[rlpb]

This is interesting. Thank you for spending effort on this!

I was curious so I followed your link. Google Translate says this: "Since there is no information available that provides a basis for assuming that the car is defective after the update full, the complaint cannot be upheld."

So it seems that the requirement would be to prove that the change is actually a defect. This sounds reasonable to me in principle, though I wonder if the burden of proof should actually be on the other side if the consumer has no choice but to accept the update.

It looks like the fine issued was a default judgement on the basis that you weren't adequately informed of the change and that they didn't try to contest that?