[hansvm]

> Its Tesla's liability and reputation if a Tesla vehicle with questionable integrity burns at a DC fast charger.

That same argument could be made for just about anything being sold -- the original owner could still exert control over your purchase because their reputation might be damaged if you weren't careful. You're not wrong that the court of public opinion can be vindictive, but I think that's by far the lesser evil compared with not actually owning the things you buy. We grant exceptions here and there (can't use your baseball bat to kill a person, usually), but none anywhere nearly as invasive as prohibiting any activity that might give a former owner bad PR.

The fact that Tesla has an automated means of enforcement is a big part of why this is coming up at all. They don't have to wait to figure out what the courts say; they can use software to do what they want till they're explicitly forbidden.

[potatochup]

It will be interesting to see what impact right-to-repair laws have here. They are already forcing the release of service documentation, tooling & procedures. But does that also apply to re-certifying a crashed vehicle? Will denying charging to crashed vehicles even be allowed?

[toomuchtodo]

> The fact that Tesla has an automated means of enforcement is a big part of why this is coming up at all. They don't have to wait to figure out what the courts say; they can use software to do what they want till they're explicitly forbidden.

True. And until the law says otherwise, they can continue to do so.

> You're not wrong that the court of public opinion can be vindictive

This cannot be overstated. I don't entirely agree with Tesla's approach (as an owner of several of their vehicles, and having to go through contortions to get some issues resolved), but I understand the why.