imagine their actions were based on the idea that AP is software and not included in the sale of the car. That's how computers are sold, but it is tremendously surprising for a car and a dangerous precedent. A modern car (especially a Tesla) is driven by software. If used car buyers don't own the software in the car, do they even own the firmware that drives the car?

URSpider94 7y ago
You are correct. I should have said Tesla INTENDED to remove the feature while they were in possession. Perhaps they removed it on paper, but didn’t go through the step of removing it via a SW update. More to the point, they don’t arbitrarily yank features off of cars in the field, though of course they have the ability via SW update to do so - they could lock me out of my car right now if they wanted to, or set the stereo to play Baby Shark on repeat at max volume and disable the volume controls. All possible. The point remains, if they intended to remove it, and notified the purchaser that the car didn’t have the feature, then I would side with Tesla, though it’s indeed very sloppy. Again - it would be as if I moved into a house and the lawn guy kept coming for two months because the previous owner forgot to cancel the service. On the other hand, if the car was represented to the first buyer (the dealer) as having FSD, then Tesla is on the hook. I’m sure the lawyers will figure it out ...
- leereeves 7y ago
  > and notified the purchaser that the car didn’t have the feature If you mean before the sale, then I agree. If they clearly told the buyer in advance that FSD wasn't included (despite the sticker saying otherwise), then not actually disabling it until a few days later isn't an issue. But if there were evidence of that, I think Tesla would have responded. I'm sure a few people there read Hacker News. And I fear the only thing the lawyers will sort out is who has more money to pay lawyers.

lawnchair_larry 7y ago

No, this didn’t happen. It was on the window sticker, and the feature was never removed from the vehicle until after the new owner already had it. Tesla may be within their rights to remove it while they own it and then sell it as a car without, but they didn’t remove it. They sold it with it. Then later they removed it. That’s unacceptable.

URSpider94 7y ago
It’s sloppy, yes. To me, it comes down to what they did or didn’t tell the first buyer in the sale paperwork. If they were silent on the issue or listed the car as having AP, AP worked at the time of sale, and the car was originally equipped with AP, then I side with the dealer. If the paperwork indicated no AP, or listed all the features on the car but not AP, then the dealer made an error.
- lawnchair_larry 7y ago
  Doesn’t matter. Auction vehicles are sold as is. If it needed repairs, it would have been the buyer’s problem. If the seller auctioned something for too low a price, or unintentionally gave the buyer more than intended, too bad. Once it is the new buyer’s property, they have no right to revoke what is legally owned by the winner of the auction.