⚡ EV Tesla Remotely Removes Autopilot Features From Customer's Used Tesla Without Any Notice

EmersonHart13

TCG Elite Member
TCG Premium
Jul 18, 2007
54,261
22,477

z3t2tntisgfyrbovmjdl.png


One of the less-considered side effects of car features moving from hardware to software is that important features and abilities of a car can now be removed without any actual contact with a given car. Where once de-contenting involved at least a screwdriver (or, if you were in a hurry, a hammer), now thousands of dollars of options can vanish with the click of a mouse somewhere. And that’s exactly what happened to one Tesla owner, and, it seems many others.

Alec (I’ll withhold his last name for privacy reasons) bought a 2017 Tesla Model S on December 20 of last year, from a third-party dealer who bought the car directly from Tesla via auction on November 15, 2019. The car was sold at auction as a result of a California Lemon Law buyback, as the car suffered from a well-known issue where the center-stack screen developed a noticeable yellow border.



When the dealer bought the car at auction from Tesla on November 15, it was optioned with both Enhanced Autopilot and Tesla’s confusingly-named Full Self Driving Capability; together, these options totaled $8,000. You can see them right on the Monroney sticker for the car:

xgf198y8hdt4ewiaku2y.png


Tesla officially sold the car to the dealership on November 15, a date I’ve confirmed by seeing the car’s title. On November 18, Tesla seems to have conducted an “audit” of the car remotely. The result of that audit was that when the car’s software was updated to the latest version in December, the Enhanced Autopilot and Full Self Driving Capability (FSD) were removed from the car.

Tesla confirmed the date of the audit—which flagged the features for removal—in an invoice:

hqaupo7tarmj7lo9nlk1.png


A disclosure statement from Tesla to the dealership at the time of the sale does not mention anything about Autopilot or FSD removal:
erorck5oc6jtu42nbo1i.png


It’s also worth noting that those repairs on the disclosure were not actually made, which is why Alec took his car to a service center in January.

fbmyljpnh0kn9akshix7.png


Let’s recap a little bit at this point: A Model S with Enhanced Autopilot (which includes the Summon feature) and FSD “capability” is sold at auction, a dealer buys it, after the sale to the dealer Tesla checks in on the car and decides that it shouldn’t have Autopilot or FSD “capability,” dealer sells car to customer based on the specifications they were aware the car had (and were shown on the window sticker, and confirmed via a screenshot from the car’s display showing the options), and later, when the customer upgrades the car’s software, Autopilot and FSD disappear.

When Alec asked Tesla customer support about this, this was their response:

Tesla has recent identified instances of customers being incorrectly configured for Autopilot versions that they did not pay for. Since, there was an audit done to correct these instances. Your vehicle is one of the vehicles that was incorrectly configured for Autopilot. We looked back at your purchase history and unfortunately Full-Self Driving was not a feature that you had paid for. We apologize for the confusion. If you are still interested in having those additional features we can begin the process to purchase the upgrade.
This is all very puzzling. Alec bought the car from a dealer based on a set of features that the dealer understood the car to have when purchased at auction. If Alec saw that the car had Autopilot and FSD when he paid for it, how, exactly, did he not pay for those features?

Those features together are worth $8,000, but as they were already on the car when he bought it, it’s hard to understand how he somehow didn’t pay for them?

I realize that these are software features, but they act like any physical feature of a car. You don’t pay a subscription for FSD or Autopilot, you pay a one-time fee, just like you would for an electromechanical cruise control system on any other car.

If you buy, say, a used Ford Ecosport (not my first choice, but you do you) that has lane keeping assist and active cruise control, and Ford somehow thinks you didn’t pay for those particular features and sends over a service tech to physically remove them from your car, I think we’d all consider that pretty wrong. We might even consider that theft. I’m not clear how what Tesla did here is any different.

If Tesla had conducted their audit prior to the sale of the car, and made everyone in the loop aware that the car was being de-contented, then that would be one thing; still kind of shitty, but a bit more defensible.

But this audit happened after the initial sale of the car. The car was no longer owned by Tesla at the time of the audit, and none of the parties involved were aware that features were being removed from the car.

As an experiment, Alec reached out to a Tesla Used Vehicle Sales Advisor to try and see if he could ask for Autopilot and FSD to be removed from a used vehicle.

wdvyerjmcbevwflvruai.png


Alec suggested he wanted a particular car, but wanted to save money by having FSD deleted. The Sales Advisor told him that

“...if it’s added and it’s a used car they just simply will not remove it.”
That goes directly against Alec’s experience, where Tesla did remove FSD from a used car.

Alec isn’t alone in his experience; Tesla message boards have stories from other owners who have experienced similar incidents.

All of what happened here goes completely counter to how we’ve understood the buying and selling of used cars since there were used cars to sell. Whatever equipment the car had on it at the time of sale was part of that sale, period.

Subscription-based services like OnStar would be different, but that’s not what we’re dealing with here; this is an optional feature of the car paid for once, like cruise control or A/C or a radio. You can’t just yank it out after the car is sold with those features understood to be part of the car.

It sets a bad precedent if carmakers are going to be able to de-content used cars after sale; technically, any feature that is available to be activated or deactivated in software could be vulnerable to something like this, and I can’t think of any context where remote removal after purchase is okay.

In fact, it seems like a pretty shitty thing to do, a craven attempt to double-dip and get money for the same features every time the car is re-sold.

I’ve reached out to Tesla for comment multiple times over the week and have gotten no response. I’ll update when, and if, I do.
 

Stink Star

Don’t Drive Angry!
TCG Premium
Jan 20, 2008
16,309
12,089
Big wood cock
I guess what happened is the original car was bought back and the money for the add on features was refunded. Then when they listed the car back for sale they listed it with those features (autopilot). So new guy buys car and then they realize that they sold it with features that were never “paid for” because they gave the original owner a refund. They then removed them.

Obviously that is complete bullshit. If the car was advertised as having those features when he bought it, it’s an oops on their part and they should eat it. Simple stuff like this is all part of being a new company and not having experience or a clear management structure. This could have been a minor mistake and easily remedied but it blew up in their face. If the right people were properly doing their jobs this never would have happened.
 

Stink Star

Don’t Drive Angry!
TCG Premium
Jan 20, 2008
16,309
12,089
Big wood cock
It does bring up an interesting question though. With more and more cars having software add-ons through the dealer, is it ethical for them to remove the add-ons when the vehicle was traded in and resell them to the next owner? I’m honestly not even sure if that’s legal or not because it’s like double dipping, selling The same feature twice but if the car is traded in the customer isn’t losing out so are they really ripping somebody off?
 

Grabber

Oh Hai
Dec 11, 2007
4,363
860
Wheeling, IL
Generally speaking, if you list an item or vehicle for sale with certain features, you're responsible for those advertisements.

Bullshit part on Tesla, but, how the fuck do you "refund" features of a car?

It was sold to an auction house, a dealer bought the car, listed it for sale with everything it came with and someone bought it as it was described.
 

SBTerminator

Pre Owned Director
Jan 31, 2010
1,640
1,055
Chicagoland
Real Name
Andy Miodynski
Generally speaking, if you list an item or vehicle for sale with certain features, you're responsible for those advertisements.

Bullshit part on Tesla, but, how the fuck do you "refund" features of a car?

It was sold to an auction house, a dealer bought the car, listed it for sale with everything it came with and someone bought it as it was described.

Not true, MOST, if not all dealerships have a disclaimer stating they are not responsible for discrepancies. This is because there are too many variables and we generally use a 3rd party company that pulls info on what the vehicle has for options, Sometimes it pulls inaccurate information.

But it is complete bullshit for TESLA to do this. Again, I'd be on the phone with Tesla and my attorney.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lord Tin Foilhat

Stink Star

Don’t Drive Angry!
TCG Premium
Jan 20, 2008
16,309
12,089
Big wood cock
to be fair, this is an extraordinary situation that likely doesn’t come up very often. Any negative story about Tesla gets disproportionately reported by the news. And this will be easily corrected.
The bigger story here is the ethics of selling premium features like FSD or range extensions, then disabling them when the customer trades it in, only to re-sell the same features to the next customer. Obviously this car slipped through the cracks, but even If it didn’t it’s an interesting question. Certainly the manufacturers would love this because it’s like double profit for them but at what point does the owner actually own it? Weird thought exercise
 

Lord Tin Foilhat

TCG Conspiracy Lead Investigator
TCG Premium
Jul 8, 2007
60,728
56,890
Privy Chamber
to be fair, this is an extraordinary situation that likely doesn’t come up very often. Any negative story about Tesla gets disproportionately reported by the news. And this will be easily corrected.
The bigger story here is the ethics of selling premium features like FSD or range extensions, then disabling them when the customer trades it in, only to re-sell the same features to the next customer. Obviously this car slipped through the cracks, but even If it didn’t it’s an interesting question. Certainly the manufacturers would love this because it’s like double profit for them but at what point does the owner actually own it? Weird thought exercise
It would be different if the features were linked to your own Tesla software account of sorts. You pay $xxxx to unlock FSD on xxxx Tesla Model , and any future tesla has that optional feature you paid for if the model is the same as original purchase.
 

Lord Tin Foilhat

TCG Conspiracy Lead Investigator
TCG Premium
Jul 8, 2007
60,728
56,890
Privy Chamber
Tesla could even use it as a feature for people to show other tesla owners by "logging into" their car to unlock those features they paid for while logged in.... Show them off, then on log out they get disabled. Now the new owner got a free trial of the add-ons and is more likely to purchase them. Limit the login to 1 car at a time or a trial account that only lasts xxx amount of time
 

Stink Star

Don’t Drive Angry!
TCG Premium
Jan 20, 2008
16,309
12,089
Big wood cock
Tesla could even use it as a feature for people to show other tesla owners by "logging into" their car to unlock those features they paid for while logged in.... Show them off, then on log out they get disabled. Now the new owner got a free trial of the add-ons and is more likely to purchase them. Limit the login to 1 car at a time or a trial account that only lasts xxx amount of time

I’m not sure about now, but when the 3 came out they were doing a month free of FSD to get people to upgrade after the trial period. To me that’s the best solution because most people don’t even realize they want the feature until they use it in their daily lives. This is how XM has worked for years in legacy auto makers
 

Grabber

Oh Hai
Dec 11, 2007
4,363
860
Wheeling, IL
Not true, MOST, if not all dealerships have a disclaimer stating they are not responsible for discrepancies. This is because there are too many variables and we generally use a 3rd party company that pulls info on what the vehicle has for options, Sometimes it pulls inaccurate information.

But it is complete bullshit for TESLA to do this. Again, I'd be on the phone with Tesla and my attorney.


So if a dealer lists a Camaro SS as a ZLI with a ZL1 price, it is the fault of a 3rd party company?

Accidents happen, but just about everything on a car shows up with the vin. While not impossible, it is very hard to fuck that up.
 

SBTerminator

Pre Owned Director
Jan 31, 2010
1,640
1,055
Chicagoland
Real Name
Andy Miodynski
So if a dealer lists a Camaro SS as a ZLI with a ZL1 price, it is the fault of a 3rd party company?

Accidents happen, but just about everything on a car shows up with the vin. While not impossible, it is very hard to fuck that up.

No, that should never happen. But, most Vin Decoders will not see that a Silverado might be a TrailBoss, they just see it as a LT. Or a Camaro 1SS and it doesn’t catch it has a 1LE package on it.

Where the most mistakes happen is in the options, not in the trim itself.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Grabber

ZXMustang

Suh dude
Feb 19, 2019
2,869
6,846
Tesla has been known to do very shady business practices with reselling their cars, even after they have been certified and sold from Tesla dealers. They have gotten too big too fast. They have a very immature supply chain for parts, causing a simple warranty part change out bleeding into months of waiting for said parts to come in. And forget about collision damaged parts getting produced in a timely fashion. Tesla simply does not have the experience or infrastructure to support the resales and maintenance of these very expensive vehicles.

Its a shame too because the cars themselves are very cool. They check all the boxes to justify their prices. But once you see the hidden costs of owning one, it quickly becomes not worth it.

As for them turning off a feature on a used car, that is exactly one second away from stealing a car stereo out of a car before selling it. Its robbery. They dont get to reposes a feature once the car gets turned over. No way.
 

SBTerminator

Pre Owned Director
Jan 31, 2010
1,640
1,055
Chicagoland
Real Name
Andy Miodynski
Tesla has been known to do very shady business practices with reselling their cars, even after they have been certified and sold from Tesla dealers. They have gotten too big too fast. They have a very immature supply chain for parts, causing a simple warranty part change out bleeding into months of waiting for said parts to come in. And forget about collision damaged parts getting produced in a timely fashion. Tesla simply does not have the experience or infrastructure to support the resales and maintenance of these very expensive vehicles.

Its a shame too because the cars themselves are very cool. They check all the boxes to justify their prices. But once you see the hidden costs of owning one, it quickly becomes not worth it.

As for them turning off a feature on a used car, that is exactly one second away from stealing a car stereo out of a car before selling it. Its robbery. They dont get to reposes a feature once the car gets turned over. No way.

One of the few times I agree whole heartedly with you [emoji1787]

Good luck getting one fixed in a timely manner when it does go down, or in an accident. Insurance is expensive and the price of an oil change is crazy! [emoji15]
 
  • Haha
Reactions: ZXMustang

SBTerminator

Pre Owned Director
Jan 31, 2010
1,640
1,055
Chicagoland
Real Name
Andy Miodynski
I’m not sure about now, but when the 3 came out they were doing a month free of FSD to get people to upgrade after the trial period. To me that’s the best solution because most people don’t even realize they want the feature until they use it in their daily lives. This is how XM has worked for years in legacy auto makers

If the option is/was sold as a subscription that’s one thing, as an option like 22” wheels, or a sunroof that’s entirely different.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lord Tin Foilhat

FESTER665

TCG Elite Member
TCG Premium
Apr 13, 2008
40,165
66,675
Streamwood
Obviously this car slipped through the cracks, but even If it didn’t it’s an interesting question.

Did it slip through the cracks though? The guy contacted Tesla and they didn't do the right thing. If they had done the right thing this story would have never been written.

I don't know if that means it fell through the cracks really.
 

Stink Star

Don’t Drive Angry!
TCG Premium
Jan 20, 2008
16,309
12,089
Big wood cock
Did it slip through the cracks though? The guy contacted Tesla and they didn't do the right thing. If they had done the right thing this story would have never been written.

I don't know if that means it fell through the cracks really.
In this case slipped through the cracks means that they should’ve removed the future before the car was ever re-sold.
Also this is why I said that one of the big problems of Tesla being such a new company is that they don’t have a clear management structure and people aren’t really good at doing this kind of job yet
 
Old Thread: Hello . There have been no replies in this thread for 90 days.
Content in this thread may no longer be relevant. Consider starting a new thread to get fresh replies.

Thread Info