According to the complaint, "Tesla knowingly and intentionally exceeded its authorized access to the Class Vehicles. Plaintiffs and other putative Class members did not consent to Tesla's manipulation of the software controlling the batteries in the Class Vehicles, including consenting to updates that would harm the performance of their vehicles, nor did Plaintiffs consent to Tesla lowering the batteries' performance capacity or, in some cases, rendering the battery inoperable." This starts to give you a glimpse of the bag of cats that this lawsuit is.
First of all, it does not refer solely to the BMS_u029 error message. The complaint gathers four plaintiffs: David Bui-Ford, Igor Kravchenko, Micah Siegal, and Lucas Butler. Only Bui-Ford had the error message for sure in his 2013 Tesla Model S P85+. Butler had an OTA update in his car that made it brick. After he towed it to a Tesla Service Center, he was told that his 2013 Model S P85+ battery pack was dead. Yes, Bui-Ford and Butler had the same Model S derivative, made in the same year. Butler would have to pay "$20,798.56 to replace the battery and component parts," but the lawsuit does not clarify if BMS_u029 was involved.
Read Article