Tesla is under increasing scrutiny after it modified the digital agreements related to its premium driver-assist software. Several Tesla owners have reported that the company has altered or restricted access to their original sales contracts, some of which date back years to when Tesla claimed its vehicles would eventually achieve full autonomy.
This situation involves the software package historically marketed as Full Self-Driving (FSD). Customers invested significant amounts in this feature based on assurances of future autonomous driving capabilities. However, early buyers have found that their online accounts no longer display the original contractual wording. Instead, these documents either show revised text or fail to load altogether.
Tesla owner Oliver Abcarius noticed the alterations while preparing to request a refund for the software he purchased for his 2018 Tesla Model 3 on August 12, 2019. When he attempted to download his original agreement, the website directed him to a non-functional page. His wife experienced the same issue with her 2020 Tesla Model Y, acquired on May 29, 2020, which included the same software package.
The couple discovered that only the documents pertaining to the autonomous software failed to load—other paperwork, including agreements for vehicles without the upgrade, displayed without issue. Other Tesla owners with older models equipped with Hardware 3 (HW3) have confirmed similar access problems with their accounts.
The significance of these older contracts lies in the timeline. From 2016 until early 2024, the company marketed the upgrade as "Full Self-Driving Capability," with prices reaching as high as €12,800. Promotional materials claimed that the vehicles would achieve full autonomy through regular wireless updates, with CEO Elon Musk frequently asserting that human oversight would soon be obsolete.
This narrative shifted in March 2024, when Tesla released software version 12.3.3 and officially rebranded the product as Full Self-Driving (now noted as "Supervised"). The update included fine print stating that the system requires active driver engagement and does not provide full autonomy. By late 2025, Tesla revised its corporate compensation targets to align with this reduced level of driver's assistance.
In April 2026, Musk publicly admitted that vehicles manufactured with HW3 technology between 2016 and 2023 "cannot handle true autonomous driving" due to hardware limitations. The company has yet to articulate a clear plan to resolve this issue, leaving millions of vehicles on the road unlikely to ever achieve the originally advertised autonomy.
This contract controversy follows previous attempts by Tesla to revise its past statements. In August 2024, the company retracted a blog post from October 2016, which asserted that every factory vehicle had the necessary hardware to drive more safely than a human. This post was vanished during rising legal pressure, although digital archives preserved the original content.
The absence of this paperwork is crucial evidence in several significant legal cases. Tesla is currently engaged in lawsuits totaling up to €12.38 billion, which include claims of false advertising, investor fraud, and liability related to the Autopilot system. A certified class-action lawsuit in the United States encompasses all FSD advertising published between late 2016 and mid-2024.
Government authorities and legal bodies have already ruled against Tesla in smaller actions. A California administrative court determined that the company engaged in deceptive marketing practices concerning its driver-assist software. In a separate contractual dispute, an independent arbitrator mandated the firm to refund $10,600 to a buyer. Similar legal challenges are currently advancing in courts across Europe and China.
Legal experts warn that the absence of these online documents poses a significant risk for Tesla. Companies are prohibited from deleting or obscuring essential evidence while active lawsuits are underway. In court, deliberate loss or alteration of relevant documents can lead judges to penalize the company, potentially favoring consumers or imposing severe financial penalties.
Source
