You could just as easily get screwed by GM, Ford, or any other legacy automaker. Your remedies are always legal or regulatory in nature, and you can’t rely on brand alone to ensure a satisfactory ownership experience.

I've never had a legacy car that could over-the-air disable things. Maybe OnStar or similar could do something, but not like the level that Tesla took things.

You're "remedies are always legal" is a bit flat. Tell to the parent that is in a rush to take their 2.34 kids to school before heading to work that they need to contact a lawyer before starting their day. And when is the last time a call to a lawyer fixed anything within any kind of quick turn time? So now you're without a car until lawyers "fix" things.

I agree we need better laws around right to repair and what “ownership” means when software and telematics are involved.

> when is the last time a call to a lawyer fixed anything within any kind of quick turn time?

This May when my landlord was taking a piss with his obligations.

A single letter set him staight real fast.

> You could just as easily get screwed by GM, Ford, or any other legacy automaker

That is purely hypothetical, however -- as far as I know, this kind of stunt has only become a thing since Tesla started doing it. Chevy wants to reduce the capacity of my wife's Bolt by 20%, but they are asking for her permission to do that, not just sending an OTA update to do it against her wishes.

When I look at what car to buy, I am not going to care so much about regulations or legal ramifications, I'm going to look primarily at how likely it is that I will have to resort to those remedies in the future because the manufacturer likes to modify already-sold vehicles after the fact without even asking.

Stunts like this are why we are looking at a Mach-E to replace my wife's Bolt, not a Model Y.

I'm not in line for a Tesla either, and the Mach-E does look nice. Their latent flaw is that they shed range much more than other EVs in cold weather: https://www.recurrentauto.com/research/winter-ev-range-loss

Curiosity is too strong. For what reason does Chevy want you to volunteer to lower your capacity?

They blow up otherwise. https://cleantechnica.com/2021/09/19/gm-tells-bolt-owners-to...

its part of a massive recall on the bolt. They completely halted production for months and months and are now going to recall and replace the battery of every bolt on the road. Before the replacements go in they want owners to agree to have their capacity cut as an extra precaution.

So is it better to do this, or do an Apple and just have the software silently start handling things for you in order to protect your battery therefore protecting you? I don't mean that in a rhetorical way either. Things happen in the real world that means products sometimes misbehave outside of the expected. To me, the ultimate thing would be for the company to revalue the item based on the new limited capabilities and refund the difference as well as making it safe. Should they be expected to buy back entirely for something losing 30% of capabilities?

> So is it better to do this, or do an Apple and just have the software silently start handling things for you in order to protect your battery therefore protecting you?

I always thought Apple should have offered free battery replacements, ideally ones that had been re-engineered to better maintain voltage, so I think Chevy's approach is good here given the predicament.

Having to accept a very small risk of fire or lose range temporarily is really unfortunate, but all 2017-2019 owners are getting a 6kWh (20ish mile) upgrade in addition to everyone getting a brand new battery with a fresh battery warranty. Options for buy back or partial refund would be good to present as options but idk how many people would take it in this car market and/or with the option to get a brand new battery.

Better isn’t the question I would say. It’s “what remedy is fair to owners, within regulatory and legal requirements, and performed with full disclosure?”

If an owner wants a buyback, the automaker buys it back. If the owner wants to keep the vehicle with whatever changes need to be made to make the vehicle safe, they keep the car and a check is cut to make them whole for the diminished value of the vehicle.