Imagine if you return a MacBook to Apple. As part of refurbishing it, they disable half the RAM (make up a reason, it's broken or whatever). And then sell it to someone described as in its current state.
Heck Tesla could take the engine out and sell it as a lawn ornament. As long as they're not committing crimes by misrepresenting what they're selling.
That’s what happens, no?
The problem here is the lack of disclosure that the car didn’t have FSD. If Tesla buys a car they can resell it with whatever features they’d like.
I don't know the legalese behind Tesla's features being "licensed" or "sold" as a part of the car, or to the owner, or what the right outcome is here. I get both sides of the argument though.
And the other point is, even if someone sells a car that supposedly has FDC and EAP enabled it would be foolish to pay for it. Because Tesla can "audit" and remove it on a whim.
What evidence inspires you to say that? Do you have private information showing that Tesla did in fact say: "the sticker is wrong, the test drive is wrong, this car doesn't include FSD"?
According to the story, Tesla sold this vehicle at auction with FSD enabled, and with a sticker saying it had FSD.
In the absence of other evidence, that means Tesla sold the car with the autopilot option, and then removed it.
I'm reading the story now and don't see that in there anywhere.
That said, it's clear that the sticker describes the car and the price from the original sale. It's not clear whether that sticker was also displayed at the auction, and now that you mention it, the story doesn't say.
But I've bought cars at auction before and they were always sold as-is. I'd be livid if the seller broke in a few days later and sabotaged a feature on a car I bought as-is, with the excuse "we didn't mean to include that feature".
But somehow I suspect Tesla won't allow that either, and they'll try to argue that every buyer (even used) has to pay them for FSD on every car.
Or they'll switch to a subscription model where you have to pay every year.
That's a third-party dealer who bought the car at auction, not a Tesla-dealer (which don't exist). The dealer is a private party. It shouldn't matter whether the dealer or Alec was the owner, the point is, Tesla wasn't.
What updates point to that?
The sticker says the car had AP, the disclosure doesn't say otherwise, and everyone seems to agree the car did in fact have AP enabled when Tesla sold it on Nov 15.
What evidence says Tesla sold the car without AP?
It doesn't matter that Tesla's records say the car shouldn't have had AP, it did have it.
It also doesn't matter whether Tesla wronged Alec or the dealer here. In either case, if the story is accurate, Tesla sabotaged a car they'd already sold because they accidentally left a feature enabled that they didn't want to.
Cars at auction are typically sold as-is, and when they are sold as-is, the seller can't say "Oops, we forgot to disable that feature" and then disable it a few days later.
Did Tesla sell a car with FSD to the dealer? No, Tesla sold the dealer a car without FSD, but the feature was incorrectly enabled in the car that was delivered. This tends to happen because features will only come off after the next software update is applied.
By the way, there's a similar issue with used cars that originally came with "Free Unlimited SuperCharging". This is another case where if Tesla buys the used car, or it's returned to them, they will resell it used without "Free Unlimited Supercharging".
The problem is when third-party dealers purchase off-lease Teslas which originally had "Free Unlimited SuperCharging" even though Tesla will always remove that feature when the lease is over, the used car dealer could lie to the new buyer that they are getting FUSC with the car, when in fact they will not.
For example: https://forums.tesla.com/forum/forums/free-unlimited-superch...
Who failed to include any mention of removing that equipment that was included in the legally required lemon disclosure statement? Tesla.
Who allowed the dealer to inspect the car and test drive it in a state where the equipment and features that were listed as included equipment were present and working? Tesla.
If Tesla wants to remove features when they resell a car, that's fine, but they have to disclose it, and they can't misrepresent those features as included in the material and documentation provided. That would be fraud.
Where do you get that idea? If that picture of an invoice is to be believed, even Tesla agrees the car did have FSD when it was sold on Nov 15. And nothing seems to say otherwise.
You may expect, for whatever reason, that a used Tesla doesn't include FSD even if the sticker says it does and the feature is enabled on a test drive, but that's not a reasonable expectation.
In fact it's quite a surprise, so Tesla needs to make it very clear that that is the case, and there's no evidence here that they have done so.
This is more like you bought a MacBook from Apple, which had 8GB of RAM, but when you downloaded a software update, half the RAM was disabled. Then when you complained, Apple said "Oops, we shouldn't have sold it to you with 8GB."
Apple sells a computer with an extra Siri service. You return it and they resell to another consumer who has the option to purchase the Siri package.
Seems reasonable to me.
The next owner doesn't get final cut pro just because you purchased it
with original RAM advertised, or the new advertised RAM advertised, or no mention?