they f**ked up Tesla locked a customer's car out of 1/3 of its battery capacity for a $4.5k ransom

[BlueKnight87]

So, was reading through my newsfeed and came across this gem: Tesla locks 80 miles of customer’s battery range for $4,500 ransom - Electrek.

 

Summary

Essentially, this customer purchased a 2013 Tesla Model S 60, which had already changed hands once in its life. They were told that it was a Model S 90, but Tesla had swapped its original 60kWh years ago with a 90kWh battery, then apparently forgot to softlock it down to a 60 again. When its previous owner sold it to him, it was badged as 90kWh, ran as 90kWh, etc. He took it to a TSC (Tesla Service Center) to get the onboard computer upgraded (early models of the Model S used the 3G network, not 4G). After the upgrade, he takes it home and parks it on his driveway. They realise that it was supposed to be a 60 model, but had a 90kWh battery inside that hadn't been remotely softlocked. They called and told the customer that they had found and fixed a software misconfiguration remotely. He is (quite understandably) VERY PISSED when they told him that it was supposed to be a 60 model, not 90. He demands for it to be reversed, but they refuse, telling him he can pay $4.5K for it if he wants it. He refuses, hangs up, and contacts the person who wrote the tweet string linked to in the article, who specialises in hacking EVs to unlock software-disabled features. However, Tesla's encryption on the feature lock is too tight to break without causing instability in another function. So he complains about it on Twitter, unable to foresee it going gangbusters like it did. People started "@"ing Tesla over it, and they eventually caved and restored the battery's full capacity for free, again, remotely.

Quotes

Quote

Tesla tried to force a customer to pay $4,500 ransom over 80 miles of range that the company software-locked in his battery pack. The automaker only started to walk back on the strategy to squeeze $4,500 out of its customers after an uproar on social media.

 

My thoughts

 Tesla, you done fucked up. Before you go doing this sort of shit again, ask the customer if they want to keep the extra capacity, and if they don't, compensate them appropriately! If I buy a car from you in the future, and have this sort of experience, expect a stock collapse as the news blows up across platforms.

 

Sources

Tesla locks 80 miles of customer’s battery range for $4,500 ransom - Electrek

 

 

 

Edit: HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLY SHIT!!!!! I was NOT expecting my post to blow up like this! Thanks a lot for all the attention, but... just don't go @ing the dude over it. I'm sure he's already had enough attention.

[TetraSky]

Again with the anti-consumer mentality of car companies.
I get it, it should've been "locked down" to 60 from the start... But remotely taking it away when they have been made aware of it is such a shit move for them to do.

I seriously hate these software locked features when the damn thing is already built in the car... While I get that it's easier for them to basically just make one model and lock down features to create more SKUs, it's still shit move. Especially in this case when the user had access to it and they suddenly decided to take it away without warnings.

[IkeaGnome]

This is Teslas fault and not previous owners how? 
If you buy a V6 Mustang but the PO told you it was a V8 is that on Ford or is this just Teslas fault because BiG cOmPaNy BaD?

[Vishera]

8 minutes ago, BlueKnight87 said:

fixed a software misconfiguration remotely.

Who owns the car here?! Tesla or the guy?!

The audacity of Tesla!

It's not like the battery was stolen or anything like that.

 

Anyway should have left the 3G stuff or remove it so Tesla doesn't have control over the car that you presumably own.

If Tesla were to do it to my car i would sue them.

[Spotty]

Interesting. I'm not sure what agreements are made when purchasing a new Tesla, but the original owner might have entered in to an agreement with Tesla to allow them to make major changes to their vehicle remotely without their consent, however that agreement wouldn't apply to any secondary owners. I really wonder what, if any, legal standing Tesla would have to be able to do this. 

[Vishera]

1 minute ago, TetraSky said:

I seriously hate these software locked features when the damn thing is already built in the car...

When you buy a car you pay for the whole car,it's not like the battery or other components were free - Otherwise it would mean that Tesla sells cars at a loss...

[Spotty]

12 minutes ago, IkeaGnome said:

This is Teslas fault and not previous owners how? 
If you buy a V6 Mustang but the PO told you it was a V8 is that on Ford or is this just Teslas fault because BiG cOmPaNy BaD?

Customer buys V6 Mustang from Ford

5 years later the engine blows up

Customer swaps engine for a V8

Few years later customer sells the car

New owner does their grocery shopping one day and comes out to the parking lot to find their car has been towed away

Few days later it's delivered back to their driveway with a note from Ford saying they "fixed" the engine by replacing it with a V6

 

 

Yeah, I'd say this is Tesla's fault. Tesla has no right to modify somebody else's car without their consent, regardless of if it is in the original condition when it was sold or not. 

 

Edit: middcores scenario below is better, but you get the idea

Edited July 28, 2022 by Spotty

[Middcore]

8 minutes ago, IkeaGnome said:

This is Teslas fault and not previous owners how? 
If you buy a V6 Mustang but the PO told you it was a V8 is that on Ford or is this just Teslas fault because BiG cOmPaNy BaD?

 

Well the key difference is that the car really did have "V8" capability when it was sold to the new owner. 

 

For your analogy to work, the chain of events would have to be something like:

• Owner 1 buys V6 Mustang
• It needs an engine replacement under warranty and Ford puts in a V8 instead by mistake(?)
• Owner 1 sells his Mustang to Owner 2 truthfully saying it has a V8
• Owner 2 takes the car in for an oil change, Ford realizes the mistake they made before, puts a V6 back in without telling Owner 2

Of course that's completely absurd but it's the type of scenario that becomes possible in a world where features that exist in the "hardware" can be artificially locked down like this.

 

I wonder what conversation, if any, Tesla and the first owner had about this when they originally swapped the battery?

 

 

[IkeaGnome]

3 minutes ago, Spotty said:

Customer buys V6 Mustang from Ford

5 years later the engine blows up

Customer swaps engine for a V8

Few years later customer sells the car

New owner does their grocery shopping one day and comes out to the parking lot to find their car has been towed away

Few days later it's delivered back to their driveway with a note from Ford saying they "fixed" the engine by replacing it with a V6

 

 

Yeah, I'd say this is Tesla's fault. Tesla has no right to modify somebody else's car without their consent, regardless of if it is in the original condition when it was sold or not. 

 

2 minutes ago, Middcore said:

 

Well the key difference is that the car really did have "V8" capability when it was sold to the new owner. 

 

For your analogy to work, the chain of events would have to be something like:

• Owner 1 buys V6 Mustang
• It needs an engine replacement under warranty and Ford puts in a V8 instead by mistake(?)
• Owner 1 sells his Mustang to Owner 2 truthfully saying it has a V8
• Owner 2 takes the car in for an oil change, Ford realizes the mistake they made before, puts a V6 back in without telling Owner 2

Of course that's completely absurd but it's the type of scenario that becomes possible in a world where features that exist in the "hardware" can be artificially locked down like this.

 

I wonder what conversation, if any, Tesla and the first owner had about this when they originally swapped the battery?

 

 

Told and having a V8 are very different. In this case PO said it had a 90kwh battery when it shouldn’t have from the get go. PO said it had a V8 but you didn’t look to see whether it actually does or not. 
In this case, you can’t see what it has for batteries since some are locked down. 7th digit of the VIN would say whether it’s supposed to be 60 or 90. Either way the PO lied. 
 

I don’t agree with the $4500 or the way it was handled. If anything I could see a voided warranty happening. That being said someone down the line “stole” the capacity when it wasn’t soft locked. If you get caught with stolen goods whether you knew they were or not they get taken. 

[Middcore]

4 minutes ago, IkeaGnome said:

 

Told and having a V8 are very different. In this case PO said it had a 90kwh battery when it shouldn’t have from the get go. PO said it had a V8 but you didn’t look to see whether it actually does or not. 
In this case, you can’t see what it has for batteries since some are locked down. 7th digit of the VIN would say whether it’s supposed to be 60 or 90. Either way the PO lied. 

 

No, he didn't. It had a 90kWh battery, which functioned as such.

 

He also "stole" nothing if Tesla put the 90kWh battery in his car and left its full 90kWh capacity unlocked. If they had, say, accidentally put an extra spare tire in the trunk (I don't know if Teslas even have spare tires) and let him drive away with it, he didn't "steal" the spare tire, and they have no right to take the tire back from the next owner. 

[jagdtigger]

Just another reason to flat-out dont buy any car that is connected to the internet....

[IkeaGnome]

1 minute ago, Middcore said:

they accidentally put an extra spare tire in the trunk (I don't know if Teslas even have spare tires) and let him drive away with it, he didn't "steal" the spare tire

He got something for free that was meant to be paid for. How is that not stealing? I’m not saying the person that got locked down stole the battery pack or capacity. It’s on the tech that didn’t lock it down. That being said, they’ve got software implemented so they don’t get stolen from and used it. Took a while, but they did. They didn’t get the upgrade fee when the battery capacity got unlocked. 

[Jurrunio]

11 minutes ago, IkeaGnome said:

That being said someone down the line “stole” the capacity when it wasn’t soft locked. If you get caught with stolen goods whether you knew they were or not they get taken. 

As far as I know, customers are not obliged to give back stuff accidentally given to you during a purchase. 

 

https://consumer.ftc.gov/articles/what-do-if-youre-billed-things-you-never-got-or-you-get-unordered-products

 

2 minutes ago, IkeaGnome said:

He got something for free that was meant to be paid for. How is that not stealing?

If I stuff something into your hand, can I sue you for stealing? Not like there's proof that the 1st owner took the 90kWh battery and put it in himself, even if he did it's the 1st owner's problem.

[Middcore]

Just now, IkeaGnome said:

He got something for free that was meant to be paid for.

It was given to him.

 

Just now, IkeaGnome said:

How is that not stealing?

Stealing requires a willful action on the part of the thief. 

 

Quote

I’m not saying the person that got locked down stole the battery pack or capacity. It’s on the tech that didn’t lock it down.

Lol sure prosecute that hapless shmuck tech, that'll make this look better.

 

Just now, IkeaGnome said:

That being said, they’ve got software implemented so they don’t get stolen from and used it. Took a while, but they did. They didn’t get the upgrade fee when the battery capacity got unlocked. 

And now they've eaten the cost of the upgrade fee, plus the "cost" of the bad publicity (which, tbf, probably won't be much because people have short memories, people don't buy from Tesla because they think Tesla is a good company, and this meme remains evergreen). Mission accomplished! Ladies and gentlemen, we got 'em! 

 

If they were smart they'd figure out who made the decision to lock the battery back down to 60kWH when the new owner brought the car in and fire that dipshit, because there was no chance in hell they were ever getting that $4.5k upgrade fee and the actual chain of events that ensued was totally predictable. 

 

[dizmo]

23 minutes ago, IkeaGnome said:

This is Teslas fault and not previous owners how? 
If you buy a V6 Mustang but the PO told you it was a V8 is that on Ford or is this just Teslas fault because BiG cOmPaNy BaD?

It's an interesting dilemma. Initially I had the same viewpoint as you, but I think a better analogy would be this:

You send a PC you just bought in for repairs, they replaced your 16GB module with a 32GB one previously, because they don't have any 16GB ones in stock. (I assume this is why the original purchaser had a larger-than-spec battery). Later on they email you, which starts a download and limits your 32GB of RAM back down to 16GB.

 

In their eyes, you're not worse off, because you didn't pay for the 32GB to begin with. You bought the system with the stated 32GB, and thus feel shorted.

 

I feel this is just shows you really need to know what you're buying. Wouldn't the VIN say 60d? Or the paperwork when transferring the vehicle? Anyone can stick badges on the back of their car. I could turn my dads 500k/km F250 into a Ferrari F40. There's no faultless party here. Though I feel Tesla should have just given it to the customer since they lose nothing in the deal. It's very poor customer service.

 

I don't agree with the title of the article, nor with the OPs write up, though.

 

20 minutes ago, Spotty said:

Interesting. I'm not sure what agreements are made when purchasing a new Tesla, but the original owner might have entered in to an agreement with Tesla to allow them to make major changes to their vehicle remotely without their consent, however that agreement wouldn't apply to any secondary owners. I really wonder what, if any, legal standing Tesla would have to be able to do this. 

Tesla would likely try to have it fall under implied consent, where the second owner would "know what he's getting into when buying a Tesla." Which, to Tesla, might make perfect sense, but to a laymen wouldn't be obvious at all.

 

It'll be interesting watching them try to use laws not really designed to deal with a changing landscape in this case.

1 minute ago, Middcore said:

 

No, he didn't. It had a 90kWh battery, which functioned as such.

 

He also "stole" nothing if Tesla put the 90kWh battery in his car and left its full 90kWh capacity unlocked. If they had, say, accidentally put an extra spare tire in the trunk (I don't know if Teslas even have spare tires) and let him drive away with it, he didn't "steal" the spare tire, and they have no right to take the tire back from the next owner. 

If we were to go for a ride somewhere, and you forget your phone in my car, your phone is now mine?

[Vishera]

11 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

Just another reason to flat-out dont buy any car that is connected to the internet....

Almost all the new cars are connected to the internet...

[Vishera]

2 minutes ago, dizmo said:

If we were to go for a ride somewhere, and you forget your phone in my car, your phone is now mine?

Forgetting is not intentional.

Tesla chose to give the 90KW/H battery to the first owner.

[IkeaGnome]

12 minutes ago, Jurrunio said:

If I stuff something into your hand, can I sue you for stealing? Not like the 1st owner took the 90kWh battery and put it in himself.

Someone steals your bike. Sells it. Who sells it to someone else. You happen to see it. Go to the cops with receipts and serial number. Who keeps the bike. You do. Do they go to jail for stealing? No. Do you sue them? No. Does the person that get what they were originally out back? Yes. 

14 minutes ago, Jurrunio said:

As far as I know, customers are not obliged to give back stuff accidentally given to you during a purchase.

He didn’t get billed for it. He was told he can either pay for it or go back to the capacity that it should have been. There wasn’t a surprise $4500 charge on his card. 
 

Seeing very quickly that “insert big company name here” will always be wrong on this forum. I’m out of this thread. Have fun all. 

[Middcore]

One time several years ago I ordered a set of speakers from Amazon. Instead of sending me one "retail" box with one set of speakers inside, they somehow sent me the crate the speakers come in from the manufacturer, containing four sets of speakers. Paid for one, got four.

 

I waited weeks. Heard not a peep from Amazon. If they ever noticed what they'd done, they apparently didn't think it worthwhile to do anything about on my end, probably because of the info @Jurrunio posted above.

 

Since I had no use for four sets of speakers, I sold the extra three to random people on Craigslist and Facebook marketplace.

 

This is like if Amazon had somehow found those people and came to them trying to take the three extra sets of speakers they mistakenly shipped back.

[Middcore]

1 minute ago, IkeaGnome said:

He didn’t get billed for it. He was told he can either pay for it or go back to the capacity that it should have been. There wasn’t a surprise $4500 charge on his card. 

You're talking about owner #2. Owner #1 got extra stuff given to them accidentally. Under the law you're generally not obligated to give back the free merchandise when that happens. So instead Tesla tried to recoup their loss from Owner #2 who wasn't involved in the initial screwup at all. 

 

[Spotty]

55 minutes ago, IkeaGnome said:

He got something for free that was meant to be paid for. How is that not stealing? I’m not saying the person that got locked down stole the battery pack or capacity. It’s on the tech that didn’t lock it down. That being said, they’ve got software implemented so they don’t get stolen from and used it. Took a while, but they did. They didn’t get the upgrade fee when the battery capacity got unlocked. 

If a surgeon accidentally leaves their Rolex wristwatch inside a patient, do you believe the patient should have to pay for the watch? 

 

The Tesla tech that installed the 90 battery maybe should have locked it to 60 when they installed it (though, installing things and then artificially locking them out is a whole other issue, see BMW's heated seats discussion), but they didn't. Tesla's technician screwed up and Tesla failed to rectify the issue until years later after the car had been sold twice. If it was the original owner and a week after installing the new battery they contacted the owner and said "Hey, there was an error made during your battery swap that unintentionally unlocked additional battery capacity. We've pushed a software update to fix then mistake" then that would be more reasonable and maybe you could argue Tesla's case. Maybe the original owner should have reported the mistake to Tesla, though you also can't expect a layperson to understand and identify the error.

 

Modifying somebody's car without their consent because they screwed up a repair years earlier when a different person owned the car is bullshit. Tesla should have at least contacted the current owner and got their approval to modify the vehicle before making any changes to the vehicle. The customer could just say "no, I don't agree" and Tesla wouldn't really have any way to force a customer to agree, they'd maybe only be able to state that without agreeing to the modifications the battery wouldn't be covered by warranty or something - but since the car is a few years old and on its 3rd owner I doubt Tesla is providing any warranty on it anyway.

 

The only reason this is a discussion is because even after the car has been sold multiple times and years after it was sold Tesla still has significant control over the vehicle and can make changes to the car remotely via the internet. I'm sure there would be no debate if this was a conventional vehicle and the manufacturer just showed up at their house and towed the vehicle away to take it to a mechanic to make fundamental changes to it without the owners consent - whether they were fixing their mistake or not. Look at safety recalls for example. The manufacturer can't just show up at your house, tow your car away and make the changes. Even if it's a safety recall they still need your consent to make the repairs. Why should it be any different for Tesla fixing their mistake? 

 

On the note of consent for making changes to an owner's vehicle, if Tesla had accidentally locked a 90kwh model to 60kwh I still believe they should contact the owner and ask for their consent to fix their mistake before making any changes to the vehicle.

 

1 hour ago, IkeaGnome said:

Either way the PO lied. 

It appears the previous owner wasn't the one who had the battery swapped. From the Twitter thread in the source article it appears it was the first owner who had a new battery installed under warranty. The person who had their car remotely altered by Tesla is the car's third owner. That would mean for the entire time the previous owner (2nd owner) owned the car it functioned as a 90 model. The previous owner might not have even been aware the battery was swapped.

Edited July 28, 2022 by Spotty
Added more comments

[Blademaster91]

39 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

Just another reason to flat-out dont buy any car that is connected to the internet....

Or a car with software locked features, putting extra battery capacity behind a pay wall is really ridiculous IMO, its about as dumb as BMW putting heated seats in every car but making you pay extra to actually use them.

[Birblover12]

I think there's so many issues with this. Firstly, I think the ability to "remotely configure" a vehicle is kind of scary. What if someone malicious wants to mess with your car, especially while you're driving? I'm not sure how much actual damage they could do, but the fact that it's even possible makes me a little nervous. Also, the fact that Tesla can just disable or change stuff on a vehicle YOU own without your prior permission seems like it'd be crossing the threshold of legality somehow. Makes me kind of nervous if they'd ever consider doing something really sketch, like pushing an update to all their vehicles that tracks all of your GPS data and then sells it to various companies without even telling you, or something similar, (they could pull a "it's in the fine print of the document you signed when you serviced your vehicle" type of excuse). Wouldn't be completely out of the question.

 

Regardless, I'm just glad the dude got the issue reverted. Shame he had to resort to the Social Media Flaming approach to get it though.

[wanderingfool2]

3 hours ago, Spotty said:

Yeah, I'd say this is Tesla's fault. Tesla has no right to modify somebody else's car without their consent, regardless of if it is in the original condition when it was sold or not. 

 

2 hours ago, Spotty said:

Modifying somebody's car without their consent because they screwed up a repair years earlier when a different person owned the car is bullshit. Tesla should have at least contacted the current owner and got their approval to modify the vehicle before making any changes to the vehicle. The customer could just say "no, I don't agree" and Tesla wouldn't really have any way to force a customer to agree, they'd maybe only be able to state that without agreeing to the modifications the battery wouldn't be covered by warranty or something - but since the car is a few years old and on its 3rd owner I doubt Tesla is providing any warranty on it anyway.

Well I mean the guy did bring it into a Tesla service center to get the MCU changed out; and likely has the Tesla app, which would likely mean that he is consenting to it.  Personally, I think the original guy who sold the vehicle as a Model S 90 is the one that is ultimately responsible...it doesn't matter if Tesla had forgotten to enable the software lock, the fact is it doesn't give the guy selling it the right to claim it's a 90.  He also connected it to the Tesla network, which means he's ultimately consenting to things such as updates and such.

 

I think an old school analogy of analog cable TV is in order here (regarding rights and all that stuff).

Back in the day, some cable providers would go around replacing all the filters on the homes to give free "all access" channels for a promo period.  Now on very rare occasions, once the promo period has ended they forget to replace the filter (or they think they have replaced it when they haven't).

If the owner of the house were to sell the house claiming free all access, and then the house were sold again; would you argue that the cable company has no right to enter the property to disable the access (by changing the filter back to only free channels).

 

Other similar things, if someone has MS Office on their second hand computer but MS disables the license because it was part of a batch of keys that were grey-ware. 

 

I do think that Tesla should have been a bit more forgiving in terms of that, but I don't hold it against them either.  The fact is, if the guy was sold a "90" Model S, and was showing the proof for that, then it's up to him to pursue the seller.

 

  

2 hours ago, Blademaster91 said:

Or a car with software locked features, putting extra battery capacity behind a pay wall is really ridiculous IMO, its about as dumb as BMW putting heated seats in every car but making you pay extra to actually use them.

It's not really stupid.  I mean they are likely also doing it with the new GigaTexas plant vehicles vs Fremont vehicles [since the Texas vehicles have the new 4860 batteries, so they are sandbagging it...to prevent people from shifting orders to prevent the osborne effect]

 

Especially at the time the vehicle was being produced, they didn't exactly have the capital or resources to create a secondary SKU and it was cheaper for them to create the two SKU's by software locking the features and charging extra for those who want the additional range (it's a simple cost benefit analysis)

[mr moose]

This is BS plain and simple.   It's getting absolutely ridiculous when a second hand (actually third hand in this case) product through private sales is held to ransom buy the manufacturer.