Don’t plan on using an autonomous Tesla to earn money with Uber or Lyft

Self-driving Teslas only allowed to carry paying customers through the Tesla Network.

Read the whole story

 

[polerin]

Sharing economy lifts all boats right? Right?

 

[Moonrunner]

Well, the corporate world has been heading that way for a while, so I'm not surprised that Tesla would stoop so low - telling people how they are supposed to use their property.

 

[Deleted member 276317]

Yuk.

 

[ztechrdr]

It may be a defence against possible liability issues.

 

[lonewolfe2015]

Is this actually legally binding? Presuming you've bought and paid for the car, are you not allowed to use it for generating income as you see fit? I understand why Tesla is doing this, just find it strange that it might be possible they could selectively ban certain types of professions when purchasing their vehicles.

It would be like saying you can't buy a Tesla and use it to deliver pizzas autonomously. Unless the crux of the issue is the safety of the passenger in the unoccupied vehicle?

 

[4mula1]

This reminds me of John Deere and their notion that you don't own the tractor, but a license to use it.

https://www.wired.com/2015/04/dmca-owne ... ohn-deere/

 

[maehara]

lonewolfe2015[/url]":45m7hy1c]Unless the crux of the issue is the safety of the passenger in the unoccupied vehicle?

Almost certainly. Passenger accompanied only by Tesla's Autopilot, then liability for any accidents could fall on Tesla. If the car's owner is also present and can override Autopilot, then there's someone else to pin liability on.

 

[pokrface]

Is this actually legally binding? Presuming you've bought and paid for the car, are you not allowed to use it for generating income as you see fit? I understand why Tesla is doing this, just find it strange that it might be possible they could selectively ban certain types of professions when purchasing their vehicles.

It would be like saying you can't buy a Tesla and use it to deliver pizzas autonomously. Unless the crux of the issue is the safety of the passenger in the unoccupied vehicle?

Sure, they could stipulate a pretty wide variety of things in a sales contract.

Tesla could enforce it by banning your car from supercharger networks or blacklisting it from receiving any further updates, or perhaps by remotely disabling the self-driving functionality. All of which, presumably, you would have agreed to in the sales contract (along with, again presumably, a binding arbitration clause to prevent you from bringing civil suit).

 

[mikesmith]

lonewolfe2015[/url]":2skkivdi]Is this actually legally binding? Presuming you've bought and paid for the car, are you not allowed to use it for generating income as you see fit? I understand why Tesla is doing this, just find it strange that it might be possible they could selectively ban certain types of professions when purchasing their vehicles.

It would be like saying you can't buy a Tesla and use it to deliver pizzas autonomously. Unless the crux of the issue is the safety of the passenger in the unoccupied vehicle?

Welcome to the shrink wrap EULA future all of us old assholes kept telling you young whipper snappers that wouldn't stand up for your rights was coming.

 

[Justin Credible]

Tesla owners: don't expect to be able to use your EV driving for Uber, Lyft, or any other ride-sharing service that isn't owned by Tesla.

KMA Tesla, if i own my car outright i will do whatever the hell i please with it, it's my car after all. If there is some clause in the microfiche fine print that says that i can't, oh well for you, you just lost a sale, because by that time you won't be the only game in town selling autonomous vehicles.

 

[hizonner]

Tesla could enforce it by banning your car from supercharger networks or blacklisting it from receiving any further updates, or perhaps by remotely disabling the self-driving functionality. All of which, presumably, you would have agreed to in a sales contract (along with, again presumably, a binding arbitration clause to prevent you from bringing civil suit).

... which is why this stuff needs to be stomped legislatively. The legal standard needs to be "You sold it, you lose all control over it; contracts to the contrary have no legal effect". Weird nonstandard restrictions will create friction and prevent the market from operating properly to create maximum value. Especially when the weird restrictions start interacting with one another.

 

[Exelius]

I'm actually more ok with this.

Ride sharing is ultimately the holy grail of the autonomous car, so Tesla is gonna be damned if they'll let Uber and Lyft take all of the profits from the work they put in to make their cars drive autonomously. You as the owner of the car will become marginalized in either case because you don't have the ability to set prices or solicit business on your own -- and at a certain point, it becomes cheaper for Uber to work with investment banks to just buy the cars themselves, cutting out the "drivers" entirely.

Eventually, ride sharing will end the incentive for individuals to own cars, so I completely understand why Tesla is being so protective of the capability. They're ultimately selling a software platform -- the hardware will eventually become commoditized -- so this type of licensing makes sense in tomorrow's world, even if it doesn't in today's.

 

[Commander_Keen]

Who the hell would work for Uber that can afford a Tesla?

 

[mktogeek]

The safety concerns seem less relevant when you consider that apparently it *is* OK to use them as long as Tesla's the one who owns the ridesharing outfit...........

Also, doesn't this bring up further privacy concerns? To enforce this, Tesla would have to be able to track where you drive, how often, etc..... So they'll have that info, and then do what *else* with it? Not to mention having their database broken into...........

 

[icwhatudidthere]

spalek83[/url]":2jxo0ntu]Who the hell would work for Uber that can afford a Tesla?

That's the whole point. A self driving car can answer Uber hails while you're at work.

 

[Failed2Boot]

Sounds a lot like a personal license to their autonomous software, as opposed to a commercial license. Is what it is, folks.

 

[Bengie25]

I could see this as a liability reason.

 

[fcx56]

BatCrapCrazy[/url]":1yvw3q7p]

Tesla owners: don't expect to be able to use your EV driving for Uber, Lyft, or any other ride-sharing service that isn't owned by Tesla.

KMA Tesla, if i own my car outright i will do whatever the hell i please with it, it's my car after all. If there is some clause in the microfiche fine print that says that i can't, oh well for you, you just lost a sale, because by that time you won't be the only game in town selling autonomous vehicles.

And I'm sure if that passenger is killed by your car on autopilot whilst you relax on your sofa you will personally assume all liability for sending your car out solo onto public roads? Right?

 

[cerberusTI]

hizonner[/url]":2xv50l6k]

Tesla could enforce it by banning your car from supercharger networks or blacklisting it from receiving any further updates, or perhaps by remotely disabling the self-driving functionality. All of which, presumably, you would have agreed to in a sales contract (along with, again presumably, a binding arbitration clause to prevent you from bringing civil suit).

... which is why this stuff needs to be stomped legislatively. The legal standard needs to be "You sold it, you lose all control over it; contracts to the contrary have no legal effect". Weird nonstandard restrictions will create friction and prevent the market from operating properly to create maximum value. Especially when the weird restrictions start interacting with one another.

In this specific case Tesla is likely to also assume liability for accidents while the car is driving itself.

It would still probably be better stated as the owner assuming all liability for commercial use, and a requirement that they carry insurance for this purpose as Tesla will not cover it.

 

[tony_72]

Moonrunner[/url]":1zrqwgvj]Well, the corporate world has been heading that way for a while, so I'm not surprised that Tesla would stoop so low - telling people how they are supposed to use their property.

Well, just like a lot of the stuff software companies put in their EULAs, there's a big question as to whether such a clause would be legally enforcible. Companies at least here in Europe have found that it's not so easy to legally, for example, prevent people from reselling used software licenses (https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120 ... cant.shtml), no matter what the put in their EULAs and T&Cs. I have no idea what US law says on this kind of thing, however.

 

[sviola]

maehara[/url]":3ijrp7g9]

lonewolfe2015[/url]":3ijrp7g9]Unless the crux of the issue is the safety of the passenger in the unoccupied vehicle?

Almost certainly. Passenger accompanied only by Tesla's Autopilot, then liability for any accidents could fall on Tesla. If the car's owner is also present and can override Autopilot, then there's someone else to pin liability on.

The problem with that theory is that they are only prohibiting use for ride-sharing on competitors' networks. This sounds to me as competition stiffing and not concern for liability or passenger safety.

 

[papabear1331]

lonewolfe2015[/url]":1pfnlsky]Is this actually legally binding? Presuming you've bought and paid for the car, are you not allowed to use it for generating income as you see fit? I understand why Tesla is doing this, just find it strange that it might be possible they could selectively ban certain types of professions when purchasing their vehicles.

It would be like saying you can't buy a Tesla and use it to deliver pizzas autonomously. Unless the crux of the issue is the safety of the passenger in the unoccupied vehicle?

You can put anything in you want in your terms of sale...whether it would actually hold up if someone wanted to go to the trouble of challenging it in court is a whole different matter.

 

[Failed2Boot]

tony_72[/url]":2lqqnd1p]

Moonrunner[/url]":2lqqnd1p]Well, the corporate world has been heading that way for a while, so I'm not surprised that Tesla would stoop so low - telling people how they are supposed to use their property.

Well, just like a lot of the stuff software companies put in their EULAs, there's a big question as to whether such a clause would be legally enforcible. Companies at least here in Europe have found that it's not so easy to legally, for example, prevent people from reselling used software licenses (https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120 ... cant.shtml), no matter what the put in their EULAs and T&Cs. I have no idea what US law says on this kind of thing, however.

I don't think the comparison to reselling the license is accurate. I'm thinking it is more in line with something like a dev team using a Visual Studio Community license to develop software. If that was unenforceable, then everyone would be doing it.

 

[Dr Gitlin]

spalek83[/url]":3afubrvu]Who the hell would work for Uber that can afford a Tesla?

I've been picked up in UberXs that have been Mercedes E classes and the like.

 

[AnchorClanker]

Setting aside the economics of using an expensive car for Uber or Lyft, I see the potential for infinite mischief in sending your car off unattended to pick up a complete stranger.

 

[Rommel102]

This is a non-starter. Even a Level 5 vehicle cannot utilize an app on an unrelated cell phone. There is no way for the Tesla to even know about the Uber or Lyft rides unless you build an API into the Tesla software (not going to happen) or hack your way into it (which already voids parts of your contract).

The only way for a Level 5 car to be able to pick up riders autonomously is for the software to be baked into the car.

 

[Myntan]

lonewolfe2015[/url]":77x7zokk]Is this actually legally binding? Presuming you've bought and paid for the car, are you not allowed to use it for generating income as you see fit? I understand why Tesla is doing this, just find it strange that it might be possible they could selectively ban certain types of professions when purchasing their vehicles.

It would be like saying you can't buy a Tesla and use it to deliver pizzas autonomously. Unless the crux of the issue is the safety of the passenger in the unoccupied vehicle?

Who is responsible if John Smith's Tesla goes to pick up Uber Passenger Jane Doe, and then the Tesla gets in a wreck?

I'm not saying ethically, I'm saying legally.

Tesla is almost certain to face a lawsuit from John Smith; the autonomous driving failed. Uber will probably also get a lawsuit from Doe, an innocent passenger.

By having Smith in the mix, Tesla can blame Smith for not taking over... or push on his insurance company.

Smith's insurance company likely won't cover any of it, and will push back on Tesla.

 

[pokrface]

Tesla could enforce it by banning your car from supercharger networks or blacklisting it from receiving any further updates, or perhaps by remotely disabling the self-driving functionality. All of which, presumably, you would have agreed to in a sales contract (along with, again presumably, a binding arbitration clause to prevent you from bringing civil suit).

... which is why this stuff needs to be stomped legislatively. The legal standard needs to be "You sold it, you lose all control over it; contracts to the contrary have no legal effect". Weird nonstandard restrictions will create friction and prevent the market from operating properly to create maximum value. Especially when the weird restrictions start interacting with one another.

I don't disagree, but in this case, at least two of those things—supercharger access and OTA updates—still have to come from Tesla after you own the vehicle. You "pay" for supercharger access in a Model S/X when you buy it, sort of, but you're essentially taking advantage of Tesla's largess there. And they're not obligated to give you OTA updates, either—look, for example, at how cellular carriers handle Android. You can happily own your car and do whatever you want with it, and they can happily not give you post-sale extra cost items.

Not trying to defend it or justify it—just trying to put it in context.

 

[andrewb610]

Pokrface[/url]":aympbn07]

Is this actually legally binding? Presuming you've bought and paid for the car, are you not allowed to use it for generating income as you see fit? I understand why Tesla is doing this, just find it strange that it might be possible they could selectively ban certain types of professions when purchasing their vehicles.

It would be like saying you can't buy a Tesla and use it to deliver pizzas autonomously. Unless the crux of the issue is the safety of the passenger in the unoccupied vehicle?

Sure, they could stipulate a pretty wide variety of things in a sales contract.

Tesla could enforce it by banning your car from supercharger networks or blacklisting it from receiving any further updates, or perhaps by remotely disabling the self-driving functionality. All of which, presumably, you would have agreed to in the sales contract (along with, again presumably, a binding arbitration clause to prevent you from bringing civil suit).

If I'm reading Kramer v Toyota correctly, that would not be true of vehicles sold to consumers through a dealership not owned by Tesla itself.

The district court held that Toyota, a nonsignatory to several agreements with arbitration provisions between Plaintiffs and various Toyota dealerships (hereinafter "Dealerships"), could not compel Plaintiffs to arbitrate with Toyota.

Edit: As you mentioned in your post above Lee, I don't argue that Tesla could withhold updates, etc.

 

[patrickhenrypdx]

What makes the Telsa go? Software. One licenses software, one does not own it. The purchaser of a Tesla has the legal right to do what (s)he wants with the wheels and gears and glass, but the stuff that actually makes the car work, i.e., the software, is not the property of the purchaser.

lonewolfe2015[/url]":1e3qkml6]Is this actually legally binding? Presuming you've bought and paid for the car, are you not allowed to use it for generating income as you see fit? I understand why Tesla is doing this, just find it strange that it might be possible they could selectively ban certain types of professions when purchasing their vehicles.

It would be like saying you can't buy a Tesla and use it to deliver pizzas autonomously. Unless the crux of the issue is the safety of the passenger in the unoccupied vehicle?

 

[andrewb610]

patrickhenrypdx[/url]":328u42nd]What makes the Telsa go? Software. One licenses software, one does not own it. The purchaser of a Tesla has the legal right to do what (s)he wants with the wheels and gears and glass, but the stuff that actually makes the car work, i.e., the software, is not the property of the purchaser.

lonewolfe2015[/url]":328u42nd]Is this actually legally binding? Presuming you've bought and paid for the car, are you not allowed to use it for generating income as you see fit? I understand why Tesla is doing this, just find it strange that it might be possible they could selectively ban certain types of professions when purchasing their vehicles.

It would be like saying you can't buy a Tesla and use it to deliver pizzas autonomously. Unless the crux of the issue is the safety of the passenger in the unoccupied vehicle?

Unless You live in a state with a Right to Repair law on the books that expressly states you DO have that right.

 

[Unzip_for_Harambe]

This is why Tesla wants to kill 3rd party dealers and do direct to consumer sales, so they can pull EULA crap like this.

 

[hessenpepper]

How would the car know where to go if it did not use the built-in autonomous driving software that's integrated into the Tesla cloud?

 

[Rommel102]

hessenpepper[/url]":23jkdjlr]How would the car know where to go if it did not use the built-in autonomous driving software that's integrated into the Tesla cloud?

It's kind of mind boggling to me that people are arguing about whether or not it is right or legal when it is just plainly impossible for a Tesla automated vehicle to work with a non-sanctioned hailing app.

This is not a big deal at all. It's like Uber saying you can't use the Uber app to pickup Lyft passengers...

 

[andrewb610]

Unzip_for_Harambe[/url]":15013iam]This is why Tesla wants to kill 3rd party dealers and do direct to consumer sales, so they can pull EULA crap like this.

I was going to mention that in my post about arbitration clauses, IANAL, so I did a bit of light research on the matter, and that thought popped into my head. I assume that there's other more pressing reasons behind its bid to be the dealer, but I can't imagine getting the ability to enforce arbitration clauses hadn't crossed their minds.

 

[Jeff S]

mikesmith[/url]":1kyf1um9]

lonewolfe2015[/url]":1kyf1um9]Is this actually legally binding? Presuming you've bought and paid for the car, are you not allowed to use it for generating income as you see fit? I understand why Tesla is doing this, just find it strange that it might be possible they could selectively ban certain types of professions when purchasing their vehicles.

It would be like saying you can't buy a Tesla and use it to deliver pizzas autonomously. Unless the crux of the issue is the safety of the passenger in the unoccupied vehicle?

Welcome to the shrink wrap EULA future all of us old assholes kept telling you young whipper snappers that wouldn't stand up for your rights was coming.

On the other hand. . . who's buying a Tesla for this purpose? There will, presumably, be cheaper self-driving cars available soon, and I bet at some point, one of those competitors will see a market opportunity to sell a LOT of cars to people who want to get into the business of selling people rides or delivery of products, or cross-town courier services, etc.

Viva la competition.

 

[tony_72]

Failed2Boot[/url]":2xr3j2yz]

tony_72[/url]":2xr3j2yz]

Moonrunner[/url]":2xr3j2yz]Well, the corporate world has been heading that way for a while, so I'm not surprised that Tesla would stoop so low - telling people how they are supposed to use their property.

Well, just like a lot of the stuff software companies put in their EULAs, there's a big question as to whether such a clause would be legally enforcible. Companies at least here in Europe have found that it's not so easy to legally, for example, prevent people from reselling used software licenses (https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120 ... cant.shtml), no matter what the put in their EULAs and T&Cs. I have no idea what US law says on this kind of thing, however.

I don't think the comparison to reselling the license is accurate. I'm thinking it is more in line with something like a dev team using a Visual Studio Community license to develop software. If that was unenforceable, then everyone would be doing it.

I'd say my example is a more valid comparison. The point is about overriding existing rights; people have an existing legal right to sell items that they own, which those software EULAs were trying to override, whereas there is no existing legal right allowing you to use Visual Studio Community for enterprise development.

I don't know for sure if there is any legal right allowing you to use your car to make money, however. I did think to myself after my post, about retail DVDs being marked as "Not for rental"; you have to pay a lot more for a copy you can rent out, and I presume that's enforcible, and that's kind of in line with what Tesla is trying. So I guess there's examples either way. Maybe some lawyer will chip in with something concrete about where it stands legally.

 

[yndoendo]

Pokrface[/url]":34uikwap]

Tesla could enforce it by banning your car from supercharger networks or blacklisting it from receiving any further updates, or perhaps by remotely disabling the self-driving functionality. All of which, presumably, you would have agreed to in a sales contract (along with, again presumably, a binding arbitration clause to prevent you from bringing civil suit).

... which is why this stuff needs to be stomped legislatively. The legal standard needs to be "You sold it, you lose all control over it; contracts to the contrary have no legal effect". Weird nonstandard restrictions will create friction and prevent the market from operating properly to create maximum value. Especially when the weird restrictions start interacting with one another.

I don't disagree, but in this case, at least two of those things—supercharger access and OTA updates—still have to come from Tesla after you own the vehicle. You "pay" for supercharger access in a Model S/X when you buy it, sort of, but you're essentially taking advantage of Tesla's largess there. And they're not obligated to give you OTA updates, either—look, for example, at how cellular carriers handle Android. You can happily own your car and do whatever you want with it, and they can happily not give you post-sale extra cost items.

Not trying to defend it or justify it—just trying to put it in context.

Security fixes and bug updates are equivalent to recalls with self-driving cars. Unless Tesla would like to increase their liability they would have to push out fixes to help keep a safe driving environment.

Just imagine the PR, Telsa crashes into crowd because of their anti-competitive end user agreement prevented know issues from being fixed.