Consumer Rights Wiki - User contributions [en]

Tesla blames drivers for part failures it admits were defective

2025-08-20T09:36:06Z

Starrynight: Add stub notice

{{Stub}}

{{IncidentCargo
|Company=Tesla
|StartDate=2023-12-20
|EndDate=2024
|Status=Resolved
|Product=Tesla Model S, Tesla Model 3, Tesla Model X, Tesla Model Y
|ArticleType=Product
|Type=Knowingly selling defective product
|Description=Wheels falling off at speed and other safety incidents caused by defective parts where the blame and cost was placed on the consumer.
}}
{{Ph-I-Int}}

==Summary==
A December 2023 Reuters investigation<ref>{{Cite web |last=Jin |first=Hyunjoo |last2=Krolicki |first2=Kevin |last3=Mannes |first3=Marie |last4=Stecklow |first4=Steve |date=2023-12-20 |title=Tesla blamed drivers for failures of parts it long knew were defective |url=https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/tesla-musk-steering-suspension/ |url-status=live |access-date=2025-08-20 |website=Reuters {{!}} Breaking International News & Views}}</ref> reveals faulty parts in Tesla vehicles have caused incidents of wheels falling off at speed, axles breaking under acceleration, control arms failing and the suspension collapsing without evidence of direct impact. Tesla told US regulators and service centres the failures were due to "vehicle misuse," despite the fact that internal documents show Tesla had been tracking these chronic flaws for years.

==Background==
{{Ph-I-B}}

==[Incident]==
{{Ph-I-I}}

===Tesla's response===
{{Ph-I-ComR}}

Eight days after the Reuters investigation was published, Tesla responded<ref name=":0">{{Cite web |date=2023-12-28 |title=Addressing Misleading Claims |url=https://www.tesla.com/blog/addressing-misleading-claims |url-status=live |website=Electric Cars, Solar & Clean Energy {{!}} Tesla}}</ref> with a post on the platform X criticizing the investigation and its "wildly misleading" headline. As a response to the specific incident of Shreyansh Jain’s 2023 Tesla Model Y, Tesla pointed out that the [https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/assets/tesla-musk-steering-suspension/20230329_120734-2-crop.jpg customer photo] represents the component was involved in a crash, and says "Most, if not all, manufacturer warranties exclude damages caused by a crash because that is the point of insurance coverage.<ref name=":0" />" Tesla also pointed out that as mentioned in the [https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/tesla-musk-steering-suspension original Reuters article], Tesla paid for most of 120,000 vehicles covered under warranty when upper control arm failures were discovered in the Model S and Model X.

Tesla reiterates their service is not incentivised to profit off repair needs, that it is often done using a convenient OTA (Over-the-Air) update process and mobile service to the customer's home or workplace, and Tesla quotes a [https://autos.yahoo.com/tesla-named-cheapest-luxury-car-110000613.html?_guc_consent_skip=1704750723#:~:text=Tesla's%20average%20maintenance%20cost%20was,the%20Model%203%20in%20fourth maintenance study] to conclude "The numbers don’t lie in terms of repeat sales and customer satisfaction," while claiming Reuters' journalism was "cherry-picking" for negative information.

==Lawsuit==
{{Ph-I-L}}

==Consumer response==
{{Ph-I-ConR}}

==References==
{{reflist}}

{{Ph-I-C}}

Tesla blames drivers for part failures it admits were defective

2025-08-20T09:19:37Z

Starrynight: Add a summary and add Tesla's response

{{IncidentCargo
|Company=Tesla
|StartDate=2023-12-20
|EndDate=2024
|Status=Resolved
|Product=Tesla Model S, Tesla Model 3, Tesla Model X, Tesla Model Y
|ArticleType=Product
|Type=Knowingly selling defective product
|Description=Wheels falling off at speed and other safety incidents caused by defective parts where the blame and cost was placed on the consumer.
}}
{{Ph-I-Int}}

== Summary ==
A December 2023 Reuters investigation<ref>{{Cite web |last=Jin |first=Hyunjoo |last2=Krolicki |first2=Kevin |last3=Mannes |first3=Marie |last4=Stecklow |first4=Steve |date=2023-12-20 |title=Tesla blamed drivers for failures of parts it long knew were defective |url=https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/tesla-musk-steering-suspension/ |url-status=live |access-date=2025-08-20 |website=Reuters {{!}} Breaking International News & Views}}</ref> reveals faulty parts in Tesla vehicles have caused incidents of wheels falling off at speed, axles breaking under acceleration, control arms failing and the suspension collapsing without evidence of direct impact. Tesla told US regulators and service centres the failures were due to "vehicle misuse," despite the fact that internal documents show Tesla had been tracking these chronic flaws for years.

==Background==
{{Ph-I-B}}

==[Incident]==
{{Ph-I-I}}

===Tesla's response===
{{Ph-I-ComR}}

Eight days after the Reuters investigation was published, Tesla responded<ref name=":0">{{Cite web |date=2023-12-28 |title=Addressing Misleading Claims |url=https://www.tesla.com/blog/addressing-misleading-claims |url-status=live |website=Electric Cars, Solar & Clean Energy {{!}} Tesla}}</ref> with a post on the platform X criticizing the investigation and its "wildly misleading" headline. As a response to the specific incident of Shreyansh Jain’s 2023 Tesla Model Y, Tesla pointed out that the [https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/assets/tesla-musk-steering-suspension/20230329_120734-2-crop.jpg customer photo] represents the component was involved in a crash, and says "Most, if not all, manufacturer warranties exclude damages caused by a crash because that is the point of insurance coverage.<ref name=":0" />" Tesla also pointed out that as mentioned in the [https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/tesla-musk-steering-suspension original Reuters article], Tesla paid for most of 120,000 vehicles covered under warranty when upper control arm failures were discovered in the Model S and Model X.

Tesla reiterates their service is not incentivised to profit off repair needs, that it is often done using a convenient OTA (Over-the-Air) update process and mobile service to the customer's home or workplace, and Tesla quotes a [https://autos.yahoo.com/tesla-named-cheapest-luxury-car-110000613.html?_guc_consent_skip=1704750723#:~:text=Tesla's%20average%20maintenance%20cost%20was,the%20Model%203%20in%20fourth maintenance study] to conclude "The numbers don’t lie in terms of repeat sales and customer satisfaction," while claiming Reuters' journalism was "cherry-picking" for negative information.

==Lawsuit==
{{Ph-I-L}}

==Consumer response==
{{Ph-I-ConR}}

==References==
{{reflist}}

{{Ph-I-C}}

Tesla blames drivers for part failures it admits were defective

2025-08-20T08:12:56Z

Starrynight: Wheels falling off at speed, axels breaking under pressure, suspensions collapsing due to defective parts in Tesla vehicles were blamed on the consumer despite internal engineers acknowledging flaws.

Device bricking

2025-08-20T07:43:06Z

Starrynight: Fixed citation error

{{StubNotice}}

A device being "[https://foundershield.com/insurance-terms/definition/bricking/#:~:text=Bricking%20is%20a%20term%20that,which%20renders%20the%20device%20useless. Bricked]" means the device has been rendered entirely unusable. The act of "Device Bricking" is specifically a company-side action meant to prevent a consumer from using a device they purchased if they attempt to do anything that [https://www.ign.com/articles/nintendo-revises-user-agreement-and-if-you-break-it-nintendo-reserves-the-right-to-brick-your-switch#:~:text=You%20acknowledge%20that%20if%20you%20fail%20to%20comply%20with%20the%20foregoing%20restrictions%20Nintendo%20may%20render%20the%20Nintendo%20Account%20Services%20and/or%20the%20applicable%20Nintendo%20device%20permanently%20unusable%20in%20whole%20or%20in%20part.%22 goes against the terms of service the company sets] for their devices, seen from the release of the Switch 2 from [[Nintendo]]. The act is intended to prevent "[https://www.techopedia.com/definition/10649/homebrew Homebrewed]" devices (devices with unofficial, third-party or user-created modifications) from being created and to try to discourage piracy and hacking.

Device bricking also occurs very commonly as a result of [[Planned obsolescence]], where a company's goal is to force the consumer to buy and replace the old, now unusable, product with a new one

==Recent cases of Device bricking==
{| class="wikitable"
|+
!Time of incident
!Company name
!Reason
!Effects
!Details
|-
|June 2025 - Ongoing
|Nintendo
|EULA violation
|All games not fully downloaded prior rendered unplayable<ref>{{Cite web |last= |first= |date=2025-07-27 |title=What does a banned Switch 2 ACTUALLY mean? |url=https://youtu.be/MqFY3rICDWs?si=T3lLrbrbUH7CUT39 |url-status=live |access-date=2025-08-20 |website=YouTube}}</ref>, online features disabled
|In a May 2025 policy update, Nintendo stated they may ''"render the Nintendo Account Services and/or the applicable Nintendo device permanently unusable in whole or in part."''<ref>{{Cite web |date=2025-08-20 |title=Nintendo Account User Agreement |url=https://accounts.nintendo.com/term/eula/US?lang=en-US |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250513142857/https://accounts.nintendo.com/term/eula/US?lang=en-US |archive-date=2025-05-13 |access-date=2025-08-20 |website=Nintendo Official Site}}</ref>
|-
|
|
|
|
|
|-
|
|
|
|
|
|}
<references />

Device bricking

2025-08-20T07:36:24Z

Starrynight: Added a stub notice and created a table for recent cases of device bricking

{{StubNotice}}

A device being "[https://foundershield.com/insurance-terms/definition/bricking/#:~:text=Bricking%20is%20a%20term%20that,which%20renders%20the%20device%20useless. Bricked]" means the device has been rendered entirely unusable. The act of "Device Bricking" is specifically a company-side action meant to prevent a consumer from using a device they purchased if they attempt to do anything that [https://www.ign.com/articles/nintendo-revises-user-agreement-and-if-you-break-it-nintendo-reserves-the-right-to-brick-your-switch#:~:text=You%20acknowledge%20that%20if%20you%20fail%20to%20comply%20with%20the%20foregoing%20restrictions%20Nintendo%20may%20render%20the%20Nintendo%20Account%20Services%20and/or%20the%20applicable%20Nintendo%20device%20permanently%20unusable%20in%20whole%20or%20in%20part.%22 goes against the terms of service the company sets] for their devices, seen from the release of the Switch 2 from [[Nintendo]]. The act is intended to prevent "[https://www.techopedia.com/definition/10649/homebrew Homebrewed]" devices (devices with unofficial, third-party or user-created modifications) from being created and to try to discourage piracy and hacking.

Device bricking also occurs very commonly as a result of [[Planned obsolescence]], where a company's goal is to force the consumer to buy and replace the old, now unusable, product with a new one

==Recent cases of Device bricking==
{| class="wikitable"
|+
!Time of incident
!Company name
!Reason
!Effects
!Details
|-
|June 2025 - Ongoing
|Nintendo
|EULA violation
|All games not fully downloaded prior rendered unplayable<ref>{{Cite web |first=Scattered Brain |date=2025-07-27 |title=What does a banned Switch 2 ACTUALLY mean? |url=https://youtu.be/MqFY3rICDWs?si=T3lLrbrbUH7CUT39 |url-status=live |access-date=2025-08-20 |website=YouTube}}</ref>, online features disabled
|In a May 2025 policy update, Nintendo stated they may ''"render the Nintendo Account Services and/or the applicable Nintendo device permanently unusable in whole or in part."''<ref>{{Cite web |date=2025-08-20 |title=Nintendo Account User Agreement |url=https://accounts.nintendo.com/term/eula/US?lang=en-US |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250513142857/https://accounts.nintendo.com/term/eula/US?lang=en-US |archive-date=2025-05-13 |access-date=2025-08-20 |website=Nintendo Official Site}}</ref>
|-
|
|
|
|
|
|-
|
|
|
|
|
|}