It's so crazy and dangerous I still have trouble believing it's true. Looks like we absolutely need laws regarding when and where a car company can remotely disable a vehicle.
You shouldn't need any laws, because it can be argued that by paying for the vehicle the owner purchased actual functionality, not just bare parts and chips. Any post-sale agreement is therefore inherently suspect from the beginning. If this is actually real I can't wait to see how it develops legally.
I have a similar understanding that the TOS doesn’t matter in this case and should not be enforceable, therefore making the company liable for civil penalties. But I really think such a reckless action should be tried as a criminal case and individual people within the company need to be held accountable. Not sure if there are any laws or precedent for that though.
Would that logic also apply to subscriptions like Full Self Driving and supercharging? I think that even if Tesla can't disable the car over a terms of use issue, they could cancel full self driving and maybe ban you from supercharging.
If the self driving is fully paid for then no, they should not be able to disable it.
For denying the monthly subscription and supercharging, a case could be made that these were the features that influenced the decision of the purchase, and denying them has now made the purchase less valuable. A civil suit could be filed, but not sure how the courts would rule.
How about a law that a company can't disable your product remotely, full stop? Or at least make it a negative right, so that any company can't disable your car/dishwasher/thermostat/video game, unless there's a very good reason to (say theft for example), with the burden of proof being on the company and not the consumer's shoulder?
Fake news is so ubiquitous these days that I think you need to apply a higher standard than "it feels likely to be true". Especially for things that trigger outrage.
I think the question you should be asking is "has it been verified by a trusted third party?" And if not, you should treat it as something with a significant probability of being untrue.
