To be clear, I think Tesla should be providing that information to customers upon request. And I think all carmakers should be obligated to do so. But Tesla are

To be clear, I think Tesla should be providing that information to customers upon request. And I think all carmakers should be obligated to do so. But Tesla aren't currently obligated to do so under normal circumstances, and I can imagine why they wouldn't want to set a precedent prematurely. (As the saying goes, hard cases make bad law.) > Apparently, to you, that’s overreaching I didn't say that. I wouldn't say that. Putting words into my mouth isn't conducive to truth seeking, or basic conversational decency. I would never consider exercising one's legal rights to be overreach. The same goes for Tesla when they exercise their legal rights. My point is that this particular matter isn't a useful point to extrapolate Tesla's "strategy". Tesla has sold a massive number of cars in China and across the world; presumably a large fraction going to reasonably wealthy people with the means to seek redress. If there was a systemic issue here, we'd expect to see far more evidence of it than this. > allegedly receiving threats I don't know the finer details of this specific case, but it seems this customer has a proven track record of making misleading statements for media attention. They don't get my benefit of the doubt, and they don't deserve yours. > the contortions you go through to paint this as a “restrained” response All I said to justify Tesla's actions as 'restrained' was "Given the actions of the customer". I'm confused where you allege the the pretzel-like contortion to be.