I’m not sure I understand the “but in fact”, qualifier because the example that you point to exactly demonstrates that Tesla has the capability to make these changes at their discretion.
It sounds like it’s that way because it is!
Tesla has the capability to turn off features at their discretion, by altering a row in the database.
So…yes, if Tesla doesn’t think a user should have a capability that’s managed remotely, they update a database row (that they have exclusive control over), and that vehicle no longer has that capability.
The statement still reads as totally accurate to me.
The typical use is not malicious (oh, this free trial is now over, so disable that capability), but that’s still a demonstration of Tesla remotely disabling a feature that they don’t think a certain user should have.
My objection is to the capability, rather than a pattern of malicious use. I think the article was correct to point out the capability, and did so by relying on a well known example.
To me, I didn’t read it as an implication that this inaccurate remote disabling was a widespread problem for Tesla but I understand if you read it differently.