BMW feature lockout scandal: Difference between revisions

 

This article documents BMW's practice of including the hardware for its M adaptive suspension in many vehicles, while requiring customers to pay extra to activate the software that enables the feature. This model exemplifies modern consumer exploitation by eroding traditional notions of ownership and leveraging [[Subscription service|subscription services]] to control access to features that are physically present in a purchased product.

Modern automotive manufacturers are increasingly using software and subscription models to control features within their vehicles <ref name=":0" /><ref name=":1" />. This approach differs significantly from older consumer protection issues which focused on unsafe products or misleading advertising. BMW's adaptive suspension model is one example of how companies are shifting towards business practices that limit a consumer's [[Right to own|right to ownership]] <ref name=":1" />.

==The Incident==

BMW includes the hardware for its M adaptive suspension in many of its vehicles, but the customer must pay extra to activate the software that enables the feature <ref name=":0" />. The way this is offered is as follows <ref name=":0" />:

This means that even though a consumer has physically purchased the car with the suspension components, they do not have full control or use of those components without paying an additional fee <ref name=":0" />. The cost of the equipment was already included in the price of the vehicle, meaning that the customer is effectively paying twice for the same components <ref name=":0>[https://web.archive.org/save/https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/new-cars/bmw-will-not-charge-extra-activate-existing-functions-cars "BMW will not charge extra to activate existing functions in cars"] - archive.org - archived 2025-01-28</ref>. This is a shift from traditional ownership models where the consumer has full access to the functionality of purchased goods.

This practice is not an isolated incident. BMW has previously implemented similar business practices such as charging a subscription fee for access to heated seats, despite the hardware being installed in the vehicle.<ref name=":1">[https://web.archive.org/web/20250129020851/https://www.theverge.com/2023/9/7/23863258/bmw-cancel-heated-seat-subscription-microtransaction "BMW drops plan to charge a monthly fee for heated seats"] - archive.org - archived 2025-01-28</ref> This demonstrates a pattern of behaviour that uses software to limit a consumer's access to features that they have already paid for <ref name=":0" /><ref name=":1" />.

==Analysis==

This incident highlights the following aspects of "new" consumer protection issues <ref name=":1" />:

*'''Control Through Software''': BMW controls access to the adaptive suspension through software, requiring an additional payment to unlock a feature that is already physically present in the vehicle <ref name=":0" />.

*'''Subscription Model''': The option of paying a monthly or yearly subscription to use the suspension exemplifies how companies are turning ownership into a service, rather than selling products outright <ref name=":0" /><ref name=":1" />. This model means that the customer is effectively renting a feature, rather than owning it.

*'''Erosion of Ownership''': The way that BMW offers this feature alters the definition of ownership, as the consumer does not have full control over the functionality of their vehicle, despite having already purchased the components that enable the adaptive suspension <ref name=":0" /><ref name=":1" />.

*'''Removal of the right to say no''': By including the hardware for the adaptive suspension in the vehicles, BMW is effectively removing the right of the consumer to refuse the sale or to own a product outright without needing to interact with the manufacturer <ref name=":0" />.

*'''Difficult to Understand and Resist''': The way in which BMW offers its adaptive suspension, with the option of a subscription or one time payment, is designed to be complex, creating a level of 'fatigue' that makes it harder for consumers to resist <ref name=":0" />.

==Broader Implications==

This incident demonstrates the broader challenges facing consumers with regard to software and subscriptions that are increasingly prevalent in modern products <ref name=":0" /><ref name=":1" />. It exemplifies the ways in which companies are shifting away from traditional notions of ownership by using software locks and subscription services to control access to features that are physically present in a purchased product <ref name=":0" /><ref name=":1" />.

*[[Software as a Service]]

*[[Right to Repair movement]]

*[[Consumer Rights]]

*[[Subscription Business Model]]