mechanics – Techdirt (original) (raw)

Tesla Lied To Customers, Blaming Them For Shoddy Parts The Company Knew Were Defective

from the giant-bullshit-machine dept

Back in July, Reuters released a bombshell report showing that not only has Tesla aggressively lied about its EV ranges for the better part of the last decade, it created teams whose entire purpose was to lie to customers about it when they called up to complain. The story lasted all of two days in the news cycle before it was supplanted by clickbait stories about a billionaire fist fight that never actually happened.

Now Reuters is back again, with another major story showcasing how for much of that same decade, Tesla routinely blamed customers for the failure of substandard parts the company knew to be defective. The outlet reviewed thousands of Tesla documents and found a pattern where customers would complain about dangerously broken and low-quality parts, only to be repeatedly gaslit by the company:

“Wheels falling off cars at speed. Suspensions collapsing on brand-new vehicles. Axles breaking under acceleration. Tens of thousands of customers told Tesla about a host of part failures on low-mileage cars. The automaker sought to blame drivers for vehicle ‘abuse,’ but Tesla documents show it had tracked the chronic ‘flaws’ and ‘failures’ for years.”

The records show a repeated pattern across tens of thousands of customers where parts would fail, then the customer would be accused of “abusing” their vehicle. They also show that Tesla meticulously tracked part failures, knew many parts were defective, and routinely not only lied to regulators about it, but charged customers to repair parts they knew had high failure rates and were systemically prone to failure:

“Yet the company has denied some of the suspension and steering problems in statements to U.S. regulators and the public– and, according to Tesla records, sought to shift some of the resulting repair costs to customers.”

This is obviously a very different narrative than the one Musk presented last month at that unhinged New York Times DealBook event:

“We make the best cars. Whether you hate me, like me or are indifferent, do you want the best car, or do you not want the best car?”

They are, as it turns out, not the best cars.

And this is before you even touch on the growing pile of corpses caused by the company’s half-cooked and repeatedly misrepresented “full self driving” technology, which last week resulted in the recall of nearly every vehicle that has it. That problem was, as reports have documented in detail, thanks in part to non-engineer Musk over-ruling his actual engineers when it comes to only using cameras.

This comes as a new study shows that Tesla vehicles have the highest accident rate of any brand on the road. As usual, U.S. regulators have generally been asleep or lethargic during most of this, worried that enforcing basic public safety standards would somehow be stifling “innovation.”

The deaths from “full self driving” have been going on for the better part of the last decade, yet the NHTSA only just apparently figured out where its pants were located. But a lot of the problems Reuters have revealed should be slam dunk cases for the FTC under the “unfair and deceptive” component of the FTC Act, creating what will likely be a very busy 2024 for Elon Musk.

A lot of this stuff has been discussed by Tesla critics for years. It’s only once Musk began his downward descent into full racist caricature and undeniable self-immolation that press outlets with actual resources started to meaningfully dig beyond the hype. There’s cause for some significant U.S. journalism introspection as to why that is that probably will never happen.

Meanwhile, for a supposed innovation super-genius, most Musk companies have the kind of customer service that makes Comcast seem empathic and competent.

There’s no shortage of nightmare stories about Tesla Solar customer service. And we’ve well documented how Starlink can’t even respond to basic email inquiries by users tired of being on year-long waiting lists and seeking refunds. And once you burn past the novelty, gimmicks, and fanboy denialism, Tesla automotive clearly isn’t any better.

That said, this goes well beyond just bad customer service. The original Reuters story from July about the company lying about EV ranges clearly demonstrates not just bad customer service, but profound corporate culture rot:

“Inside the Nevada team’s office, some employees celebrated canceling service appointments by putting their phones on mute and striking a metal xylophone, triggering applause from coworkers who sometimes stood on desks. The team often closed hundreds of cases a week and staffers were tracked on their average number of diverted appointments per day.”

As with much of what Musk does, a large share of what the press initially sold the public as unbridled innovation was really just cutting corners. It’s easy to accomplish more than the next guy when you refuse to invest in customer service, don’t care about labor or environmental laws, don’t care about public safety, don’t care about the customer, and have zero compulsion about lying to regulators or making things up at every conceivable opportunity.

Filed Under: automotive, cars, consumer rights, ev, mechanics, repairs, safety, tesla
Companies: tesla

NHTSA Backtracks On Its Dumb Opposition To ‘Right To Repair’

from the you-are-not-helping dept

Thu, Aug 24th 2023 05:34am - Karl Bode

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has backed off of its ill-advised opposition to right to repair after presumably getting an earful from reformers and the Biden administration.

This past June, NHTSA issued guidance advising the auto industry to basically ignore Massachusetts’ new right to repair law, which required that all modern vehicle systems be accessible via a standardized, transparent platform allowing owners and repair shops to access vehicle data via a mobile device. The industry’s justification: the new law would harm consumer privacy and security:

“While NHTSA has stressed that it is important for consumers to continue to have the ability to choose where to have their vehicles serviced and repaired, consumers must be afforded choice in a manner that does not pose an unreasonable risk to motor vehicle safety.”

Except that’s… not true. Not only was the NHTSA’s intervention not helpful and not based in fact, it effectively undermined the Biden Administration’s claims it supports extremely popular right to repair reforms. It also undermined Massachusetts voters, whose representatives had approved the law 75-25.

An auto-industry lawsuit had already delayed implementation of the law. The industry also ran ads falsely claiming it would somehow aid sexual predators. That right to repair reform will harm consumer privacy and security in a litany of terrible ways is the standard argument for repair monopolists like the auto industry, though a recent FTC report found that the lion’s share of those claims simply weren’t true.

According to 404 Media (a new tech news outlet created from Motherboard folks fleeing the Vice bankruptcy mess), the NHTSA is backtracking from its June announcement. In a letter to MA Assistant AG Eric Haskell, the NHTSA said it found a way to “advance our mutual interest in ensuring safe consumer choice for automotive repair and maintenance. NHTSA strongly supports the right to repair.”

Right to repair activists like PIRG’s Nathan Proctor tell 404 Media the damage has already been done:

“We strongly support the goals the agency puts forward—to protect repair choice and maintain safety. However, as it stands, the agency has achieved neither goal,” he said. “Instead, it has allowed a proliferation of serious safety and monopolization issues to continue without meaningful resistance. Let’s hope this new letter signals a change in approach. We don’t plan to stop our work until cars not only are safe, but also enjoy the full slate of Right to Repair protections.”

While the NHTSA doesn’t seem in any rush to hold Tesla meaningfully accountable for the growing pile of corpses created by Tesla’s undercooked and clearly misrepresented “full self driving” car technology, it somehow found the time to undermine a hugely popular, grass roots reform effort. Great job.

Of course that’s how regulatory capture works. Repair monopolists like John Deere, Apple, and the auto industry seed the landscape with all kinds of bullshit about how being able to affordably and easily repair things you fucking own is somehow diabolically dangerous. Captured lawmakers, regulators, and governors then use those claims to either prevent right to repair laws from passing (see: California), or to undermine them if they already have (see: New York).

Filed Under: auto, consumers, independent repair, joe biden, massachusetts, mechanics, nhtsa, regulatory capture, right to repair, security

from the no,-actually,-it's-not dept

The Copyright Office continues to show that it is completely out of touch and tone deaf to the mess that copyright laws create today. We’ve talked a few times about how abuses of copyright law have created messes for industries that you might think would never have to deal with copyright on a regular basis. Take, for example, mechanics. What does repairing your car have to do with copyrights? In the past, absolutely nothing. More recently, however, it’s been a huge deal. That’s because automakers have used copyright to lock up diagnostic codes and information concerning onboard computers. The end result is that car owners are often forced to go to dealers (who are expensive) over independent car repair shops. Independent repair shops who circumvent the digital locks on car computers may be found to be violating the DMCA’s anti-circumvention clause. As we’ve noted, this seems like a clear abuse of the DMCA, as it was clearly not designed for such a purpose. Attempts to fix this with “right to repair” legislation have mostly gone nowhere (automakers are powerful lobbyists, and the entertainment industry also doesn’t want anything that weakens the anti-circumvention clause).

It would be difficult to look on this turn of events in a positive way no matter what angle you might take. It’s clearly abusing copyright law beyond its intended purpose. It’s limiting competition. It’s making life worse for the public and for small businesses. So how could this possibly be spun as a good thing? Leave that to Copyright Office boss Maria Pallante. At a recent conference all about Section 108 of the Copyright Act, she apparently declared (via Copycense, who was in attendance):

“I think it’s really great your car mechanic knows about copyright”

She similarly argued that a big challenge of copyright law is making it more accessible and suggested it was a good thing that it’s “no longer” reserved to experts to deal with copyright law. All of that should actually be seen as a pretty massive problem with the system. As a government-granted monopoly privilege that also has free speech implications, we should want copyright to be very carefully limited and calibrated in a manner that it is not something that enters people’s everyday lives, and that it’s not an issue that a mechanic should ever need to know about. Those are signs of a completely broken system. They’re signs that copyright has expanded massively beyond its basic structure, into a monstrosity, often driven by the nature of technology. When your mechanic needs to be an expert in copyright law just to know if he or she can fix your car it may make Maria Pallante happier, because it seems to validate her job, but it should be seen as a huge problem for the system. A copyright system that is working is one that doesn’t trouble totally unrelated professions like mechanics. It’s only a broken system that would create serious friction in jobs like that. That the head of the Copyright Office does not realize this is pretty frightening.

Filed Under: copyright, copyright office, maria pallante, mechanics, section 108

A Modest Proposal: ISPs Should Stop Any Activity That Hurts A Business Model

from the it's-their-responsibility-after-all dept

With the entertainment industry’s new push to force ISPs to somehow filter or block the transfer of any kind of copyrighted material, Charles Arthur is wondering why other industries facing massive business model challenges can’t do the same thing? Newspapers, as has been well documented, are facing challenges from the likes of Craigslist and Google — so why not have ISPs block those sites? And plenty of people are discussing news articles, even to the point of copying-and-pasting articles. Clearly, ISPs should be protecting the newspaper industry. But that’s not all. Arthur points to some other industries that ISPs should help protect, such as auto mechanics and needlepoint pattern makers — both of whom have faced market changes thanks to the internet. If only ISPs would block the sharing of information on how to fix your own car or how to create needlepoints — both of those important industries could be protected. Or, as Arthur concludes, perhaps all of these industries could adapt to the changing market. But what are the chances of that happening?

Filed Under: business models, filters, isps, mechanics, needlepoint, newspapers, recording industry