GPLv2 makes no such distinction or limitation in section 3.
I states that distribution of binaries must include either: a) Complete corresponding machine-readable source code; or b) Written offer to give any third party a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code;
Item c) applies only to non-commercial cases, which is not the case here.
So if they are not doing a), they need to do b). And written does not imply regular mail (which you mentioned in your other reply), it can be anything on their web page or an e-mail.
If every distributed copy includes full source, then that's covered. Otherwise any request must be fulfilled, as there should be a written notice offering it somewhere. There is no limitation to who can request it.
GPLv3 on the other hand is more "legalese" and harder to read. Section 6 mentions possession of object code only for item b), which is the case for "written notice". So it will only apply if there is such written notice upon distribution.
Item c) is only for non-commercial cases. Items d) and e) require making source electronically available. Item a) says that if it is a physical product it needs to include full sources in some media.
If the distributor doesn't do d) or e), they need to do a) or b).
So, nowhere it is "patently false". Only if using GPLv3, and the binaries being provided along with a physical product, then there is no obligation to provide the code to any request.
The "corner case" I mentioned in my comment is related to item a). The limitation on item b) is actually something I had never noticed before.
But I have no idea which license version Tesla uses, so I don't know if this applies.
PS: Just to clarify one thing: trying to download a file from a URL or via P2P also constitutes a request. It's just on another media.