Rescission of a Tesla after online purchase – the case in detail

In June 2022, a consumer purchased a Tesla Model 3 through the manufacturer's official online store. The entire purchase process was conducted online, making the contract a typical distance selling transaction. The vehicle was delivered on December 23, 2022. Shortly after delivery, the buyer discovered technical defects and believed that the Tesla did not meet the contractually guaranteed specifications.

Despite several unsuccessful attempts by the seller to remedy the defect, the buyer revoked the contract on December 29, 2023, invoking his statutory right of withdrawal for distance selling. However, the seller rejected the revocation, citing the expired 14-day period.

In the second instance, the Stuttgart Higher Regional Court ruled in favor of the buyer: The cancellation of the contract was recognized as valid, the Tesla must be taken back, and the purchase price must be refunded without deduction for the use of the vehicle. An appeal was allowed.

Why no compensation for value in the Tesla cancellation? The court's reasoning

The Stuttgart Higher Regional Court found that the seller's cancellation policy was not sufficiently tailored to the buyer. It merely contained general phrases such as "If you are a consumer..." without directly addressing the buyer. Furthermore, the seller failed to provide information about return shipping costs or at least an estimate of the return shipping costs, which is required by law for vehicle purchases. Due to these deficiencies, the statutory 14-day cancellation period did not begin to run.

The buyer could therefore effectively revoke the contract even more than a year after delivery of the vehicle. The court also ruled that there is no claim for compensation for the use or loss of value of the vehicle, according to Section 357a Paragraph 1 No. 2 of the German Civil Code (BGB). Compensation for use could only be due for the period after the revocation if the vehicle continued to be used.

Tesla bought online – what the Stuttgart Higher Regional Court’s ruling means for consumers

The Stuttgart Higher Regional Court's ruling makes it clear that the strict provisions of distance selling law also apply to car purchases online. Retailers who provide incomplete or incorrect information about the right of withdrawal must expect the possibility of a reversal – even if the vehicle has already been used for some time.

Vehicles purchased online are subject to the right of withdrawal under distance selling law, meaning that buyers have a right of withdrawal, even for vehicle purchases online. Incorrect cancellation instructions extend this right to up to 12 months and 14 days. In the event of a valid cancellation, buyers receive a full refund – without deductions for mileage or vehicle usage. Compensation for the use of the vehicle is not payable in this case. Furthermore, dealers are required to provide clear and transparent information about return shipping costs for vehicle sales.

Der Beitrag OLG Stuttgart: Online gekaufter Tesla erfolgreich zurückgegeben – kein Wertersatz trotz Nutzung erschien zuerst auf R&U.

In the summer of 2022, the German Consumer Organization Association (VZBV) filed a lawsuit against Tesla. According to the association, the activated "guard mode" of the vehicles violates data protection regulations. Tesla drivers are therefore unable to obtain the consent of passersby for the cameras to record their vehicles.

The Berlin Regional Court agreed with the VZBV on this issue. Tesla is now required to adapt its advertising for the vehicle's surround-view cameras accordingly.

“Guardian mode”: Use only possible with data protection violation

According to a statement from the Consumer Protection Association, Tesla signed the cease-and-desist declaration demanded by the consumer advocates following the oral hearing before the Berlin Regional Court. "Surveillance of third parties through cameras without their knowledge is unlawful," explained Ramona Pop, chairwoman of the Consumer Protection Association. She added:

Consumers could only use Tesla's "Sentinel Mode" if they were to commit a significant data breach. Activating the mode would have resulted in a fine. However, this fact was not disclosed in the "Sentinel Mode" advertisement.

Tesla changes note on “Sentinel Mode” in user manual

Following the ruling, Tesla updated the "Sentinel Mode" notice in the owner's manual on Tesla's German website. It now states: "You are solely responsible for reviewing and complying with all local regulations and property restrictions regarding the use of cameras."

Whether vehicle owners will activate "Sentinel Mode" in the future remains to be seen. The feature is essentially designed to prevent theft and is equipped with cameras that monitor the vehicle's surroundings. The captured images can also be accessed via a smartphone.

Lawsuit over CO2 emissions failed

At the same time, the VZBV filed a lawsuit for misleading advertising regarding CO2 emissions when purchasing a Tesla, but the Berlin Regional Court dismissed the lawsuit.

Consumer advocates had accused Tesla of claiming zero grams of CO2 emissions from its vehicles while simultaneously selling CO2 certificates to other car manufacturers, which could increase their emissions.

However, the regional court did not consider this representation to be misleading to consumers, explained Ramona Pop. However, the VZBV plans to appeal this ruling.

Der Beitrag „Wächter-Modus“: Tesla muss Werbemaßnahmen aufgrund von Datenschutzvorgaben einstellen erschien zuerst auf R&U.

The plaintiff ordered a Tesla worth EUR 64,970.00 from the company's online shop on June 3, 2022. He found the vehicle defective and received delivery on December 23, 2022. After receiving the vehicle, the plaintiff declared his revocation of the contract on December 29, 2023. However, the defendant rejected this revocation on January 12, 2024. When the plaintiff then attempted to return the vehicle on April 17, 2024, the defendant refused to take it back. In its decision, the Higher Regional Court particularly criticized the cancellation policy used by the defendant.

A key point the court criticized was the wording of the cancellation policy, which did not clearly inform the consumer whether and under what circumstances a right of cancellation exists. Furthermore, the information that the buyer must bear the "direct costs of returning the goods" was legally inadmissible because this provision does not comply with statutory provisions.

The Higher Regional Court's decision underscores the importance of legally correct cancellation instructions. Consumers should therefore inform themselves about their rights and the applicable deadlines, especially since cancellation of distance contracts can only be effectively declared within a period of twelve months and 14 days.

Der Beitrag OLG Stuttgart: Widerrufsrecht bei Onlinebestellung eines Tesla bestätigt erschien zuerst auf R&U.

An independent expert commissioned by the Traunstein Regional Court has uncovered significant safety issues in the Tesla Model 3's autopilot system. The expert had to prematurely terminate his investigation after a dangerous phantom braking incident.

Tesla's controversial course with camera systems
Since fall 2022, Tesla has been using cameras instead of radar and ultrasonic sensors for its driver assistance systems. Experts have doubts about the reliability of this system. The experience from the legal dispute in Traunstein supports these concerns.

Inexplicable braking
The plaintiff reports repeated phantom braking incidents in his Tesla Model 3, in which the vehicle suddenly and for no apparent reason decelerates. However, Tesla denies these incidents.

Expert experiences dangerous incidents
The appointed expert drove the Tesla for approximately 700 kilometers and documented five critical situations. Four of these could only be defused through the driver's intervention.

Things got particularly dangerous on the highway: The Model 3 reduced its speed from 140 to 96 km/h for no apparent reason. The expert describes: "This situation led to significant hazards for following traffic. Evasive maneuvers and heavy braking by following vehicles were observed."

Test drive aborted
After a series of similar incidents, the expert terminated the test drive prematurely. He deemed further testing irresponsible "for safety reasons." This marks the first time an independent expert has officially confirmed the occurrence of phantom braking in Tesla's assistance systems. Critics accuse Tesla of using its customers as guinea pigs for immature technology. The findings of the report could force Tesla to make its systems safer.

Der Beitrag Zu risikobehaftet: Experte beendet Tesla-Test vorzeitig erschien zuerst auf R&U.

Read here the full article.

Der Beitrag Schon damals Thema: Tesla-Mitarbeiter teilten private Aufnahmen von Kundenfahrzeugen erschien zuerst auf R&U.

In a ruling dated January 10, 2025, the Traunstein Regional Court partially upheld the claim. The court confirmed that the autopilot of the affected vehicle was defective. Tesla was ordered to fix the phantom braking of the Tesla Model 3. Despite Tesla's arguments, the court ruled unequivocally: "The vehicle is defective with regard to the unprovoked braking." The autopilot was neither "suitable for normal use" nor did it meet the standards "for products of the same type."

According to the court, an autopilot is "unsuitable for normal use if, for no traffic-related reason, it causes significant deceleration of the vehicle that constitutes more than a mere inconvenience." A deceleration that could lead to critical traffic situations is sufficient to consider a defect. Severe braking is not required.

Specifically, this means that even a noticeable deceleration in speed that goes beyond simply "lifting off the accelerator" is considered a defect. According to the Traunstein Regional Court, this can lead to dangerous situations. It also doesn't matter whether the driver can intervene. The usability of the autopilot is significantly impaired, which is unusual in this price range when driver intervention is required without any discernible external influences.

The court thus confirms the law firm's opinion: Tesla's Autopilot with the installed Hardware 3.0 can lead to significant dangerous situations and does not meet the standards of vehicles in this price range.

Tesla was ordered to repair the vehicle, i.e., to remedy the defect. However, an appeal has been filed, so the case will go to the second instance. The law firm will also appeal, as it believes that such a safety-relevant defect not only gives rise to a right to repair, but also a right to delivery of a defect-free vehicle or a right of withdrawal. Handelsblatt reported on the ruling and the investigation by the Federal Motor Transport Authority into this matter.

Der Beitrag Erstes Urteil zu den Phantom-Bremsungen – Tesla zur Nachbesserung verurteilt erschien zuerst auf R&U.

Tesla's Sentinel Mode, which records the vehicle's surroundings, is at the center of a debate about data protection and legal issues. Police authorities are using the recordings as evidence, while consumer organizations and data protection advocates are raising concerns about Tesla's data protection practices. A lawsuit by the German Association of German Automobile Manufacturers (vzbv) resulted in a cease-and-desist order forcing Tesla to change its advertising policies, while simultaneously raising questions about the legality of such technologies.
Read here the whole article.

Tesla Guardian Mode and GDPR: Court ruling clarifies data protection obligations

A ruling by the Austrian Federal Administrative Court sheds light on the data protection challenges posed by Tesla's Sentinel Mode. The court found that by activating Sentinel Mode, vehicle owners become "controllers" within the meaning of the GDPR, which requires an obligation to inform data subjects. This applies even if no recordings are made. The decision underscores the need for transparent communication about video surveillance, which could have far-reaching consequences for the use of such technologies in private vehicles within the EU.
Read here the whole article.

How to protect your data and privacy as a Tesla owner: Opt-out options and risks

Tesla collects a significant amount of data through sensors, cameras, and apps to enable features like Autopilot and Sentry Mode. To protect your privacy, you can disable data sharing in the settings. However, doing so will result in limited vehicle functionality, including the loss of safety features and software updates. Despite the ability to minimize data collection, there remains a risk that Tesla could share data with third parties, including law enforcement. In some cases, experts recommend switching to a different vehicle or completely resetting the car before selling it to erase all stored data.
Read here the whole article.

FAQs – Frequently Asked Questions

Der Beitrag Aktuelle Meldungen zum Tesla Wächtermodus erschien zuerst auf R&U.